this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
482 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

68600 readers
3952 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 news or articles.
  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
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Guys Mullvad browser and Librewolf exist.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (6 children)

ladybird can't come fast enough

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

can a chromium fork reasonably be maintained with adblock support?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

Brave supports extensions still but it has its own issues.

It's getting hard to boycott companies and products when it starting to look like most are dipping their toes into stuff their users don't like.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That would be getting right back in bed with Google, gross.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

i also hate it, but i see no one else putting the amount of work necessary to maintain an entire browser engine. and mozilla clearly wants to enshittify.

firefox has its days numbered. even if its not overnight and we have some time, we have to come up with something.

anyone up to date on how servo is doing rn, btw?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I stopped following Thorium when some questionable pics were discovered in its repo

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

I mostly use Librewolf on Linux, and Fennec on Android. When I specifically need a Chromium-based browser, I usually open a Chromium guest from nix-shell on Linux, or Kiwi on Android.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This new policy doesn't apply to Firefox forks so you're better off with one of those

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

so in a similar vein: can the community reasonably maintain an up-to-date and secure gecko-based browser we can universally move to instead of firefox? can we make google back the fuck off while we do so? because thats what seems to be the way, with how things are going down.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I forgot that Pale Moon existed. How's development going on that these days? I see that it got an update a week ago.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Still going strong. If the community reports issues or incompatibility then it gets fixed quickly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

Looking forward to seeing the cope from the Mozilla fanboys for that one.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is this because some middle manager at Mozilla has to pretend to be productive?

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 87 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Where's the gofundme for the firefox fork project?

Was this from google turning off the funding tap?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›