this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
1310 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

68496 readers
3709 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
 

Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users' personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn't fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users' personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:

Does Firefox sell your personal data?

Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That's a promise.

That promise is removed from the current version. There's also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, "Mozilla doesn't sell data about you, and we don't buy data about you."

The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define "sale" in a very broad way:

Mozilla doesn't sell data about you (in the way that most people think about "selling data"), and we don't buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of "sale of data" is extremely broad in some places, we've had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

Mozilla didn't say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.

(page 7) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (16 children)

Oh for fuck's sake! List of Firefox alternatives:

Windows/Linux/MacOS:

Android:

iOS: ??

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I read somewhere that Librewolf is not recommended because they are a small team and slow to patch vulnerabilities / integrate security fixes from Firefox.

Is it true? (Sincere question)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Too new to recommend, IMO.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

There’s also Servo by the Linux Foundation and Ladybird.

These are actual different browsers and engines all together compared to FF spin-offs.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

I'm excited for these to mature but they are still developing and would not recommend them for regular use

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

I'm still super waiting for Lady Bird. I cannot wait to give it a try, but it's gonna be like 2026 before they start rolling out builds for general use.

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

Isn't Librewolf tied to Firefox' TOS?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm checking right now, but it's kind of unclear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Librewolf picks and chooses what to use from Firefox, yeah?

I'm also looking into the TOR browser.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

All the forks pick and choose but features can be enabled or disabled, or removed entirely. Telemetry is always removed, whereas DRM or cookie settings can be turned off by default.

If you want some kind of Tor browser without all the Tor thing, Mullvad has its fork too from Tor (like the fixed display as a rectangle to prevent fingerprinting).

It’s free and open-source but it’s probably a bit annoying to use daily and it’s barebones: https://mullvad.net/en/browser

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The thing about open-source software is that if you fork the software, then your fork can have its own rules.

You can even make the fork of the software fully closed source except for the open source software that you used to originally develop it.

You can sell open source software as if it were proprietary.

You can basically do anything you want with it as long as you respect the original source from the code that you have taken.

Once the software is no longer in Mozilla's hands, then Mozilla's portion of the license no longer applies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

That's what I thought, but there are many people in this very thread saying the opposite. From what I read on Librewolf's site, it seems to back up what you are saying.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

You can always install a ~~fork~~ different browser

https://mullvad.net/en/browser

~~librewolf.net~~

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

I have been advised it's not a fork but a reconfig of default firefox, therefore it would technically be subject to the same ToS.

Edit: here's where I got that (with a link to the cfg) https://lemmy.world/comment/15368938

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Depending on how the requirement to accept the ToS is implemented, a config file might be able to disable it and any features that depend on it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression it didn't call out to mozilla servers if you didn't enable sync.

I guess Mullvad would be the next popular browser yeah?

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

afaict Mullvad browser doesn't support plugins which - it does some adblock by default (more ifyou have the VPN) and so on but i gots to have my DarkViewer so it's a sometimes browser for me atm.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It does work with Firefox plugins, there just isn't a button to open the extension "store" in the extensions settings page like stock Firefox has. You can add them by manually going to the url though, it's just recommended that you don't since that increases your risk of adding a malicious plugin or being fingerprinted, etc. I still added a few plugins that I really dislike not having though, like a password manager and darkreader, just because I valued the convenience slightly more than the added security.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Nice, thanks!

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 260 points 1 month ago (18 children)

I see it said agian and agian. because its true. Firefox is one of, if not the best of the mainstream browsers. (Not included its many forks) but Mozilla is a horrible caretaker of it. Mozilla does not focus on firefox and they dont care/believe in it nearly as much as its users or devs who fork it.

The motivations of a company are extremely important, and has Mozilla does not care for a lightweight, good, privacy centric browser, the enshitification will and has corrupt firefox.

It's only a matter of time until it is as bad as chromium or flat out joins it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I don't know why they haven't floated the idea of some kind of subscription or one-time payment (though a subscription might be just as infuriating). I'm not above paying for software and if it was a reasonable price, say $10 one-time, I'd much prefer that over it becoming the new Chrome.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Considering how critical a browser is these days.

I'm surprised there isn't a very popular Open-Source one that everyone is using.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Ive seen a few foss options but they generally lack certain features alot of people have gotten used to either because they cant implement them or it was committed for privacy/resource reasons.

So it becomes a balance of features vs privacy and right now fire fox has been a good enough balance there hasn't been enough backing for a "good" feature rich foss that less computer adept users can easily install and migrate to.

[–] [email protected] 141 points 1 month ago (7 children)

It's because it's hard to maintain a browser. There's lots of protocols and engines and other moving pieces; I remember when web pages would render in Netscape but not Internet Explorer, for example.

We take for granted how seamless and ubiquitous the internet is, but there were lots of headaches as internet devs decided to adopt or include different users (or not).

And now, it would take a lot of effort and market upset to convince the capitalist overlords to include something new in their dev stack. The barrier to entry is monumentally high, so most people don't bother to try inventing something better.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›