Hot off the back of its recent leadership rejig, Mozilla has announced users of Firefox will soon be subject to a ‘Terms of Use’ policy — a first for the iconic open source web browser.

This official Terms of Use will, Mozilla argues, offer users ‘more transparency’ over their ‘rights and permissions’ as they use Firefox to browse the information superhighway — as well well as Mozilla’s “rights” to help them do it, as this excerpt makes clear:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.

When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice (aka privacy policy). This adds a crop of cushy caveats to cover the company’s planned AI chatbot integrations, cloud-based service features, and more ads and sponsored content on Firefox New Tab page.

    • And009@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I have librewolf, don’t use it much. Is it functionally the same as FF? In terms of plug-in and website compatibility.

      Most consumer sites are optimized for chrome and even safari, firefox & Edge (Obviously) face issues with scripts and plug-ins.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s basically the same, but the devil is in the detail. DRM disabled from the get go, which is a show stopper for some sites (say, netflix). Some sites will bork themselve on the strange user-agent. Some advanced privacy features are quite hard to disable willingly, which may or may not be a good thing if you actually have to get things done on sites that breaks.

        One would argue that sites that breaks when privacy features are enforced are not worth it, but you don’t always have a choice in that regard.

    • shortrounddev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      35 seconds ago

      Waterfox’s creator, while not being HOSTILE to privacy, has said in the past that making the most private browser in the world is not the goal of the project. The goal is a more customizable browser for power users

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    The only acceptable privacy policy for a browser is “we won’t fucking look into anything, take anything, nor send anything anywhere you didn’t actually wish to send explicitly”.

    Firefox have an extension system. If mozilla wants to bloat it, they should do it via extension, so that they’re not bloating the actually useful part. As it is, all they’re doing is forcing more work on people to manage forks to remove all the shit every time they push a release.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features
      has

      • formautofill@mozilla.org.xpi
      • pictureinpicture@mozilla.org.xpi
      • screenshots@mozilla.org.xpi
      • webcompat-reporter@mozilla.org.xpi
      • webcompat@mozilla.org.xpi
      • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        hey, why is this significant? I can guess what features these are linked to, but is there any significance to the email address-like formats?

        • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          They are the demanded features-as-extension, shipped by default. They do that since they got rid of XUL i think?

          About the @, no clue.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      12 hours ago

      No it’s because Firefox isn’t profitable and to try to survive in its current form they have to do something.

      It might be more productive to die and live on as an open source effort. I personally doubt there’s enough open source engagement to keep Firefox current and competitive but it’s of course an alternative Mozilla in its current form is unable to consider.

      • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Mozilla is a nonprofit (or it at least it should be, technically it’s a for profit corporation that’s wholly owned by a nonprofit foundation, shady asf).

        They shouldn’t be trying to make a profit, they should make enough money to pay their programmers to maintain the browser.

        They should not be dumping money into more executive hires and AI bullshit like they are doing.

        • ExFed@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Being a “non-profit” doesn’t mean the company “shouldn’t make profit” … It means that the owners/investors don’t earn anything extra based on profit. The organization itself still needs to be financially sustainable.

          As shady as Mozilla is, they’re competing against a functional monopoly, so the playing field is hardly fair.

          • kava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            As shady as Mozilla is, they’re competing against a functional monopoly

            yeah this is a part we need to recognize. right now there are essentially three browsers. Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. Every other browser is some derivative of one of these- mostly Chromium.

            Google can change some small detail about how they render HTML or a small part of their JS engine and that has global effects all over the internet. Without a Firefox to compete, they will implement policies to hurt the consumer. People think just because Chromium is open source that this mitigates the risk.

            Google’s V8 javascript engine does not only power all Chrome and chrome-derivatives, it also powers nodeJS and therefore vast swathes of server-side javascript as well.

            it’s actually difficult to understate how much raw power Google has in determining what you see on the internet and how you see it

            we desperately need Firefox. I really hope that an open source alternative could be viable but it’s been decades and we haven’t had a real browser pop into existence. will the death of Firefox mean something else comes out? Or will the death of Firefox be the last nail in the coffin for a free internet?

          • potpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            Most non-profits are not financially sustainable and rely on donations and grants to operate. If the service they provided could be financially sustainable, a for-profit would popup and operate in that space.

            But I agree that non-profits can and should find fee-for-service opportunities and generate revenue to reduce their reliance on gifts.

  • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I’ve been willingly enabling data collection features for Mozilla but I guess that time is revolute, they don’t feel trustworthy anymore.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      In the good/bad old days a web page was just text and images but now a browser is a platform for running software. Each website can do useful computing for the user but the software author is in control and always tempted to make it run for them at the expenve of the user.

      Crazy idea, maybe we shouldn’t use web browsers.

    • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Well I suppose LibreWolf (or some other de-branded Firefox) will become more mainstream. Similar to what chromium is to chrome 🤷

      • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        That’s not a real equivalence.

        Chromium is the basis for Google Chrome, while Librewolf is nothing more than a leech to Firefox. It’s just Firefox, rebranded.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Rebranded, pre-cleaned of all the forced stuff from mozilla, with the built-in integration of more privacy-enhancing features.

          So, not “just firefox, rebranded” at all.

          • scholar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            13 hours ago

            They aren’t developing or maintaining the core browser though, they depend on Firefox still being looked after.

    • DominicJ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Soon other web engine will coming, first LadyBird browser and two is Servo Browser. But they’re still along way to go

      • adub@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Am I missing something on Servo Browser? Because when I went to check it out and seems more like next-gen browser engine that looks to be an improvement on Firefox’s Gecko. If so then we will need to wait for a browser team to adopt it.

      • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I am still waiting desperately for a servo based browser, mozilla kicking it out was one of the reasons I lost all hope in Mozilla a while back.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    can a chromium fork reasonably be maintained with adblock support?

  • DFX4509B@lemmy.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Good thing LibreWolf and other forks exist, including hard forks like the Goanna browsers.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Oh, that last paragraph doesn’t give me hope at all. Fucking AI chatbots.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      198
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The actual addition to the terms is essentially this:

      1. If you choose to use the optional AI chatbot sidebar feature, you’re subject to the ToS and Privacy Policy of the provider you use, just as if you’d gone to their site and used it directly. This is obvious.
      2. Mozilla will collect light data on usage, such as how frequently people use the feature overall, and how long the strings of text are that are being pasted in. That’s basically it.

      The way this article describes it as “cushy caveats” is completely misleading. It’s quite literally just “If you use a feature that integrates with third party services, you’re relying on and providing data to those services, also we want to know if the feature is actually being used and how much.”

      • Viri4thus@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        85
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        The problem is the inclusion of the feature to begin with. It should be an opt in add install.

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          54
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          I agree to a point, but I look at this similar to how I’d view any feature in a browser. Sometimes there are features added that I don’t use, and thus, I simply won’t use them.

          This would be a problem for me if it was an “assistant” that automatically popped up over pages I was on to offer “help,” but it’s not. It’s just a sidebar you can click a button in the menu to pop out, or you can never click that button and you’ll never have to look at it.

          It’s not a feature that auto-enables in a way that actually starts sending data to any AI company, it’s just an optional interface, that you have to click a specific button to open, that can then interface with a given AI model if you choose to use it. If you don’t want to use it, then you ideally won’t even see it open during your use of Firefox.

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Please let them not ruin Firefox with some bullshit AI. I can’t take much more of this, Firefox is one of the last things I have left.

            • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              22 hours ago

              It’s two things:

              1. Sidebar you can open from the hamburger menu that is basically just a tiny chat UI
              2. Right click to paste the selected text into the sidebar

              If you don’t want it, they don’t seem to be pushing it any further than that. Just don’t click the option in the menus and you’ll be fine. (I believe you can also fully disable the option from appearing in settings too)

              • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                22 hours ago

                Yes, I gathered that from the previous comment, but thank you for the additional info.

                I just hope it doesn’t progress further in the future. AI is quite possibly a more catastrophic technological development than nuclear weapons.

                • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  AI is quite possibly a more catastrophic technological development than nuclear weapons.

                  I wouldn’t go that far. A technology that wastes a lot of energy and creates a lot of bad quality content isn’t the same as a bomb that directly kills millions.

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        So phone-home telemetry that you can’t opt out of. The ghost of Mitchell Baker will haunt us forever.

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          So phone-home telemetry that you can’t opt out of.

          You can opt out of it. You’ve always been able to opt out of Mozilla’s telemetry. Not to mention that if you actually read the Privacy Notice, there’s an entire section detailing every single piece of telemetry that Mozilla collects, and if you read the section very clearly titled “To provide AI chatbots,” you’ll see what’s collected:

          • Technical data
          • Location
          • Settings data
          • Unique identifiers
          • Interaction data

          The consent required for the collection to even start:

          Our lawful basis

          Consent, when you choose to enable an AI Chatbot.

          And links that lead to the page explaining how to turn off telemetry even if you’re using the in-beta AI features.

          This page > FAQ > Telemetry Collection & Deletion page

          • solrize@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            23 hours ago

            It says they’re going to collect usage data. Nothing about opting out.

            • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Look at the links in my comment, and you’ll see that all of the categories of telemetry data there can be opted out of with that single switch.

              JFC please read the actual documents instead of going “nothing about opting out” when it’s literally right there.

              • solrize@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                20 hours ago

                They use the term telemetry in a special way. If they are collecting info from users, that is telemetry under a different name, ok fine. Not collecting info means they receive 0 bits.

                • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  20 hours ago

                  I truly don’t understand what point you’re trying to make here.

                  Mozilla defines telemetry as “data collection.” Any collection of data by Mozilla is considered telemetry, as is described by the docs page that is cited on the Telemetry Collection & Deletion page.

                  If you deselect the Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla option, this disables all telemetry, or in other words, all data collection by Mozilla.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Where’s the gofundme for the firefox fork project?

    Was this from google turning off the funding tap?