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
      ·
      2 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
        2
        ·
        2 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.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 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
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 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
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            6 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
            6 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
    33
    ·
    13 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.

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

    can a chromium fork reasonably be maintained with adblock support?

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 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
      13 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
        ·
        13 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
          1
          ·
          11 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
            ·
            10 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
      ·
      14 hours ago

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

      • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 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.

      • adub@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 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.

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

    Where’s the gofundme for the firefox fork project?

    Was this from google turning off the funding tap?

  • DFX4509B@lemmy.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

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