this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
1014 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

63455 readers
4058 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users' personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn't fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users' personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:

Does Firefox sell your personal data?

Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That's a promise.

That promise is removed from the current version. There's also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, "Mozilla doesn't sell data about you, and we don't buy data about you."

The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define "sale" in a very broad way:

Mozilla doesn't sell data about you (in the way that most people think about "selling data"), and we don't buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of "sale of data" is extremely broad in some places, we've had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

Mozilla didn't say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world 233 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

I see it said agian and agian. because its true. Firefox is one of, if not the best of the mainstream browsers. (Not included its many forks) but Mozilla is a horrible caretaker of it. Mozilla does not focus on firefox and they dont care/believe in it nearly as much as its users or devs who fork it.

The motivations of a company are extremely important, and has Mozilla does not care for a lightweight, good, privacy centric browser, the enshitification will and has corrupt firefox.

It's only a matter of time until it is as bad as chromium or flat out joins it.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 61 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Considering how critical a browser is these days.

I'm surprised there isn't a very popular Open-Source one that everyone is using.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 115 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

It's because it's hard to maintain a browser. There's lots of protocols and engines and other moving pieces; I remember when web pages would render in Netscape but not Internet Explorer, for example.

We take for granted how seamless and ubiquitous the internet is, but there were lots of headaches as internet devs decided to adopt or include different users (or not).

And now, it would take a lot of effort and market upset to convince the capitalist overlords to include something new in their dev stack. The barrier to entry is monumentally high, so most people don't bother to try inventing something better.

[–] idefix@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It looks as if it's hard to maintain a browser by design by making overly complicated HTML/CSS/Javascript/etc standards.

It makes me want to spend more time using the Gemini protocol.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, the standards of the internet are just piled on top of each other. Rendering code and whatnot is the easy part. Keeping up with the standards is the hard part (or so I have read).

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 39 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] 4am@lemm.ee 31 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Wasn’t there some stuff about the ladybird devs not too long ago?

I just hope that project doesn’t end up being the Voat or Parler of browsers.

It's a browser, not a platform. Having a bunch of groypers use it doesn't ruin the experience for everyone else so long as it retains good privacy features.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 8 points 21 hours ago

Yeah, I have no doubt you are correct. It's one of those situations that if it were that easy, it would already be done.

[–] HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago

Ive seen a few foss options but they generally lack certain features alot of people have gotten used to either because they cant implement them or it was committed for privacy/resource reasons.

So it becomes a balance of features vs privacy and right now fire fox has been a good enough balance there hasn't been enough backing for a "good" feature rich foss that less computer adept users can easily install and migrate to.

[–] afronaut@lemmy.cafe 8 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Do Firefox forks allow us to avoid this enshittification or will they also be affected as well?

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 14 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

In theory yes. But remember that Chrome is based on Chromium which is open source. But nobody has stepped up to do a viable hard fork to take power away from Google.

Maintaining a modern browser is a huge undertaking which is why almost nobody except Google, Mozilla, and Apple are really even trying. Even Microsoft threw in the towel.

The more bad stuff is added to Firefox the harder it will be for any forks to keep up removing it while also keeping it up to date. Will anyone step up?

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

There are at least two projects trying. Ladybird is one and will make a splash next year. In addition, since the Servo project was adopted by the Linux Foundation it is again under active development.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml -2 points 17 hours ago

Because it hasn't been needed. Alternatives like vivaldi and brave do make some changes to allow you to disable Google services. Ungoogled chromium is also a thing.

For all the hate, Google has mostly done fine beyond a few boneheaded decisions.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 18 hours ago

Yes, they allow full avoidance of any potential data collection through the browser, if they remove the collection features.

Mozilla would need to change their licensing terms to prevent forks from being able to remove things like that, and forks could just use the last version of the code before the license change and just backport new features.

Also Firefox is fully open source, unlike chromium which relies on a closed source binary blob in the middle. Some chromium forks have replaced the binary blob with open source code, but the default is for chromium forks to have a nice chunk in them controlled by google that no one can deeply inveatigate what it does. Firefox does not have this issue.

Mozilla can't hide any potential data collection in Firefox due to the full open source nature (unlike chrome forks). They also can't stop fork devs from stripping out any data collection functions. And as of today, they have not introduced any data collection that is not supremely anonymized, and they have not introduced any data collection that cannot be opted out of through the browser settings (and about:config).

[–] Lem453@lemmy.ca 2 points 15 hours ago

Is librewolf a good alternative? Most plugins seem compatible

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

I don't know why they haven't floated the idea of some kind of subscription or one-time payment (though a subscription might be just as infuriating). I'm not above paying for software and if it was a reasonable price, say $10 one-time, I'd much prefer that over it becoming the new Chrome.

[–] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 13 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Could you imagine the enshittification cries if they did this. “Mozilla to add subscription model to your browser”.

They have other products that have subscriptions you can pay for to support the company.

Instead of using Mullvad, use Mozilla VPN (it is literally exactly the same, you just pay Mozilla not Mullvad)

If you’re a web developer, Subscribe to MDN Plus.

Hate spam? Firefox Relay.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I learned more about their paid services from this one post than in the last 5 years of using their browser. Not that their browser should be constantly inundating you with ads for their other services but dang.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

The problem is that none of this revenue or profit is guaranteed to go to Firefox. It goes to Mozilla and they decide how it is spent. It could go to pocket, a new overpaid CEO, or a hundred other ways that don't benefit FOSS.

I would have donated hundreds of dollars to Firefox development already, if that were possible, but that is not an option. The only option is Mozilla, and they may spend that on anything else but Firefox.

Also Mozilla VPN is shit. It is a severely limited implementation of Mullvad, and they even enshittified their browser for it. You can only have per container VPN's (a major gain for user privacy) if you pay for Mozilla VPN... They've already chosen to harm their users privacy for profit. This is the kind of shit that guarantees I will never donate as long as a for profit entity has control over Firefox, and its features.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 3 points 17 hours ago

They're already dying. This would be throwing themselves in the grave. People aren't used to paying for browsers

[–] balder1991@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I’m pretty sure a $10 one time payment won’t pay for the costs of development that Firefox requires.

Open source only works when there are people motivated enough and skilled enough to maintain something for free or when the organization managing it has another source of income.

[–] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz -2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t believe Mozilla doesn’t have the best interests of the browser at heart, I believe that they do think their browser is the their number one product.

But that’s the problem. It’s free software, going up against a juggernaut whose browser is just another side project to drive engagement with their core product.

A juggernaut who just so happens to be one of Mozilla’s primary source of income. All it will take is a little bit of legislation somewhere in the world to make that deal less attractive and Mozilla could be dead in the water. And it will take all of those forks with it, paving the way for Google to become the true web Hegemony.

Mozilla needs to diversify to ensure they can continue to provide stewardship to the browser.

But trying to make money in 2025 just seems to summon the enshittification brigade.

Free software is not free. Someone has to make it.

[–] lemminator@lemmy.today 7 points 19 hours ago

Have they considered just asking for money? Also getting rid of the giant holes that they keep pouring their money into?

A lot of people love Firefox, and would happily donate. They could also trim a lot of fat at Mozilla quite easily.