A Comment on Mozilla's Policy Changes

https://www.waterfox.net/blog/a-comment-on-mozilla-changes/

by MrAlex94 • 1 year ago

140 112 1 year ago

Can anyone comment on the difference between Waterfox and Librewolf?

weikju• 1 year ago

I was going to comment that one of them (WaterFox) has a shady sponsor (System1, an advertising company) but it seems WaterFox has been an independent project again since 2023 [0]

[0] https://avoidthehack.com/review-waterfox-browser

MrAlex943• 1 year ago

While branding System1 an adtech company is correct, its bread and butter [at the time] was search aggregation and in effect contextual advertising (System1 didn't want to deal with PII). The ownership made a lot of sense, and of course having a view inside the company, I could see how everything worked.

It was impossible to get that point across, especially as S1 wanted to have the final say on what was said. A lot of heartache all across the board could've been saved by just being able to say things as a matter of fact.

But unfortunately people jump to conclusions, don't have good faith discussions and loved just get involved in internet drama.

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B3• 1 year ago

I never used Waterfox but Librewolf seems to have more stricts settings, whereas people describe Waterfox as being closer to Firefox.

Librewolf has sensible but annoying default settings that you have to change. For example, cookies are deleted when quitting, or you can't have night mode out of the box since it could be a privacy issue. IMHO it's a cleaner Firefox and I enjoy it so far.

replete2• 1 year ago

I contributed UX for a 'save cookies for this site' dropdown feature in the navbar, a poc was made which looked good, but it got lost in other work and eventually didn't land in a release that I'm aware of. Shame because that one feature would make it practical to use the recommended clear cookies behavior by default except for particular sites and overall boost everyone's privacy and security because I'm pretty sure most people turn it off after getting sick of logging in. After a couple of months I went back to Firefox and hardened it making it basically the same as LF but not being a month behind in updates. I guess I'll revisit the project now

spudlyo2• 1 year ago

I created a post[0] on /r/LibreWolf to discuss usability tweaks for new LibreWolf users who might not know all the ins and outs of the more strict settings.

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/comments/1j0ckr9/recent_f...

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B3• 1 year ago

Their last message says it all:

We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses

The text is confusing on purpose and mixes Firefox, the Mozilla Services (Sync maybe? That's it?), AI, and their new AD-platform (without mentioning the last two). And why are they talking about a license when it's a ToS? Everything is confusing about it, even their answers.

to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible

The very same thing they did for more than 20 year without such a ToS? Why now? I think it's about AI and ads but I'm sure they are smarter than me and will explain everything in precise details to clear up such a "big confusion."

we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox to perform your searches

That's a fucking lie of course. They did that last year without any issue. You can get the text from the search box (like mSearchBox->getText() in C++, wow I'm a Mozilla engineer), and put that in the URL of my favorite search engine as part of the query.

or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice

I don't care about the ownership, I want to know why, why now, and I want them to explain all the details that definitely do NOT appear in their Privacy Notice.

My conclusion is that they are moving away from Firefox for some reason, they pretended to fire the last CEO which keeps on working on the AI, and they want a lot of information like everyone else which is difficult when you're supposed to be the open-source knight of privacy.

But I'm only typing that because I am bitter and have already moved on. They fucked with us too many times, I don't care anymore even if the only alternative left was Links.

bee_rider2• 1 year ago

I hate it when companies say “there’s been some confusion about…”

There hasn’t been confusion. There’s almost never confusion. Making an announcement requires clear communication. If reasonable people are interpreting their communication in a way they didn’t intend, it isn’t confusion, they just miscommunicated at best.

thorw93040494• 1 year ago

》This situation reveals a recurring issue in how Mozilla communicates with its user base

Mozilla is very clear at its communication! They even got new leadership and rebranded recently! Their updated Privacy Policy is also very clear! Maybe they had not implement everything yet, but they are heading in clear direction. And real hammer will come in a few months, if they lose deal with Google!

At this point Mozilla is a toxic organization when it comes to privacy, something like Google with Chrome. Dismissing it as a "communication issue" is not sufficient! Waterfox needs clear separation from Mozilla!

transcriptase2• 1 year ago

Someone needs to write a book on the how and why Mozilla became whatever the hell it is now, and why they would drop the ball so hard on Firefox while jumping from one unsustainable idea nobody wants to another. Why is there no adult in the room to say no to the nonsense and direct resources towards the one thing people actually do want?

s_dev2• 1 year ago

Getting rid of Brendan Eich was a bad idea in hindsight. Yes he supported Prop 8 and people didn't like his political views but given the current US climate that seems all very tame in comparison and I'm not sure exactly how that conflicts with running a Web Browser development agency.

edent2• 1 year ago

Seán, how do you feel about the sign "No Irish Need Apply"? Would you be happy working for a company where the boss pays campaigners who want to discriminate against you?

If not, you can perhaps see why people didn't want Eich's bigotry around their project.

spacebanana7• 1 year ago

Lots of companies have political silliness going on inside them but are still able to produce good products. For example - the CCP stuff at Bytedance, the Cheobol stuff at Samsung and the various stuff at Google.

n4r92• 1 year ago

It's always a difficult situation. Employees want leaders that represent their values and are halfway competent at being data-driven. I don't know much about his political views or whether internally there was anything other than the Prop 8 stuff going around. However some of his later comments regarding COVID suggest biases in basic interpretation of data.

st3fan2• 1 year ago

Under Eich Mozilla mostly abandoned Firefox development to focus on his big bet that failed: Firefox OS. It took Mozilla many years to recover from that technically after it finally killed FirefoxOS.

It was a good bet. But it did not work out. No leader is infallible.

saidinesh52• 1 year ago

I think that's a symptom and not the cause of the current situation.

Without getting into the politics of Eich's firing, It simply looked like people there just didn't care about the browser there anymore.

If they did, the people who were vocal enough to get a CEO fired would obviously have raised a voice against the dropping marketshare (aka their own bottomline), money squandered on various non browser projects (pocket), all these PR nightmares (mr robot, recent layoffs ) etc ...

Needless to say when i say people, i mean at least the vocal ones in power and obviously not everyone.

deng2• 1 year ago

Getting rid of Brendan Eich was a bad idea in hindsight.

You mean the guy who then did the Brave browser, which inserted referral codes and installed VPN services without users' consent, and wants you to earn monopoly money for watching ads? Yeah, he surely would've been the savior of Firefox.

st3fan2• 1 year ago

Angry crowd: “Mozilla should do things to diverse revenue!”

Also angry crowd: “No! No! Not that thing! How dare you explore alternative revenue streams! You are Mozilla, just pick and the execute a successful 100 million dollar idea!”

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B3• 1 year ago

Angry crowd all over my tech bubble: "Mozilla should make a subscription that directly funds the development of Firefox, and not the salary of the CEO that does nothing."

Also angry crowd: "No, not ads or AI, it's stupid."

What was your point anyway?

parasti• 1 year ago

Nobody in the crowd ever said the first thing.

meindnoch• 1 year ago

Angry crowd: focus on your browser!

Mozilla: what? acquire a bookmarking service?

Angry crowd: no! develop your browser!

Mozilla: ok, got it! I'll make a VPN service!

Angry crowd: WORK ON YOUR FUCKING BROWSER

Mozilla: AI? Did I hear AI from someone over there?

glenstein4• 1 year ago

Asking people what did "Mozilla do wrong?" is kind of like asking "How do I get to Shell Beach" in the movie Dark City, with similar results.

People say "all the stuff going on with Mozilla" like there's a list of real things that really happened when it's upwards of 90% smoke and vibes. And this is coming from someone who thinks the recent subtraction of language about not selling your data actually was a bad move and rather damning.

But it's a real thing in a long line of nothingburgers, and it's amazing once the comment gets to the part where it's supposed to make a specific charge and instead it's just "all the things going on".

a_imho• 1 year ago

At this point I find it very hard to chalk it up to mere incompetence.

Macha2• 1 year ago

I do wonder how much of it was really in their control.

Firefox had its rise when Microsoft had basically slowed IE development to a crawl, which allowed them to build a lead of how much better they were than IE that no browser developer would be dumb enough to allow to reoccur. Tabs, Adblock, Firebug, performance for youtube and google maps that wasn't appalling at a time when these apps were themselves new and exciting.

Like you could show a normal person who was using IE6 tabs and adblock, and that's a clear use case to switch browsers. The only feature anywhere near that compelling in the recent or not-so-recent past is sync, which is why every browser manufacturer has their own version of it. And sync still isn't tabs or adblock.

And they had a clear revenue model with Google (and not yet irrelevant competitors) paying for search and not yet starting to squeeze them. I'm sure that revenue model was partly undermined when they moved to yahoo in the US and everyone just went and switched back to Google, which caused Google to question how valuable that really was.

At the same time, Google developed Chrome because it let them push features that were useful for their revenue generating products. And google pushed hard. Some of its early market share was to wooing us with performance and tab isolation, for sure. But a lot of it was bundling with new laptops, flash player, anti-virus programs etc. to automatically set it as the default for non-tech users who may not recognise what a browser is really.

And I mean, even the tech influencer effect was weakened a bit by the fact that your hypothetical grandma recognised the name Google, unlike Mozilla or Firefox, even if she had been actively using Firefox on her last laptop.

One of the big misses from Firefox was being so late to Android. They couldn't have Firefox on iOS, and it took ages for government regulation to meaningfully change that, but they could have been on Android much sooner, and used some of their desktop network effects and sync to build market share, but instead they left it so late and missed the mobile market such that their poor mobile market share turned browser sync into something that harmed their desktop market share, as people wanted a desktop browser to sync their mobile Chrome tabs etc.

Firefox's headcount (and the pace of web platform development) had ballooned over this period, and this was fine when the Google money was still a given, but now that's looked to be decreasing or entirely at risk, Mozilla has needed to make Firefox pay for Firefox (unlike Chrome, which doesn't really need to pay for Chrome as long as it's a channel for Google's revenue generating products). This has put them in pretty direct conflict with their users, as ways to monetise the browser goes against a lot of why their remaining users are their users to begin with.

thewebguyd• 1 year ago

And I mean, even the tech influencer effect was weakened a bit by the fact that your hypothetical grandma recognised the name Google, unlike Mozilla or Firefox, even if she had been actively using Firefox on her last laptop.

The tech influencer effect also switched to pushing Chrome at the time, especially outside of Linux/FLOSS communities.

Chrome was released back when Google was still viewed favorably. People were high on gmail, google docs, and they still had "don't be evil." It took pretty much no time at all to start seeing Chrome everywhere Firefox used to be.

So yeah, I agree with you - no doubt some of it is Mozilla's doing, but I think more or less it was out of their control and I think "we" (the tech crowd) are just as much at fault for Chrome's dominance and the downfall of Firefox. It only took 5 years from release for Chrome to surpass Firefox, and the tech crowd were very much the early adopters and drivers of that.

bee_rider2• 1 year ago

Yeah, Firefox made a lot of sense when the problem was Microsoft’s incompetence and inability to make any real progress or support standards.

In the modern era, Google is the opposite problem. They DDoS the community by developing standards fast enough that nobody can keep up with them. Actually, it seems impossible to compete with them on their turf. We need an alternative that somehow avoids that competition.

Unfortunately Google is quite good, they managed to embrace-extend the whole internet. Not sure what the options are. Somewhere a filter needs to be applied to reject more proposals.

seba_dos12• 1 year ago

One of the big misses from Firefox was being so late to Android.

Was 2011 "so late"? It was already there when Android 4 came out, still before Android gained a really significant market share (15%, same as Blackberry and half as much as Symbian at the time). Two years before that there were versions for Maemo too (which was much easier to port to), and Android versions used the same codebase at the time.

AyyEye• 1 year ago

Not so much a 'why' but it does have a good history of the user-hostile moves Mozilla has made. https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml

maleldil• 1 year ago

Not every "user-hostile" change listed was a net negative for users. For example, the page strongly opposes XUL deprecation, but that was a necessary change for e10s, which benefitted users in both performance and security.

Anthony-G• 1 year ago

Thanks for that.

Off-topic; it’s great to see a good old-fashioned XHTML web page – with a Strict doctype to boot! I remember hand-crafting websites using XHTML (at first Transitional, then Strict) using Server Side Includes as the only backend technology and being proud at how semantic and human-readable the source code was. The markup on this page is elegant, clear and readable while the rendered XHTML is both accessible and responsive.

renewiltord• 1 year ago

It’s a bit obvious. Happens to everyone with an achievable goal. They set out to create an open source web browser and web standards and now every browser is OSS and the web is on standards. Now they have no reason to exist and so the org is trying to sustain itself while finding another purpose.

fazeirony• 1 year ago

not just drop the ball, but willfully kick it to the other goal

terom2• 1 year ago

Wait, Mozilla is banning the use of their Firefox browser for porn? That's going to hurt adoption.

What's with the mixup of their browser and services policies?

[1] Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations.

[2] You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to:

* Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence,

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you... [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/

ziddoap2• 1 year ago

That, or some variant of that, has been there for ages.

2018: https://web.archive.org/web/20181223004526/http://www.mozill...

Wording was slightly different earlier than that, e.g. 2015:

"Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that:

[...]

Is inappropriate such as obscene or pornographic materials, graphic depictions of sexuality or violence, or images that exploit or harm children"

https://web.archive.org/web/20150331013034/https://www.mozil...

terom2• 1 year ago

Yeah, and that makes sense in the context of an acceptable use policy for Mozilla services that are not your use of the Firefox browser.

But the same AUP for the services is now explicitly referenced in the TOS for the browser. How are you supposed to read it - the AUP only applies to your use of the browser to access the services? Isn't that already implicit if you're using the services? Surely it can't be attempting to apply the services AUP to any non-service use of the browser?

Very confusing, it seems badly written to me.

Same thing with the "Some Services in Firefox Require a Mozilla Account" and then the "Termination" with a notification to the (optional) account. Somewhat disconcerting.

[1] Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. If we decide to suspend or end your access, we will try to notify you at the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#moz...

MaxBarraclough2• 1 year ago

That strikes me as very odd. How does that gel with Firefox being Free and Open Source software?

Firefox is released under the Mozilla Public Licence 2.0, a Free and Open Source licence approved by both the FSF and the OSI. Both those organisations require that in order to be approved, a licence must not forbid any particular kind of use. The FSF calls this Freedom 0, The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose, and the OSI calls it Criterion 6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. [0][1]

Is Mozilla's position that Firefox is actually subject to the union of the MPL2.0 and their other terms? If so, that disqualifies it as Free and Open Source software according to the usual definitions.

edit I see I'm not the first to point this out on HN. [2]

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms

[1] https://opensource.org/osd

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43205721

LegionMammal978• 1 year ago

From the Firefox Terms of Use: "These Terms only apply to the Executable Code version of Firefox, not the Firefox source code."

From the MPL 2.0 text: "If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then: [...] You may distribute such Executable Form under the terms of this License, or sublicense it under different terms, provided that the license for the Executable Form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients’ rights in the Source Code Form under this License."

If you compile Firefox yourself, you can do whatever you want with it, subject to the MPL's terms. You can even put your own Terms of Use on your own executable copy. Though if you do this, Mozilla may demand that you rename it so that it doesn't use their trademarks (see: the whole Iceweasel story).

logicallee• 1 year ago

Mozilla is banning the use of their Firefox browser for porn? That's going to hurt adoption.

If you'd like an alternative, the State of Utopia[1] could eventually finish building one.

Our browser does not currently have any usage terms (we are still writing our code of laws so it is too early to have terms and conditions), you can use it to browse whatever you want right now, but it barely works:

https://taonexus.com/publicfiles/feb2025/84toy-toy-browser-w...

(Read it, install the required libraries and run it with Python.)

The browser can access URL's and can load and display images. It currently doesn't include all of html, css, and JavaScript because that is too difficult for AI to do.

If there is interest we will continue to use state resources to create our state-run browser. It doesn't collect any analytics of any kind.

You might want to see some proof that State of Utopia will actually be able to make useful things for you:

- A complete free implementation of chess, it is fun for people and has no analytics or ads:

https://taonexus.com/chess.html

- a fun version that shows blunders, so you can practice not making serious mistakes:

https://taonexus.com/blunderfreechess.html

- an alternative rendering of it, with heatmaps on the squares:

https://taonexus.com/blunderfreechess2.html

- infrastructure:

here is a Skype/Zoom replacement that is free, peer-to-peer, has no analytics or terms of use, and supports video, audio, and chat via WebRTC. It is the Utopian communications infrastructure at the moment:

http://taonexus.com/p2p-voice-video-chat.html

If you want us to continue to put resources into a working browser, we believe that html, css, and javascript are very well-defined and AI will be able to autonomously make a complete state-run browser eventually.

At the moment the State of Utopia owns $221/month in AI and $180/month in compute. We are exploring the possibility of letting people get to Utopia faster by donating computing resources, but so far the feedback has been mixed. People would like to get free stuff without contributing anything themselves. This is fine, the State of Utopia will still happen, but since the State owns such little infrastructure at present, it will be a bit slower than if people contribute their GPU's.

Let us know if you are interested in the State completing our browser, and if so, we will put additional resources into it.

[1] a sovereign state where AI controls everything and owns state-run companies, giving out free money, goods and services to citizens/beneficiaries. It will be available at: https://stateofutopia.com or https://stofut.com when ready. Citizenship is free (compare Form N-400 to become a U.S. citizen which costs $640 plus an $85 biometric services fee, totaling $725). The difference between a company and a country is that companies exist to maximize the value of their shareholders whereas countries exist to maximize the welfare of their citizens.

lamename• 1 year ago

Whats the best casual (non Tor) browser these days? Brave? Opera?

kennysoona4• 1 year ago

Librewolf or Ungoogled Chromium with uBlock.

PrayagS• 1 year ago

Ungoogled Chromium removes those pesky manifestv3 changes as well? The ones which make uBlock basically non-functional.

kome• 1 year ago

Firefox, Vivaldi

0xbadcafebee4• 1 year ago

Firefox of course. It has the most add-ons, most compatibility/support with other sites, services, software. And it has fewer bugs than newer browsers. If you just want a general purpose browser, Firefox is it. Chrome is always an option too, and they certainly have some useful extra features, but they'll also remove support for things if it conflicts with Daddy Alphabet.

kennysoona4• 1 year ago

Man, Waterfox huh. I used to use that, but knowing it's owned by a marketing company and seeing development kind of lack behind Librewolf, there didn't seem to be much reason to use it anymore. However, being able to open a new private or tor tab in the same window as a normal tab is pretty nice.

MrAlex943• 1 year ago

Waterfox is independent again. Also some comments on System1: https://phanpy.social/#/mastodon.social/s/114080867102764721

kennysoona4• 1 year ago

Waterfox is independent again.

Oh, nice! I might check it out again at some point.

Also, are you the author per chance? If so, really nice work!

krunck• 1 year ago

https://www.waterfox.net/blog/a-new-chapter-for-waterfox/

spudlyo2• 1 year ago

Does the stink of association every truly wear off though?

debacle2• 1 year ago

Mozilla acts like a corporation and not a non-profit. There is no humility or grace in their communication.

kibwen6• 1 year ago

Mozilla is both a non-profit foundation and also a corporation. You aren't legally allowed to use charitable donations to fund web browser development, so the corporation has to handle that.

inetknght2• 1 year ago

You aren't legally allowed to use charitable donations to fund web browser development, so the corporation has to handle that.

If the charity is a non-profit specifically for development of a non-profit web browser, what's the problem?

triceratops• 1 year ago

You aren't legally allowed to use charitable donations to fund web browser development

Why not?

CrossVR2• 1 year ago

A non-profit foundation is allowed to earn revenue from a product. It just can't transfer that revenue to the owners of the foundation or spend it on dividends.

CrossVR2• 1 year ago

I think it goes further than just bad communication though. This policy is the typical cover-your-ass method of giving yourself as broad of a license to user data as legally possible.

An organization like Mozilla should take a stance and do the opposite by making their policy as narrow as possible.

This costs more in legal costs, but for an organization that defines itself as a champion of user privacy and control this should be the natural choice.

pluto_modadic• 1 year ago

Yeah they act like everything they make will be praised, or that people who criticize them can never be pleased. Be ethical.

0xbadcafebee4• 1 year ago

People who have never worked for a non-profit always think they're better. People who have worked for a non-profit know they're just as dysfunctional as corporations.

debacle2• 1 year ago

What about someone who consults for non-profits and runs one himself?

rererereferred• 1 year ago

Browsers without formal governance may offer appealing features or privacy claims, but users have little recourse if those promises are broken. There’s no entity to hold accountable, no legal framework within which to address grievances, and often no transparency about decision-making processes.

Do we get any of those with Mozilla? They can change their ToC whenever they want and keep adding things that users don't want. I don't think they are much better than a random developer building their own fork.

gortok• 1 year ago

While waterfax highlights a problematic section of Mozilla's change:

UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice. (Emphasis mine)

And they mention that we need to see the context behind this change -- but what they don't to -- is point out that the update clarification makes the whole situation even more problematic than it was previously.

The private notice indicates they use data to:

1. To provide and improve search functionality 2. To serve relevant content and advertising on Firefox New Tab 3. To provide Mozilla accounts 4. To provide AI Chatbots 5. To provide Review Checker, including serving sponsored content 6. To provide and enable add-ons (addons.mozilla.org) 7. To maintain and improve features, performance and stability 8. To improve security 9. To understand usage of Firefox 10. To market our services 11. To pseudonymize, de-identify, aggregate or anonymize data 12. To communicate with you 13. To comply with applicable laws, and identify and prevent harmful, unauthorized or illegal activity

1,2,4,5,10 are problematic. We don't want those things. Mozilla wants those things. The problem isn't the lack of context behind the changes, the problem is Mozilla wants to be able to use our 'input' data for whatever they want, and I don't want them to.

They said they're the privacy focused browser; and they're not. That's a lie. I moved from Chrome to Firefox precisely because I couldn't trust Google. Now I can't trust Firefox.

throw_a_grenade• 1 year ago

13 is no less problematic, because there's no explantion who decides what activity is authorized and harmless.

It was supposed to be User's Agent, dammit.

jdoe20252• 1 year ago

The correct word for all of the recent changes is a result of the fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what constitutes acceptable use is censorship.

In the United States of America, freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution. That means you can use language or show content that I may find offensive. I may do the same for you. My choice is whether or not I wish to view it or permit my non-adult children to view it. This is not the vendor's prerogative; it is my responsibility as a parent.

Mozilla's "terms and conditions" mean that fear has taken hold.

Freedom is hard. Allowing a vendor to restrict use that infringes on a basic right is unacceptable. In the final analysis, their terms of use are probably unenforceable. Think about it. What are they going to do? Stop me and everyone else from sharing cute baby pictures? Ones in our grandparents' scrapbooks?

tempodox2• 1 year ago

The Constitution only protects you from the government, it doesn't bind individuals or companies. The government cannot make laws that take away your freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean other people or companies are legally obligated to let you say whatever you want on their turf.

halJordan• 1 year ago

It does though. I get where you're coming from but thats a naive interpretation of a partial set of facts.

Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr does establish that free speech protection can be used against other private citizens

jdoe20252• 1 year ago

Yes, but a browser is like a wirephoto. The recipient gets an exact copy of the original -- not retouched. Spelling errors, bad grammar, "warts and all."

The browser is supposed to be transparent -- what you send is what I see. How I react is up to me. It is not up to the intervening service to add or remove content.

This is what the internet was intended to be.

koolala2• 1 year ago

Does Waterfox sell your data like Firefox?

I hate the Mozilla 'clarification' because they gave no example. The only information I type into Firefox is using websites. Them being 100% vague makes it feel even worse.

bluGill• 1 year ago

They sell only the data you use via their search partners. If you go direct to the search website they don't sell that data.

koolala2• 1 year ago

How is that not phishing? They made the URL bar a search bar so they can steal and sell everyone's Google search history?

8bitsrule• 1 year ago

FF users might want to take look at KDE's Falkon. It's come a long way - fast and solid.

can be installed on Windows 7 or newer as well as Linux from the repositories, as a flatpak and as a snap. https://userbase.kde.org/Falkon

A Comment on Mozilla's Policy Changes

Related Stories