1431
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] knexcar@lemmy.world 64 points 21 hours ago

This is probably the single thing that got me to switch to Firefox. Privacy whatever, I don’t care about my data or the morality of my tech company or whatever, but mess with my adblocker and goodbye.

[-] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 23 points 21 hours ago

Can I have your bank account username and password?

[-] knexcar@lemmy.world 21 points 21 hours ago
[-] aeternum 13 points 20 hours ago

so you DO care about privacy.

[-] Fiskelord@lemmy.world 17 points 19 hours ago
[-] drtaco@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 hours ago

Privacy is a component of security. But so is assessing the likelihood of risk. I get what the other guy is trying to convey, but it's asinine to pretend giving your banking info to a random individual is in the same ballpark as giving your browsing history to the company making your browser.

[-] Bananabird7@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

It literally is privacy.

[-] Nexz@feddit.nl 1 points 13 hours ago

Awww, but understandable. Can I see your bank statements for the last 12 months?

[-] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago
[-] knexcar@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

It could be used to take my money, which directly and drastically harms me and benefits you. Or worse, “steal my identity” and take out a loan in my name. Things like bank statements could also potentially be used for that, and I have no reason to give them to internet strangers.

[-] TehWorld@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago

I’m mostly in the same boat. If you really want to know my kink-search-history, I really DGAF. The morality is nice to think about but it’s all about your personal morals in a lot of cases.

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 8 points 21 hours ago

firefox is going through thier own enshittifcation down the line, they changed ther policy about data recently

[-] TheRealKuni@midwest.social 14 points 21 hours ago

As I understand it that has more to do with covering their ass. They haven’t changed their practices.

[-] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago

The fact that they think they need to cover their ass about selling user data is concerning enough.

[-] TheRealKuni@midwest.social 8 points 18 hours ago

Don’t take my word for it, you can read what they said about it here. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[-] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago

Yeah, I read that and I think it's a weak justification.

[-] knexcar@lemmy.world 13 points 21 hours ago

I’ll care when Firefox loses ManifestV2 support.

I read about this too, and it worries me. Google has donated over a billion dollars to Mozilla over the years. That alone doesn't scare me so much as it's a blatant propaganda tool to deflect the antitrust sentiment that plagues them and will probably some day do its work of breaking them apart.

Fortunately, there are numerous open source forks. I am currently using Librewolf, a fork of firefox focused on privacy and anti-tracking, and it has worked without a hitch. A couple of my extensions have required fiddling with to get right but it's part of life if you care about these things.

[-] dan@upvote.au 8 points 20 hours ago

They changed the wording of their policy for legal reasons. They haven't actually changed what they do. They already updated the text of the policy to clarify.

[-] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 2 points 19 hours ago

...The reason being that they can't legally claim they don't sell your data.

[-] dan@upvote.au 6 points 18 hours ago

Yes, because the definition of "sell data" varies by jurisdiction, and they can't guarantee that their usage of ads (eg the default sites that appear on the new tab page) does not fall under the definition of "sell data" in some jurisdictions. In particular, California's CCPA is pretty strict and some use cases that aren't actually selling data still fall under its definition of "sell data".

[-] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago

And they had this revelation and newfound sense of caution immediately after their main source of income was jeopardized? And they made this change at the exact same time they started forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox? Sure, Jan.

[-] dan@upvote.au 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox?

That's not what they actually did, though. They revised the wording to clarify:

You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. 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.

For example, if you type something into the address bar, they need to have the permission to take your content (whatever you've typed) and send it to a third party (a search engine) to get autocompletion results.

Here's the blog post that clarifies the changes: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
1431 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

66067 readers
5407 users here now

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


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS