Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data
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.
https://www.theverge.com/news/622080/mozilla-revising-firefox-terms-of-use-dataOpen linkView original on reddthat.com799
Comments161
That's good and I'm genuinely glad they're trying to clarify it, but it proves yet again that their top management is out of touch with reality and their users: somebody (most likely more than one person actually) had to sign off on these changes and the message they sent out - this whole thing could have been avoided if they understood their users better (and/or if they actually cared nore about what users think).
Google funding allows them to be big and inefficient, which means a lot of tops paid well and thinking themselves fashionable FOSS leader people or something.
They can live without it. They'll have to cut most of the organization and return to being an open project developing a web browser.
That doesn't sound cool for people not doing useful work. Like me, I'll get to my shit instead of typing comments.
"I am doing things that are not selling your data which some people consider to be selling your data"
Why is he so cryptic? Neil, why don't you tell me what those things are and let me be the judge?
Louis Rossmann had a good video about this. Basically, California passed a law that changed what "selling your data" means, and it goes way beyond what I consider "selling your data." There's an argument here than Mozilla is largely just trying to comply with the law. Whether that's accurate remains to be seen though.
Then how about putting that in the language? "We don't sell your data, except if you're in California, because they consider x, y and z things we might actually do as selling data."
Exactly!
Hetzner kind of does this, where there's a separate EULA for US customers that lays out precisely how they're screwing you in that jurisdiction (e.g. forced arbitration). I'm not happy about that, but I appreciate having a separate, region-specific TOS.
If some wording only applies in California, state that. Or if it's due to similar laws elsewhere, then state that. And then detail which features collect data, why, what control you have, and how you can opt-out. Maybe have a separate mini-TOS/EULA for each major component that gets into details.
But just saying "you give us a license to everything you do on Firefox" may appease their legal counsel, but it doesn't appease many of their users, especially since they largely appeal to people who care about privacy.
How is chrome better? It's literally run by an ad company, and there's no way they have a better TOS.
I think this is a reasonable explanation.
But I also believe a large part of the firefox user base does not want any data about them collected by their browser, no matter if it is for commercial purposes or simply analytics / telemetry. Which is why the original statement "we will never sell any of your data" was just good enough for them, and anything mozilla is now saying is basically not good enough, no matter how much they clarify it to mean "not selling in the colloquial sense"
Which is a ridiculous thing to want for most users and exposes how little so much of the self-identified "techie" crowd actually understands about how this stuff works.
The first 6 years of Firefox were done without telemetry and after it was implemented it was opt-in for a while.
While I see the use of telemetry for development purposes, I would not call it aridiculous thing to not want
I more meant that the average user actually wants a significant amount of data collection and telemetry, as part of their normal web usage. There are some true privacy geeks who are actually maintaining near-anonymity on the modern internet, but there's a lot of people who get riled up about things like this while using Android phones, or signing up for loyalty programs, using corporate social media, etc.
I agree, I don't want my browser provider to collect any data on me at all, but if they absolutely must gather the absolute minimum system analytics stats or such they should NEVER pass it to a third party for ANY reason.
You make a desktop browser application, that's your job, to provide a portal to the world wide web, nothing more. Stay within your bounds and we'll never have any problem.
I mean...if they pay for the service of external analization of data in exchange of money, how is that a sale of goods/data?
I would definitely call that selling my data. The recipient can now add that to my profile as an interest.
I’m pretty sure this person is making a joke using a fake exaggerated “answer” from a corporation to highlight the absurdity of their double speak. I doubt something this insane would come from an actual spokesperson.
I'm getting that now too. I don't know the players in Mozilla. The quote without context made me think this was one of those Mozilla execs.
"ChatGPT, I need your help. Please pretend to be a lawyer that recently suffered a severe concussion and write me something I can post online that will male this situation slightly weirder."
Neil doesn't need a chatbot with sparkles for that, he's plenty capable to take absolute piss himself. 😁
Really? I would think most would consider them for what they are: evasive and probably deceptive
vague to be exact, keeping it vague, so its up for interpretation on thier part, and they can use the vagueness as an excuse.
Oh, it's perfectly clear. We got the message. Mozilla are not to be trusted with our data.
Sounds like they've already been selling (or trading) data and this whole debacle is a way to retroactively cover their asses.
google is probably thier number one customer for the data.
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.
Ruh roh. Too late though.
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.
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.
They are under "Privacy", just as I expected where they would.
🤷
Yes, you can disable the settings that are exposed to you with a checkbox. How about all the other that have no checkboxes and you can find by snooping around in either the code or about:config ?
Which are? Genuine question. I'm not aware of those either.
Someone else in this thread mentioned that going to
about:configand typingtelemetrywill apparently show that some things are still set totruedespite unchecking the settings in the Privacy section.Note: I'm not the guy you originally replied to, and I haven't personally tested this. Just pointing out where you can allegedly find those settings if you're interested. (I personally don't care and think this whole thing is overblown by the community, for what it's worth)
I'm not going to enumerate them, mostly because I did not keep track of which one was on and which one was off before messing all of them up. If you're curious, open "about:config" and search for "survey*.enabled", "collect*.enabled". Even with all settings disabled, some of them remains on, and they do cause traffic to the (documented) endpoints.
Dude, I'm not talking about the specific settings you've shown. There's more settings you should set regarding privacy, and (at least a couple of months ago) one of them wasn't appearing when searching for it.
Please be more specific.
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.
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)
That's called a patched downstream, not a fork.
LibreOffice was a fork of OpenOffice. OpenBSD was a fork of NetBSD.
I've already moved most of my stuff to forks or different software altogether.
Firefox -> LibreWolf and Waterfox
Thunderbird -> Evolution
I'm still trying to decide if I want to move off k9mail on mobile to something else. I probably will but I'm not sure what at this point.
I thought Thunderbird was a separate entitiy from Mozilla these days? And K-9 isn't owned by Thunderbird either? Am I mistaken?
My understanding is that they are all under Mozilla and they're all in danger of the same business decisions.
If that's not the case I'd be more than happy if someone could prove me wrong.
Technically Firefox is operated by the Mozilla Foundation, and thunderbird by its subsidiary, MZLA Technologies Corp. This subsidiary also took over K-9 a while ago iirc.
I need a gif where Scooby Doo removes the Librewolf logo and there's a Firefox logo underneath.
You must recognize that there is no Librewolf without Firefox, right? In fact, Librewolf even says in their privacy policy that you should also refer to the Firefox Privacy Policy because they can't be certain that their browser won't ever try to send data to Mozilla.
I'm not saying this to deter you from using Librewolf. If it works for you then that's awesome. It just made me chuckle when you said that you ended your friendship with Firefox and ran into the warm embrace of... Firefox with different default settings.
In any case, all I'm trying to communicate is that Firefox and all of its many forks are fundamentally reliant on Mozilla and its ability to continue updating Firefox. That means Mozilla needs a sustainable business model, and that we can't all simply abandon our relationship with Mozilla for a tool that is dependent on the work that Mozilla does.
I didn't sell your shit, I collected it and shared it to keep myself comercially viable.
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.
Telemetry benefits everyone, knowing which features are getting used, knowing what parts are causing crashes... It lets developers target what to improve and fix instead of going in blind. I get that collecting data can be scary, because so far everyone has been busy selling that data. But there's a reason why data is so valuable, if it's properly handled and anonymized it benefits everyone using firefox.
glub glub much?
There is no justification for opt-out telemetry data collection, and there is no proper handling of data obtained despite user pushback. Also, properly anonymizing large data sets is not as trivial as you think. Even "fully anonymized" data set, assuming everything's possible's been done, can lead to correlation when added with other data. Even "cohorts" can lead to the creation of an aggregate group with so few individuals that it basically boils down to individual tracking.
Why do you think people are so vocal about not letting any of this happens in the first time? It's not for blind idealism. It's basically because even a minimum waiver on "supposedly anonymous" data is a huge blow to your privacy. And some people care about that.
Besides, Mozilla's been pushing for a shitton of features that are constantly blamed for Firefox becoming as bad as its competition, and constantly turned off/removed. If they cared even a tiny bit about user feedback, the last… 3, 5 years of decisions from Mozilla would have been very different. Feature usage telemetry is a joke to make people accept their bullshit; the only thing that influence feature development is management or very heavy pushback, and that happens in dev issues, not with telemetry feedback.
That's a nice way to start and end a discussion.
How convenient for you.
It's exactly the level of discourse your misinformation deserved.
While they have to be careful, there can be reasonable ones to help what they do/stop doing.
Example, "x% of telemetry enabled users enable the bookmark bar", not particularly useful for harmful purposes, but if it were 0.00%, then they know efforts accommodating the bookmark bar would be pointless. Not many users would go out of their way to say "I don't use some feature I'm ignoring", and telemetry is able to convey that data, so the developer is not guessing based on his preference.
That being said, the telemetry is so opaque that it's hard to make an informed decision as to whether the telemetry in question is risky or not. Might be good to have some sort of accumulated telemetry data that you can click to review and submit, and have that data be actually human readable and to the point for salient points.
No, fuck that and quit bootlicking. Software makers did just fine without telemetry for decades; your supposed justification is nothing but a bullshit lazy excuse.
They actually did not, almost every software out there is mining your information. Software developers rely on and need data, you can't guess what people want. Whether it's from studies, testers, surveys, or telemetry, developers need information about what users like, what they don't, how they interact with the software... This is what makes data so valuable, and why businesses like Google can exist. Denying open source software telemetry is shooting yourself in the foot.
Why would I want software developers (particularly web browser) to guess what I want? I will tell them what I want, otherwise they have no business serving it to me.
If I'm not offering that data, it means I don't want you to have it. Simple as that.
You might, but 99% of users will never take a step towards giving any feedback whatsoever.
Yes, which means they don't want anything from them. Rather than seeing those people as nothing more than potential profit, just move on.
And yet they're using the application. Don't you want the applications that you use to work better? This is what telemetry enables, the ability to give feedback without jumping through 10 hoops, creating an account, responding to a survey, or whatever other method you're thinking of to give feedback.
I'm sure they'll make do
I think it'd be less creepy if there was an easily accessible public dashboard displaying this telemetry. E.g. like counters showing how many people hide the bookmark bar. If you can instantly see what data your browser is sending in an easily digestible format (ie not a dump of JSON in a submenu), it's easier to gain a quick understanding of the benefits vs minimal privacy tradeoffs.
But it really depends on trust: trust that they're not collecting more than they claim, and trust that the data is properly anonymized. Mozilla has lost that trust.
Too late, I switched to Floorp.
Because of privacy stuff? No. Because of repeated drama? Yes.
I don't have time for this stuff. I don't have time to track every minute twist of the knife that Google's funding drives Mozilla to embark on.
I'm bored of using software and watching it go through "death by a thousand minor dramas"
So now I use a web browser that has a name so stupid I don't even recommend it to other people. Brilliant.
The drama isn't exactly their fault. There are a lot of rich organizations that want them to cease to exist. Most of which want track you online and/or shove ads down your throat.
A fair amount of drama is exactly their fault. Mozilla chose to increase management pay and fire people, Mozilla chose to flirt with ai, Mozilla bought an ad firm, and so on. It's not like someone was holding a knife to their throat.
Even if the name sounds stupid, you should still recommend it to other people :D
Have been doing so for a few months and haven't had any negative feedback.
Truly an outstanding move
Try zen browser. It's just like floorp but has that Arc browser aesthetic.
I was a floorp user until I tried zen browser. You should give it a try too.
Never heard of this one before. too bad it doesn't have a mobile version as well.
💀
The magic of forking!
✨
A FOSS browser has and never will require collecting user data.
This should not happen at all.
Certain features certainly could be considered as doing that, such as:
I certainly want those. And then there are others that I don't want:
My understanding is that this change is primarily motivated by a recent law change in California that has a pretty broad definition of "selling user data" and this is less likely to be a fundamental change in how Mozilla operates. However, let's see what they come back with.
That second list should also include
Because ads in the search bar results are one of the things Mozilla cited as precipitating the need for ToS.
Is that a pocket thing? Because I disable pocket and changed the default search engine.
If they laid out precisely which features result in data collection by Mozilla and how to disable them, I'd be pretty happy with it. However, if they're unilaterally collecting data and not really separating concerns, then I'll need to find something else.
What do you think a browser does?
The browser manufacturer doesn't need a license to my inputs to process them and give them to the server it's supposed to give them to. If you type a text in Libre office, does it ask you for a license to the text in order to save it?
No, but that's a local program processing and saving data entirely on your system. It's a world of difference from what a web browser does, which is oversee a whole suite of protocols connecting you to remote servers and transmitting data back and forth in requests that build on and reference each other. With the complexity of modern web interactions, there's a ton of reasons why a browser might need to store your data and share it with others, even ignoring profit-seeking motives.
And let's remember that the last thing Mozilla got heat for was the introduction of a method to anonymize bulk user data for sharing & selling purposes, as opposed to the granular, extremely invasive tracking that 99% of websites are doing these days.
I see a company that needs to make a decent amount of money in a crazy competitive environment, that's trying their best to do so in the way least destructive to user privacy and choice.
Not even the lemmy instance you're on needs a license to your content, and it is stored there and displayed for the world to see. Why is that? Because storing and displaying your posts is the very thing you want it to do. That is the service it is providing for you, and you declare that you want it to do that by clicking "send". They would need a license if they wanted to do anything else with your stuff, which doesn't directly have to do with displaying your posts in the fediverse.
The browser is supposed to take my requests and inputs, carry them to the server that I'm talking to and bring back the answer. The mail doesn't need a license to my letters. That only changes if they want to open them and do something I originally had not intended.
But you know who claims a license to your content? Meta. Because you're the product there, not the costumer.
Ftfy. It's never going to replace more invasive tracking and just constitutes yet another party collecting my data.
Mozilla already makes enough money from passive investment income. They don't need to make any money from Firefox at all (but they do, it's from google). They also don't need to pay their CEO 6 Million a year.
Edit: Typo
How hard is it to be specific? People are concerned about this, can they not tell us the exact data they share and with whom, or is doing so going to make people more concerned so they are avoiding telling us?
They can’t be specific in the legal note because that would close their options and prevent them from auctioning off every month to the new highest bidder.
They certainly could keep a page of what they’re currently selling to whom, but even if it was innocuous (doubtful) that would again put them in the news every time they changed it.
Tried and true
legalPR strategy: say nothing and hope the attention goes awayGreat, 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.
this is them rolling it back cause of the outcry, they don't want to admit it worked
The terms were never actually bad. This is them responding to the backlash, yes, but that's just because everyone freaked out over nothing. They're not "rolling back" anything, and this comment is just more disinformation.
The proof that even techies can confuse « rollback » and « fix ».
Too late. That wasn't a typo, Terms are going downhill from here. I'm gone.
We saw it with reddit and that place is fucked now. Seems no one can be content with their status, they all need more.
Me looking at Mozilla like: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHShUPtagAANgks.jpg
cool, sounds good. (the Community gif where Troy walks into the room with Pizza, Pierce has been shot, and there's fire everywhere)
I’m eagerly awaiting the new version but I already like it. They now admit that they are sharing and sometimes selling private data (anonymized or not, same thing).
Too late. I've already moved to another browser
Which one? There is literally nothing else.
Zen, Librewolf, Waterfox, Mullvad Browser to name a few
Is mullvad chromium based?
Nope, Firefox based. It's basically Tor Browser w/o Tor.
No, Firefox
There are so many Firefox forks, just try them out and pick you poison.
Since others have already commented some suggestions, I'd like to add Floorp.
I use it on desktop
Pornhub now remembers what sort of porn you like while browsing incognito. Is this also happening with other browsers? I just don't wanna have my wife know what kid of bdsm I really like. It keeps things fun that way. Fun, gun, hun, nun, are all too close on the keyboard. Autocorrect can't fix that.
Are you sure? All incognito windows run in the same memory space. If you open one window and do something in it, that session data is available to any other open incognito window open. To clear this ALL incognito windows need to be closed. Once they are all closed, you should be able to open a single new one and have no remnants of the previous sessions left over for the website to know you. The exceptions to this are if they are tracking activity from your IP address or if they are using Browser Fingerprinting on your session so they know even if you come from a different IP they know its your computer.
I run into the IP tracking sometimes. The wife will be doing searches for some specific thing, and I'll see youtube recommendations show up on those topics even though I'm running youtube via incognito on completely different hardware (but we're both using the same public IP).
I'm pretty sure there's something even more perverse happening maybe IP tracking. Maybe phone location tracking. Like when I search for stuff on Google here at home on my phone that stuff appears on my work Google (where I have never actually logged in to Google with any account). It maybe a server side user profile tracking system that we haven't seen before. Instead of tracking a user via IP, you look at a location... Then you look at what people are searching for in that location and you develop a profile for that particular hardware ID.
Maybe this?
reddit does the same thing to, to identify ban evaders, except reddit turned it up a notch in doing this. i think only anti-detect browsers can alleviate that
IronFox is an option
Where do I get it? It's neither on the playstore nor on Fdroid.
You can get the F-Droid repo from their GitLab or Github (they recommend Accrescent though)
Ironfox
I'm using Fennec.
Is it? It seems to be maintained by a user named relan based out of Russia. It's just a few scripts to build it for F-Droid and basically just removes some proprietary stuff. It's not a fork, just a build script.
Yes, this is built from Mozilla's sources, but AFAIK Mozilla doesn't maintain this build script, and the build script strips out certain parts of Firefox and adds in others (e.g. logo). It's not a fork of Firefox, it's just a builder that replaces parts of Firefox.
So Mozilla doesn't maintain Fennec, since Fennec is a separate build of Firefox, but they do maintain what Fennec is built from.
Waterfox if you are ok with getting it from the play store
The simple way to deal with this is through extensions. Collect anonymized data through an extension, let the user decide to opt-out if they want.
What's the alternative for Android? Fuck Chrome I want to move off this shit onto something that actually gives half a shit about me.
Boy have i got a treat for you, Ironfox! the continuation of Mull
https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox
Will check it out, thanks.
IronFox
Tor. Anything short is freely giving your data away. If you're looking for something that isn't based on Gecko or Chromium there is the DuckDuckGo browser, which is WebKit. I can't attest to how good their privacy policy is though as I have no idea.
Tor Browser doesn't include uBo (on Android at least) and their ad blocking is abysmal. Its great that no one can trace your IP but completely useless since it doesn't do anything to block trackers.
Misinformation.
Too late for me personally, I've gone ahead and moved over to Zen.
Brodie thinks that they still left themselves some wiggle room for ""selling"" user data.
ThiscommentislicensedunderCCBY-NC-SA4.0Brodie thinks that they stiww weft themsewves some wiggwe woom fow ""sewwing"" uwsew data.
ThismodifiedversionofyourcommenthasbeenlicensedundertheGPLv3Wauve a wice way.
ThiscommentislicensedunderCCBY-NC-SA4.0Anyone have a decent Android alternative? Updated my phone last night and this morning got a notification that Firefox had full permissions for accessing my location data. I'd like to move away from Firefox before enshitification is in full swing.
Try out Ironfox. It can be installed through F-Droid.
Dope, I'll give it a go 👍
I switched to waterfox. Looks pretty much the same, no issues so far.
Righto, pop that on the list. Thanks 👍
Did you give it to it?
It can be a pretty nice feature for using map-based apps in the browser.
I haven't used such websites for a while and I don't see Firefox in the recent users of the location API, even though I use Firefox Android all the time. (Info available in Android under Settings/Location.)
Absolutely not. There's not a single app on my phone that I willingly give unrestricted access to my location data. At most I allow "while using the app" and have my phone set to ask for permission for background running.
does this affect any fork of firefox? Like floorp?
they were effectively owning everything you fo in firefox, how is that nothing
What’s the best alternative on Mac?
You could try zen browser
It looks like Arc but built on Firefox’s engine? That’s sick. I’ll give it a look.
Are you referring to Arc or to Zen?
Zen had its latest release 5 days ago, and arc 4 days ago, so I have no idea what they're talking about.
Do you have a source for that? I can't seem to find anything on their website, though judging by the past few release notes you're absolutely right.
Edit: found this video. Kinda feel like this should be a big red banner on the front page though.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=E9yZ0JusME4
I downloaded it and signed into to Sync and i gotta be honest it’s a little half baked. I think I’ll stick with Firefox for now until it leaves beta.
mullvad
I guess it is time to start setting up Nyxt.
Already uninstalled everywhere. Better luck next time, Mozilla.
Is there a way to generate fake user activity data to feed to Firefox or stripped down versions of firefox ?
So that the data is useless for anyone buying it. Furthermore fake browsing data also messes up data collection by websites.
You're probably just better going with a fork of FF that has all that nonsense stripped out.
Probably easier to go into the settings and untick a box to disable any telemetry.
maybe with anti-detection browser, there are with free-bee version, dont know if that will help . which basically lets you use proxies as well, and spoofs your fingerprinting. people who made of accts, or advertise on reddit uses these to evade reddit ban(until reddit made it harder to do so currently)
I found something but it is for chrome. https://github.com/Xodarap/Paranoid-Browsing
People hate whenever Brave is mentioned... But when it comes to privacy, I have not regretted my decision to use it
I mean if you are already ok with using a Chrome reskin from a crypto ad company your standards are already set too low.
People who use Firefox are concerned that Firefox is slowly shifting into what Brave is now. Aka an ad company.
I swear to god Brave browser is a cult. People who are into it a really into pushing it. No, I don’t want your crypto-bro, ad company run, chrome reskin.
But you have no problem with the paid-for-by-Google, ad company influenced, whittle away at the few protections they used to have, browser?
This is literally better in every way.
This being said, better in every way does not mean good. It’s just hard to be worse than a crypto bro run, literal ad company, who’s browser is a reskin of chrome.
Hot off the presses, in addition to the CEO being queer-phobic, he literally is now ranting about how George Soros, and leftists are treating him unfairly.
https://lemmy.world/post/26379948
Mozilla is soo stupid!
Most Firefox users use it only because of the values it upholds, and now they decided to destroy it. MF wouldn't even have any any revenue once they betray their little existing users!
If they're throwing away their values, then there is no reason to use Firefox anymore, BECAUSE OBJECTIVELY FIREFOX IS INFERIOR TO CHROMIUM.
And hopefully this accelerates development and support to fully alternate browsers.
Wait, you think using Firefox somehow results in them getting money?…
Yes, that's why google is paying millions to be the default.
No, using Google makes Google money. That's why they pay mozilla to be the default.
And they're not going to pay millions to be the default for a browser that no one uses.
OK I think I see what you're saying now:
If everyone leaves Firefox because of this, Google would probably stop paying them to be the default search engine.
I don't see that as the biggest issue though. Once people are leaving, my guess is they're just going to stop maintaining firefox regardless of how much money they get from Google. Cause why maintain a browser literally no one uses, instead of figuratively.
You're not totally wrong here, but the fact is that these updates are a complete non-issue that has only resulted in so much backlash because of the self-selected Firefox audience of people who know enough about tech and privacy to care, but not enough to understand what's actually threatening. The updates were a minor change in language that didn't change the status quo, but idiots like the guy who thinks that incognito mode somehow stops a site from gathering information on you flock to these articles and start crying doomsday.
Mozilla is the only big web company that's even close to on the side of consumers and it's sad to see them eat shit for no reason.
Installed DuckDuckGo browser as soon as I saw the news the other day.
Oh cool, yet another Chromium variant. That's going to be an actual change for the better.
Balls.