As a Firefox user: if I want a VPN I'll use an actual VPN. Focus on making a great browser, and not all this distraction.

Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"

▲ Nathanba 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I'd love to have a free VPN directly integrated into the browser, it's not a distraction. It's a developer tool for website developers.

	▲	snarf_br 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's a distraction.

▲ nl 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"

This is such a un-nuanced take.

In this case Firefox's route-to-market is the product. It's a distribution channel where some people who receive the free version will upgrade.

Free tiers for products where some will pay to upgrade seems like a reasonable compromise, but it does depend on how the deal is structured.

If Mullvad pays Firefox for the free users then Firefox's incentives are aligned with its users.

If Mullvad pays per conversion then it's a different story.

▲

Springtime 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I doubt Mullvad would be doing this if they weren't getting compensated given they've always said (even right now[1]) they don't offer a free tier since they don't believe it makes sense.

The other aspect is I expect it would stain the IP pool further. VPN IPs often end up on various blacklists due to abuse and introducing a wave of free users would only make it worse for paying customers.

[1] https://mullvad.net/en/pricing

> Why no free plan? "Free" services nearly always come at some cost, whether that be the time you spend watching an intro ad, the collection of your data, or by limiting the functionality of the service. We don't operate that way – at all.

▲

pydry 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's already pretty bad for mullvad. 3/4 of the websites I visit do bot checks it used to just be a few.

	▲	ekianjo 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's true. Definitely getting worse.

▲

everdrive an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>This is such a un-nuanced take.

I agree in principle, but we interact with hundreds of companies per day. Which ones are honest and which ones are taking advantage of us? I really don't have the cycles to run it all down, and keep up with it over time. Perhaps Firefox VPN will be totally private initially and then violate privacy 2 years in? Would I ever know? Maybe? I need to err on the side of caution for a lot of these decisions because so many companies are bad actors. I'm sure I don't always err correctly, but I don't have better options.

▲

darkwater 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Firefox’s free VPN won’t be using Mullvad’s infra though; it’s hosted on Mozilla servers around the world (if beta testing of the feature done in late 2025 tracks)."

From OMG Ubuntu

▲

shevy-java an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> This is such a un-nuanced take.

It's still correct though. In this context Mozilla uses the firefox-users as their test and demo base. At the end is commercial benefit.

And I think the core criticism still applies. Mozilla gave up on the browser years ago, let's be honest. It may be interesting from a historic point of view to find out how, when and why, but meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on already, so ...

	▲	Angostura an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It’s not correct. ‘You are the product’ implies some aspect of you -your activity or data is being sold. In this case, you stent being sold. They are providing a limited free version and hoping you upgrade.

▲ piperswe 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mozilla only makes the integration between the browser and the VPN, not the VPN network itself - Mozilla VPN is white label Mullvad.

	▲	usr1106 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		According to https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/03/firefox-adding-a-free-vp... Mullvad might not be used for the free service. Whether that's correct or incorrect extrapolation we will see...
	▲	Dylan16807 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's an existing product that may or may not be related. Unless you know something the article doesn't?

▲ aurareturn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

  Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"

HN is "free" too. :)

	▲	aleph_minus_one 34 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> > Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" > HN is "free" too. :) Indeed: you deliver valuable information about market trends, market sentiments, technology, ... to SV startups and investors. Additionally, Hacker News is basically a marketing expense of YC.
	▲	mentalgear 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		At least free to data mine by everyone (as far as I know).
	▲	stephenr an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		that isn't the gotcha you think it is. Y combinator absolutely profits from encouraging group think and positive attitudes about things they're involved in. How else would you get a large part of the tech world to somehow believe that suckling on the teat of Venture capital until that elusive "exit" is the holy grail of business models?

▲ Krssst 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Browser integration means one does not need to enable the VPN system-wide as do most VPN applications. Useful if you want to switch region quickly without the OS and many apps now thinking you're in a different country and starting behaving as such.

▲ sunaookami 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you live in 2010? Whether you pay for a service or not is irrelevant to selling your data nowadays.

▲ crummy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"

This must apply to Firefox itself, right?

▲

chii 5 hours ago | parent [-]

of course it does.

Why do you think google buys the rights to firefox's search bar (as a default setting)?

▲

Angostura 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

And by extension, all users of FOSS must be the product, right?

	▲	fivetomidnight 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I see it more like a question than a rule. "The service is free. Am I the product?" That is a valid thing to ask. Even with FOSS sometimes. Some FOSS projects are backed by companies, then yes, plausible to ask. Otherwise, I would answer with a clear no. (Projects can still collect telemetry and other data and sell that, though the sell part should be very rare, imo...) Edit: Was that a bad faith argument or a honest question? Sometimes I can't tell, maybe because of old or ESL...
	▲	chii 16 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> all users of FOSS must be the product, right? i would default to this being the truth, until demonstrated otherwise. Call it cynical, but it's the cynical that survive.

▲

hvb2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's not remotely the same? A default setting that can easily be changed for a feature the vendor didn't have a solution for?

To give you an example. Try to use Google Search without sending your data to Google. You cannot use the product without it, you cannot opt out. Firefox, you can use just fine with Google not being your search engine.

	▲	chii 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Why isn't it the same? The fact that it is possible to change that default means google simply pays less for it than they otherwise would if it wasn't changeable. It's not a binary toggle - firefox is selling you as a source of revenue for themselves. They're just not making it as extreme as it is possible to be - in the hopes that you don't switch away. You can compare same situation with safari in iOS. Except google pays a lot more, since you cannot switch away in iOS as easily, and culturally there's more reluctance compared to firefox users. This makes google pay more for iOS traffic, as those users are worth more.
	▲	Incipient 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It isn't the same, but it's comparable. Google is paying Mozilla to be the default search engine. Google is only paying Mozilla because Firefox has users, regardless if they use the default search engine or not. So, indirectly everyone is the 'product'. I'm sure if 95% of people did swap to ddg, then google may change their mind. Also I believe there is the possibility Google also pays Mozilla to offer competition so Chrome isn't considered a monopoly (but maybe Edge has changed that to some extent?)

▲

echoangle 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don’t they buy the search bar to have another competitor and not get forced to give away chrome for antitrust reasons? I don’t think they care about the search bar THAT much, it’s basically a donation right?

▲

chii 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> for antitrust reasons?

well, a benefit is a benefit. It doesn't really matter how it manifests does it? It's not a donation, as it is not altruistic.

▲

echoangle 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But then I’m not the product? The government is basically forcing google to pay my browser developer, how does that make me the product it is bad for me?

	▲	chii 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are still "the product" even if google derives secondary benefits - because you are using firefox. Google doesn't pay the other forks of firefox money (at least, as far as i know). It's because you aren't using those browsers (you as in the royal you). I didn't say you being a product is bad - but it does not align customer with software company. You may be OK with being sold as a product to google, as this relationship currently isn't damaging. But what if a future offer which would damage you is taken by mozilla because it's profitable?

▲ gzread 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think a VPN is a great add-on for Firefox and way for Mozilla to monetize itself, but I'm surprised it's free. Perhaps it's a free trial like Proton?

	▲	freehorse 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Proton also has a free tier.

▲ kotaKat an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can we go back to making all this garbage, I don’t know, a browser extension or something?

All of this crap that everyone keeps pulling into their browsers needs to be ripped back out and made a plugin or an extension. Stop shoving it in the core damn browser. I didn’t need the waste of space and I’m never going to touch it.

▲

philipallstar an hour ago | parent [-]

Why would a VPN be a good browser extension?

▲

kotaKat 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

Why does the VPN need to be integrated into the browser itself?

	▲	philipallstar 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think it should. You think it should be a browser extension. I don't think it should either be integrated or a browser extension.

▲ noosphr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you the product for Firefox too?

VPNs are no longer optional for the current internet. This is as controversial as Firefox speaking ftp.

	▲	philipallstar an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Speaking ftp is a dev cost, not an ongoing infrastructure cost.
	▲	nhinck3 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes? I mean it's very provable that they sell access to your data and your eyeballs other companies.