27
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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 An archived version from January 30 says: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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] ShadowRam@fedia.io 0 points 2 months ago

Considering how critical a browser is these days.

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

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 0 points 2 months ago
[-] 4am@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

Wasn’t there some stuff about the ladybird devs not too long ago?

I just hope that project doesn’t end up being the Voat or Parler of browsers.

[-] UnculturedSwine@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

It's a browser, not a platform. Having a bunch of groypers use it doesn't ruin the experience for everyone else so long as it retains good privacy features.

[-] emogu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

While I agree with this sentiment on the surface, using a privacy focused application that was built by folks who yield to cops as part of their identity doesn’t inspire long term viability in that space.

It’s the same reason I moved away from Proton when their CEO told us all where his values lie. It’s not outright backtracking on privacy promises but with so many comparable alternatives in this space, why chance it with the bootlickers?

[-] Engywuck@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago

Chromium is bad only in your head. It's a fucking rendering engine with different incarnations. How can this be bad? And no, FF is not "the best", otherwise it wouldn't have the shitty market share it actually has.

[-] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 months ago

Ah silly us.

We spent a decade hating on IE, it’s slowness, poor support for any standards, plugins that fuck your shit up, etc.

But it was obviously the best because it had that huge market share.

[-] Engywuck@lemm.ee -2 points 2 months ago

It's even worse. You spent several years worshipping a misguided Corp. making a mediocre browser fir laughable reasons and you have been f*cked in the end.

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago
[-] Engywuck@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago

I don't know what is that.

this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
27 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

69451 readers
2330 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