| ▲ | AuthAuth 6 days ago |
| All your complaints can be resolved in a few seconds by using the settings to customize the browser to your liking and not downloading extensions you dont like. And tons of people asked for that sidebar by the way. We have to put this all in the context. Firefox is trying to diversify their revenue away from google search. They are trying to provide users with a Modern browser. This means adding the features that people expect like AI integration and its a nice bonus if the AI companies are willing to pay for that. |
|
| ▲ | monegator 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > All your complaints can be resolved in a few seconds by using the settings to customize the browser to your liking and not downloading extensions you dont like until you can't. Because the option foes from being an entry in the GUI to something in about:config, then is removed from about:config and you have to manually add it and then is removed completely. It's just a matter of time, but i bet that soon we'll se on nightly that browser.ml.enable = false and company do nothing |
| |
| ▲ | RunSet 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Firefox has made it so difficult to install and get Tree Style Tabs to work that it feels deliberate. |
|
|
| ▲ | move-on-by 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For me, the complaint isn’t the AI itself, but the updated privacy policy that was rolled out prior to the AI features. Regardless of me using the AI features or not, I must agree to their updated privacy policy. According to the privacy policy changes, they are selling data (per the legal definition of selling data) to data partners.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-... |
| |
| ▲ | hannasanarion 6 days ago | parent [-] | | This is an absurd take. The meaning of "selling" is extremely broad, courts have found such language to apply to transactions as simple as providing an http request in exchange for an http response. Their lawyers must have been begging them to remove that language for the liability it represents. For all purposes actually relevant to privacy, the updated language is more specific and just as strong. | | |
| ▲ | oneeyedpigeon 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If they were only selling data in such an 'innocent' way, couldn't they clearly state that, in addition to whatever legalese they're required to provide? | | |
| ▲ | hannasanarion 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That's literally exactly what they do. This is why you should consider reading beyond headlines from time to time. > 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. > (from the attached FAQ) 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). |
| |
| ▲ | move-on-by 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The courts have found providing an http request in exchange for an http response- where both the request and response contains valuable data, is selling data? Well that’s interesting because I too consider it selling of data. I’m glad the courts and I can agree on something so simple and obvious. | |
| ▲ | immibis 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > courts have found [that "selling" means] providing an http request in exchange for an http response No they fucking haven't. Provide evidence for this. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | koolala 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Pay for what? It says it's a local AI model so how will AI companies be giving Firefox revenue from this? |
| |
|
| ▲ | lioeters 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Firefox is trying to diversify their revenue Nobody wants a browser that's focused on diversifying its revenue, especially from Mozilla which pretends to be a non-profit "free software community". Chrome is paid for by ads and privacy violations, and now Firefox is paid for by "AI" companies? That is a sad state of affairs. Ungoogled Chromium and Waterfox are at best a temporary measure. Perhaps the EU or one of the U.S. billionaires would be willing to fund a truly free (as in libre) browser engine that serves the public interest. |
| |
| ▲ | AuthAuth 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Mozilla the browser doesnt pretend to be a non profit. Mozilla corporation which runs the browser is a for profit company they do not solict donations and NEED to make money to survive. Its just that Mozilla corporation is owned by Mozilla foundation which is a non profit. >Nobody wants a browser that's focused on diversifying its revenue
I want a browser that has a sustainable business model so it wont collapse some time in the future. That means diversifying its revenue stream away from google's search contract. | | |
| ▲ | account42 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Mozilla corp exists only to serve the foundation which owns the Firefox browser. That's the theory and associated legal fiction of course. Reality differs, but that is exactly what gp is complaining about. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | account42 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's amazing how hard it is for some people to understand that most users don't want to spend seconds (year right, it may be seconds it you already know what options you need and what they are) after every update to "customize" their software to work as well as it did before the update. |
