this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025

706 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

63614 readers

4202 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

706

Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 day ago by Xatolos@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

155 comments fedilink hide all child comments

AI Summary:

Overview:

Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] psyspoop@lemm.ee 92 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Mozilla says that “there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners” so that Firefox can be “commercially viable,” but it adds that it spells those out in its privacy notice and works to strip data of potentially identifying information or share it in aggregate.

Sounds like they've already been selling (or trading) data and this whole debacle is a way to retroactively cover their asses.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago

Yeah. And their privacy notice is basically a mix-match of ten or so sections that have no place in a web browser privacy policy, that allows them to do the things people reproach them for doing.

It's like saying "we're not doing that, because we're limited by that document that allows us to do just that". And now they're tripling down on it.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago

google is probably thier number one customer for the data.

[–] justlemmyin@lemmy.world 90 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Ruh roh. Too late though.

Friendship ended with Firefox,❎ Librewolf is my new best friend. ✅

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Friendship ended with Firefox,❎ Librewolf is my new best friend. ✅

A big problem with such forks (same with packages made by Linux distributors) is that there is a delay between official FF release and the release of the corresponding update of the fork. 99% of the time this doesn't matter much but when there is a severe security issue, the patch needs to be available ASAP.

Past enshittifications of Firefox could be disabled by users. Users who know what to disable don't need such forks then.

I'm not yet clear what Mozilla even intends. Is it just an adjustment of language of things that are already in FF and can be disabled easily? If so, I just keep the following shit disabled and benefit from earlier update releases.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I have not dug too deep into it for now (especially if I end up changing browser), but even with everything in the preferences disabled, examining the content of about:config gives a lot of telemetry.whatever.enabled left to true, sometimes with names that do not seem to match any option given to the user. That's not a good look either.

[–] Kausta@lemm.ee 4 points 17 hours ago

And you cannot change those in the default mobile Firefox since about:config is disabled (by their claim that it may break stuff in the ui)

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (6 children)

The issue is that Mozilla is actively hiding these settings. There's one (I forgot which one) that you can't find by searching for the title in the FF settings, you have to scroll to it yourself.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 48 points 1 day ago (17 children)

They have no business collecting any data in the first place. If I wanted my data collected I'd be using Chrome like everyone else. I'm not choosing to use their buggy ass inferior and slower browser for any of Mozilla's services, I'm choosing it because I want to support non-Chromium browsers and regain my privacy.

There's no point whatsoever to using Firefox if it's just a worse Chrome.

load more comments (17 replies)

[–] KayLeadfoot@fedia.io 14 points 1 day ago

Me looking at Mozilla like: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHShUPtagAANgks.jpg

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

Great, but a web browser still does not need terms of service. There's no ongoing relationship between the user and the creator of the browser, at least, there shouldn't be unless the user signs up for additional optional services.

It's great if Mozilla wants to offer some optional services users can opt in to, and those services probably need terms. I use Firefox Sync, though I've started to reconsider that given the recent fuss. The browser itself? I'll move to a fork first, and stop recommending Firefox to others.

load more comments