firefox, rant at fedi
dear fedi
no, mozilla isn't selling user data now: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
and no they're not fucking banning you from using firefox to watch porn either. i don't even know where you're getting that from, and why it would extend to Firefox The Browser
mozilla provides more than just the application itself yknow, and every company in the world has terms of use for online services, because we live in a world where legal systems exist and kinda want service providers to have such things
and if you're gonna keep getting up in arms about Oh No A Legal Document then please at least CW your post
my god
re: firefox, rant at fedi
@deneb That article literally describes how they *are* in fact selling data, except they argue that it isn't "really" selling data (which it is).
As for the "watching porn" thing, that is entirely Mozilla's own fault; the Firefox ToS specifically says that the service AUP applies to its usage, and the AUP has that clause in it. It's badly written, and the interpretation of fedi creatures is actually correct here.
re: firefox, rant at fedi
@joepie91
my initial post was motivated by frustration about the constant stream of what i can only call hysteria on my feed
i'm gonna agree with you on two things: the initial wording about AUP in the firefox ToU was bad and i might've read that the same way, and yeah it does kinda suck that they engage in this business of selling any kind of data, anonymised or not
but
AUP: mozilla said that "your use of firefox must follow mozilla's AUP", and the AUP says "you may not use any of mozilla's services to ..." — aka. "you may not use firefox to abuse mozilla's services". the crucial thing is, firefox is an application, not a service
(anyways, they've since removed the reference to the AUP, and it was always a redundant inclusion)
user data: whether you count anonymised technical information as "user data" is a matter of personal opinion, i suppose. my point with sharing the blog post was though, removing the old blanket statement does not in itself change anything, and they have valid reasons for removing it, however bad that looks
re: firefox, rant at fedi
"aka. "you may not use firefox to abuse mozilla's services"."
It's not at all clear that that's what it means; "the AUP" could just as easily be interpreted to mean "the bulletpoint list", which then applies to Mozilla services *and* things that explicitly say the AUP is to be followed (ie. the browser). This is in fact the common interpretation of AUPs that I've seen in other places.
"my point was though, removing the old blanket statement does not in itself change anything, and they have valid reasons for removing it, however bad that looks"
The point is that a lot of people do not feel that those are 'valid reasons' at all (because the reasons are 'we want to be able to sell data'), and that is precisely why people are getting upset about this. That, and Mozilla reneging on their supposed forever-promise of not selling data, and what that implies about its future, *in the context of all the other stuff*, like them acquiring an advertising company.
This was never just about a ToS change. It's about the trajectory that Mozilla has been on for the past years, and the full picture of how it has been changing. The ToS change just made it explicit. Arguing that people didn't understand the ToS changes 100% correctly, even regardless of whether that is the case, completely misses the point of the complaint.
re: firefox, rant at fedi
@deneb (The specific way in which all these things connect together isn't outlined in every post about it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still hold true, and also this isn't a court and some vagueness should be expected)