▲ 86 points
back
125 comments
We need to get behind Mozilla and Firefox for the simple reason it is the last bastion on the path to omni-chrome
Those who care very deeply about very tight privacy have enough niche options.
But I want there to be browser that has enough privacy to be sustainable so there’s a reliable option for me to recommend to family members etc which is holds enough market share for websites to test against.
If Firefox’s market share dips any lower website makers won’t support it - testing only against the homogeneity of chrome/edge/safari and then it will become a death spiral and humanity will have taken a step backwards.
It’s a case of use it lose it.
If we need to do anything, it's get behind Ladybird, and put up with a Firefox fork for the next 12-24 months as a 'daily driver'.
Mozilla has little enthusiasm for developing its actual web browser, and doesn't seem to like its users very much.
For the past decade, Mozilla has made one bad choice after another, and every time it blows up in their faces, their takeaway is that they failed to properly 'educate the customer'.
Mozilla should just get out of the way. If Google Legal didn't need them, they already would be out of the way.
Why is Ladybird going to be more successful than all the other failed browsers?
> If we need to do anything, it's get behind Ladybird
and servo please ...
> Those who care very deeply about very tight privacy
> that has enough privacy to be sustainable
These are the key phrases. Mozilla has hitched its wagon to advertising. Behind all the bluster over last week, the underlying direction is clear. They bought Anonym [0] and Ajit Varma, the new VP of Product for Firefox and source of the updates, is ex-Meta. It's reasonable to assume that he's there, in part, because of advertising expertise.
Some will see Anonym's "privacy-powered advertising" as "enough privacy" and the only viable way to sustain Firefox without Google's annual cash injection.
Others won't buy that, believing that a browser can be built without relying on advertising. Ladybird is taking this approach - so we'll find out.
> If Firefox’s market share dips any lower website makers won’t support it
This is the risk the exec team must know they've taken. Specifically: what proportion of the current Firefox user base exists because of the historic pro-privacy stance, and what percentage of that will leave because of the advertising-based future?
--
EDIT: addedd missing reference
I'm with you, I really am. I've been on Firefox for nearly two decades, even the shitty years. But I still think this was a foreseeable issue and even the claim that "there was confusion" only shows a disconnect.
If you make a move like this you need to announce it in advance. You announce it loudly! You need you recognize that users concerned with privacy are looking for canaries. So when you have to put a canary down you fucking tell people before and don't just wait for them to find a dead canary. Of course people are going to freak out, that's what canaries are for.
>We need to get behind Mozilla and Firefox
No we need to get rid of Mozilla (the org and the company), transform/fork Firefox and Thunderbird to a community project with (maybe?) a Foundation behind like FreeBSD or Blender.
Mozilla's CEO's and Manifesto writers did nothing to support Firefox but fill their own pockets and hype the AI train, I really wonder how much money goes directly into the development of Firefox, if we compare it to the Linux Foundation supporting Linux (the Kernel) it's about 3%, it's probably even less for Mozilla.
I just wish I could get enthusiastically behind Mozilla, right now I stand behind them in spite of their leadership.
For the share issue we are already there, with Firefox+Linux so many websites started to just block, usually with chrome at least a captcha is still offered.
With the current board and directors and focus I don't see any ways Firefox will gain share in the future (or not any that I really care about), and I certainly have no interest to support the current goals ...
For the privacy part Mozilla has been sitting on features like containers for years with no improvements. At this point I believe Mozilla ending might be better since it would shake things up ...
> We need to get behind Mozilla and Firefox
That's some bizarre upside-down-world Stockholm Syndrome thinking on display here. That or you are a paid PR influencer working on behalf of Mozilla. Just absolutely astonishingly weird psychological behavior.
Mozilla is violating user privacy. They are the bad guy. You don't ask the bad guy for help. You punch them in the face. These guys are making it worse, not better, and helping them will only make privacy worse, not better.
There are already multiple forks for Firefox and destroying Mozilla as an organization would greatly help one or more of them take off and carry the banner of true enabling privacy for the user, which Mozilla is not doing.
Huh? You do understand that Firefox is just a single executive decision away from becoming a chromium skin? In order to forward-think, proper-size and upward-achieve , so that limited funds can be utilized with most impact etc.?
Please, directly skip to the real announcement:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms...
The actual content:
> [Given that the definition of "selling" in legal terms can be slippery, we must be aware of not falling in cases like the following:] In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. We set all of this out in our Privacy Notice. Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP)
This was discussed before on HN.:
> in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as...
And then they go on to describe what a common-sense definition of a sale is. There's nothing broad or slippery about the example, so yes, they basically say "we're going to sell your data"
No thank you. Fork.
This is even more confusing. I understand that the browser needs to know my primary language and will send that as part of the HTTP requests (e.g. as part of the Accept-Language header) in order to operate ("To provide you with the Firefox browser"). I don't know why Mozilla needs a license for this.
They are not clear where/how the data is being used. For example, why are "Unique identifiers" and "Interaction data" part of "To provide you with the Firefox browser"?
From "Interaction data": "This is data about how you engage with our services, such as how many tabs you have open or what you’ve clicked on." -- Why is it necessary to track how many tabs I have open in order to provide the browser to me? -- That isn't something they need to send via HTTP to make websites function. If it is for telemetry and improving the browser, that should be a separate section.
> You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license *for the purpose of doing as you request* with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.
They are saying that you give a license to Firefox to do as you request. That's all. The language is explicit and explain the relationship between you and the product when you use it. The product behaves as your agent, and would need permissions to do so. Every browser implies this, Firefox just was explicit with it.
They use that telemetry to understand how users in aggregate use the product so they can prioritize maintenance and improvements. Like any other software.
Anyway, you can disable that telemetry in the prefs UI with a single click.
Why does Mozilla keep falling into the trap of bringing these crappy MBAs into their leadership? Promote real ambassadors of privacy and open software instead of people like the current interim CEO, who is ex-McKinsey. If they can't manage that then maybe it's finally time to let Mozilla go. Andreas Kling's browser project sounds like it's coming along well.
They're essentially owned by Google through a contract both cannot refuse, because it keeps the "Google isn't a monopoly" narrative while allowing Mozilla to stay afloat, therefore I wouldn't expect them to do anything that could harm the agreement with Google, like real competition.
How about the directors and Management who let this happen, resign. We need another phoenix to rise from the ashes of Firefox.
They are currently with an interim CEO and searching for a new one https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/a-new-chapter-for-mozill...
Let's fork it and call it Firebird...oh no wait ;)
I am old enough to get that.
that seems wildly excessive
It seems like what is happening is not Firefox now making a pivot to the privacy unfriendly side, but Firefox has already been selling data, but in a manner that---for whatever strange reason---they didn't consider to qualify as "selling data", and hence the original Terms of Use included the promise of "We never sell your data". Then lawyers came along and told them that this just wouldn't fly legally, and they have to change their terms now.
Even now, Firefox still doesn't consider what they do "selling data", and they are forced to change the wording only because the laws are weird.
Frankly, I just don't see how sharing data to partners to make yourself commercially viable can be construed as not selling data. In their own words, what Firefox does is:
> In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar.
We could argue about whether the laws are slippery or over-reaching, or how responsible or not Firefox has been handling user data. We could argue about how much anonymization and aggregation of data reduce privacy concerns.
But to argue that the above action is not "selling data" is in my view not a reasonable position.
Wow, quite black and white views here.
Despite all the justified doubts and concerns, it's also worth noting that Mozilla runs one of the few independent browser engines left, with limited ways to actually fund it.
When they're not here anymore, there aren't many parties left to argue about web standards in favor of a free web.
So I'd keep watching them as always, without painting them as evil just because of some misstep...
Original
"The Firefox Browser is the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit that doesn’t sell your personal data to advertisers while helping you protect your personal information."
Now just says.
"The Firefox Browser, the only major browser backed by a not-for-profit, helps you protect your personal information."
This is not some misstep, it is the breaking of a promise.
Does it matter if they weren't arguing in favor of a free web to begin with? Quite the opposite in fact; their stated stance is they want to remove people they disagree with from the web.
> The company pointed to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as an example of why the language was changed, noting that the CCPA defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”
...yeah? That's pretty straightforward.
Dupe? I didn’t see anything from this article that wasn’t already in the previously posted Mozilla blog posts which have already been submitted here.
Optics. Mozilla bungled the optics, then in their reaction, bungled it some more! They do not look good here. We respond to looks.
In objective reality it's a bit of much ado about nothing, but in today's world it's optics and perception that rules. It's subjective.
As another comment says it takes forever to gain trust and a moment to lose it all. Trust is subjective.
People need to resign
It's insane to think Firefox would ever have gone this route? How disconnected is management? The move would be suicide! A major reason people use Firefox is because of privacy. The other major reason is because a user's privacy conscious child or grandchild installed it for them. That's your whole fucking userbase!
It's a shame too because they had the opportunity to double down on privacy. What with Apple caving to governments.
I was a fanboy who's been with you for nearly two decades You can check my comment history. I defended you through tough times, I've donated, and for what? A slap in the face.
You had it going with the rust rewrite and just floundered on every opportunity. You made Thunderbird pretty good and gave many hope, then floundered. You have some great devs, let them make great software
So where do we go now? What browser that isn't just a different color of chrome? Safari? No. Ladybird? Sea Monkey?
They sold out, Mozilla in name only. My plan is to switch my family to librewolf on Desktop and Brave on Mobile until better options appear. I'm a bit bitter about it. I've often been the only person in my org that insisted on Firefox.
_Exactly_ as you say, like a virus, whenever I visit family I will be switching out their browsers from Firefox to the next best thing.
> For instance, Mozilla said it may have removed blanket claims that it never sells user data because the legal definition of “sale of data” is now “broad and evolving,” Mozilla’s blog post stated.
> The company pointed to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as an example of why the language was changed, noting that the CCPA defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”
Wow, I'm actually stunned that Mozilla straight-up admits that they're selling user data here and that's why they removed that language.
Good for them for being honest. Bad on them for selling user data.
So isn't this a good thing? The comments on here are more overwrought than rational and disinterested...
I honestly don't understand the insane levels of hate that Mozilla gets on HN and certain other corners of the internet. More than the most evil corporations on earth. I can only assume some of it is politically driven.
Firefox and Thunderbird are two of the last bastions of functional, accessible FOSS software in their respective spaces. The software landscape would be a lot more bleak without them.
It's important to hold Mozilla to account given their role (and this TOS roll-out was clearly a screw-up whatever way you look at it) but the amount of people jumping in saying that they are irredeemable now, that we must now stop using their software even if they backtrack on this, is counterproductive. And honestly I suspect a lot of the people saying that have also been saying it for years before any of this happened.
Too little too late.
I've been deeply studying "trust" for the past year, as part of a project around "Zero Trust". It's a core pillar in cybersecurity. Trust is very complex. Extremely hard won, easy to lose, practically impossible to rebuild.
Mozilla have blown it and there's no going back for that company. This is what happens when you let morally defective people take the reigns. My advice would be, dissolve it and use whatever money is left to start new projects for free-software browsers.
Mozilla's core major malfunction is that they are deceptive, as an organisational culture. No amount of hard work, careful words, money spent on PR will hide that odour, and whatever goodwill they show now will naturally be undone as they return to business as usual.
What complicates things is that large companies have incentive and resources to try to dissuade users from using completely free and open source browsers.
This makes it harder to trust messages about not trusting ie. Firefox.
The whole thing confuses me is that why would Firefox as an browser (user agent) need that legal jargon to work. Hopefully Legal Eagle or similar channels would cover this, but they are too busy with politics at the moment?
Time to sue Intel for releasing chips that process our inputs as we request.
Another TechCrunch [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612
The guys at Chromium must be having a huge party right now with how well this coincides with the deprecation of Manifest V3 hitting the average user.
> Mozilla rewrites Firefox's Terms of Use after user backlash
This looks like a deja-vu of Apple CSAM scanning.
"We didn't mean it".
They didn't actually change anything, they just tried to clarify what had made people panic about things they never intended to do.
At least, that's how I read it. IANAL.
Or Unity
I would love that detractors explain what data is being sold, exactly. Because it's the same data that you have willingly given them by using their _services_. The only change with the product is "for the purpose of doing as you request", which is the definition of an User Agent.
Sounds like the blog post shows that they are explicitly selling user data. Specifically data relating to the ads they show in the browser. They claim it's carefully anonymised and aggregated, but they are selling it nonetheless. The blog post is a nonsequitar with the claims in the updated 'TOS', which make no sense because they don't need a license for an executable on your PC to process and send data to the website's your visiting in line with what's expected of a web browser, only a license if they are also sending it to themselves or on behalf of themselves, which is not "what you intend" if you visit a web page or just open up a new tab.
Damage is done. Their intention is clear.
Mozilla name is toxic to common-sense privacy now.
If they acquired Tailscale, I'd stop using it.
If they endorsed ChaCha20, I'd question if it is backdoored.