Asking after the privacy debacle and manifest. I'm not keeping up closely, but iirc Firefox is the browser recommended because of Ublock. After the privacy data issue I've noticed broken trust from Firefox users, recommendations in favor of switching browsers, and predictions saying Firefox is going downhill fast and that their forks won't be maintained for much longer.

So I'm here asking the seasoned sailors' thoughts, aye. Is this just a storm passing by or are you really considering jumping ship?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

All those people leaving Mozilla, I can only assume only read headlines and not the actual articles because they're just blowing a nothing burger out of proportion.

[–] venotic@kbin.melroy.org 10 points 2 days ago

All that we've ever asked from Mozilla is three things:

Focus on the performance of your browser so that it is not a hog.
Upkeep privacy
Keep it secure

Out of all of those things, Mozilla fails at all except maybe the last thing. We didn't ask for AI implementation. We didn't ask for Firefox accounts. We didn't ask for whatever feature flavor of the month that Mozilla got a hair up their ass about that they just had to throw into the browser. We asked for simple things and Mozilla overshot them. How are any of these features meant to uphold the values once held by Mozilla?

If you want to talk about a nothing-burger, think of all of the reasons that Mozilla had danced around to excuse itself by throwing these things in. And the cherry on top was the Terms of Service. Truly, they are tone-deaf.

[–] Pippipartner@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

To be fair nobody asked Mozilla to serve a stupid and detached statement without contextualizing what they meant or try to achieve.

[Edit] it feels like they're asking for the outrage. You can't just drop assurances of not selling data without explaining if your crowd is privacy aware. You can't take broad licenses from your users if you don't explain for what they are for. Having plaintext comment next to the lawyer speak would have fixed all that and none of this had to be this shitty. [/Edit]

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social -4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And this is why I assume no-one read the articles; because they did explain themselves.

[–] Pippipartner@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago

It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

It's still in the current version of the TOS without a direct explanation which can be found anywhere close to it. This is plain bad from a communication stand point.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 2 points 2 days ago

I read them, still want to leave.