Well, a browser is extremely complex, and hence super expensive to make. So if Mozilla doesn't find any other way to monetize, I guess they have to do something about user data?
It also now is against the terms of service to use Firefox for illegal activity or to use it to watch porn.
Mozilla shares your data under certain circumstances. This helps people realize that Mozilla is able to share your data, regardless of 'selling' potential. Some people assumed 'we dont sell your data' meant 'we dont share your data' when that was impossible for the definition of how some built in features work.
Just because “some people” can’t words, that doesn’t mean that you should change the words to suit the people who can’t them.
The premise of 'sharing' and then receiving something from who you shared with IS a form of selling. If Mozilla .never. shared data,,, are you sure you 'can words'?
Exactly what I expected: a restatement of the terms, pointing out that they're not onerous at all, and a link to jwz's blog, the single person on earth with the biggest hate boner for Mozilla.
They need money and they don't get much from donations. I'd love to hear everyone's ideas for how they can generate enough revenue to keep the lights on without either making deals with Google or engaging in any form of advertising or data trading.
There's absolutely a line where I would start looking elsewhere, but this ain't it.
I mean people would rather have Firefox propped up by Google (an ad company)'s donations then?
I'd rather just use Google if we are throwing privacy out the window
Also why is my business how they make money? I just want privacy and to be Google free
Well, now, I guess all the people who like to lecture me every time the topic of Brave comes up will just chill the f*** out now.
Or we could just not use either? Just a thought.
I've just learned not to say the B word on Lemmy.
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules: