While waterfax highlights a problematic section of Mozilla's change:<p>> UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, <i>we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox</i>, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice. (Emphasis mine)<p>And they mention that we need to see the context behind this change -- but what they don't to -- is point out that the update clarification makes the whole situation <i>even more problematic</i> than it was previously.<p>The private notice indicates they use data to:<p>1. To provide and improve search functionality
2. To serve relevant content and advertising on Firefox New Tab
3. To provide Mozilla accounts
4. To provide AI Chatbots
5. To provide Review Checker, including serving sponsored content
6. To provide and enable add-ons (addons.mozilla.org)
7. To maintain and improve features, performance and stability
8. To improve security
9. To understand usage of Firefox
10. To market our services
11. To pseudonymize, de-identify, aggregate or anonymize data
12. To communicate with you
13. To comply with applicable laws, and identify and prevent harmful, unauthorized or illegal activity<p>1,2,4,5,10 are problematic. We don't want those things. Mozilla wants those things. The problem isn't the lack of context behind the changes, the problem is Mozilla wants to be able to use our 'input' data for whatever they want, and I don't want them to.<p>They said they're the privacy focused browser; and they're not. That's a lie. I moved from Chrome to Firefox precisely because I couldn't trust Google. Now I can't trust Firefox.
Wait, Mozilla is banning the use of their Firefox browser for porn? That's going to hurt adoption.<p>What's with the mixup of their browser and services policies?<p>[1] Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations.<p>[2] You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to:<p>* Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence,<p>[1] <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you-are-responsible-for-the-consequences-of-your-use-of-firefox" rel="nofollow">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you...</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/" rel="nofollow">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/</a>
> Browsers without formal governance may offer appealing features or privacy claims, but users have little recourse if those promises are broken. There’s no entity to hold accountable, no legal framework within which to address grievances, and often no transparency about decision-making processes.<p>Do we get any of those with Mozilla? They can change their ToC whenever they want and keep adding things that users don't want. I don't think they are much better than a random developer building their own fork.
》This situation reveals a recurring issue in how Mozilla communicates with its user base<p>Mozilla is very clear at its communication! They even got new leadership and rebranded recently! Their updated Privacy Policy is also very clear! Maybe they had not implement everything yet, but they are heading in clear direction. And real hammer will come in a few months, if they lose deal with Google!<p>At this point Mozilla is a toxic organization when it comes to privacy, something like Google with Chrome. Dismissing it as a "communication issue" is not sufficient! Waterfox needs clear separation from Mozilla!
The correct word for all of the recent changes is a result of the fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what constitutes acceptable use is censorship.<p>In the United States of America, freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution. That means you can use language or show content that I may find offensive. I may do the same for you. My choice is whether or not I wish to view it or permit my non-adult children to view it. This is not the vendor's prerogative; it is my responsibility as a parent.<p>Mozilla's "terms and conditions" mean that fear has taken hold.<p>Freedom is hard. Allowing a vendor to restrict use that infringes on a basic right is unacceptable. In the final analysis, their terms of use are probably unenforceable. Think about it. What are they going to do? Stop me and everyone else from sharing cute baby pictures? Ones in our grandparents' scrapbooks?
Man, Waterfox huh. I used to use that, but knowing it's owned by a marketing company and seeing development kind of lack behind Librewolf, there didn't seem to be much reason to use it anymore. However, being able to open a new private or tor tab in the same window as a normal tab is pretty nice.
Someone needs to write a book on the how and why Mozilla became whatever the hell it is now, and why they would drop the ball so hard on Firefox while jumping from one unsustainable idea nobody wants to another. Why is there no adult in the room to say no to the nonsense and direct resources towards the one thing people actually do want?
FF users might want to take look at KDE's Falkon. It's come a long way - fast and solid.<p>>can be installed on Windows 7 or newer as well as Linux from the repositories, as a flatpak and as a snap. <a href="https://userbase.kde.org/Falkon" rel="nofollow">https://userbase.kde.org/Falkon</a>
Their last message says it all:<p>> We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses<p>The text is confusing on purpose and mixes Firefox, the Mozilla Services (Sync maybe? That's it?), AI, and their new AD-platform (without mentioning the last two). And why are they talking about a license when it's a ToS? Everything is confusing about it, even their answers.<p>> to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible<p>The very same thing they did for more than 20 year without such a ToS? Why now? I think it's about AI and ads but I'm sure they are smarter than me and will explain everything in precise details to clear up such a "big confusion."<p>> we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox to perform your searches<p>That's a fucking lie of course. They did that last year without any issue. You can get the text from the search box (like mSearchBox->getText() in C++, wow I'm a Mozilla engineer), and put that in the URL of my favorite search engine as part of the query.<p>> or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice<p>I don't care about the ownership, I want to know why, why now, and I want them to explain all the details that definitely do NOT appear in their Privacy Notice.<p>My conclusion is that they are moving away from Firefox for some reason, they pretended to fire the last CEO which keeps on working on the AI, and they want a lot of information like everyone else which is difficult when you're supposed to be the open-source knight of privacy.<p>But I'm only typing that because I am bitter and have already moved on. They fucked with us too many times, I don't care anymore even if the only alternative left was Links.
Does Waterfox sell your data like Firefox?<p>I hate the Mozilla 'clarification' because they gave no example. The only information I type into Firefox is using websites. Them being 100% vague makes it feel even worse.