Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

2025-02-2617:313291149blog.mozilla.org

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 t

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.

We’re introducing a Terms of Use for Firefox for the first time, along with an updated Privacy Notice

Why now? Although we’ve historically relied on our open source license for Firefox and public commitments to you, we are building in a much different technology landscape today. We want to make these commitments abundantly clear and accessible. 

While for most companies these are pretty standard legal documents, at Mozilla we look at things differently. We lay out our principles in our Manifesto:

  • Your security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. 
  • You deserve the ability to shape the internet and your own experiences on it — including how your data is used. 
  • We believe that practicing transparency creates accountability and trust.

Firefox will always continue to add new features, improve existing ones, and test new ideas. We remain dedicated to making Firefox open source, but we believe that doing so along with an official Terms of Use will give you more transparency over your rights and permissions as you use Firefox. And actually asking you to acknowledge it is an important step, so we’re making it a part of the standard product experience starting in early March for new users and later this year for existing ones.

In addition to the Terms of Use, we are providing a more detailed explanation of our data practices in our updated Privacy Notice. We tried to make these easy to read and understand — there shouldn’t be any surprises in how we operate or how our product works.

We have always prioritized user privacy and will continue to do so. We use data to make Firefox functional and sustainable, improve your experience, and keep you safe. Some optional Firefox features or services may require us to collect additional data to make them work, and when they do, your privacy remains our priority. We intend to be clear about what data we collect and how we use it. 

Finally, you are in control. We’ve set responsible defaults that you can review during onboarding or adjust in your settings at any time: These simple, yet powerful tools let you manage your data the way you want.

You deserve that choice, and we hope all technology companies will start to provide it. It’s standard operating procedure for us.

Get the browser that protects what’s important

Read the original article

Comments

  • By dang 2025-03-015:40

    Related ongoing thread:

    An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 - Feb 2025 (119 comments)

  • By userbinator 2025-02-281:4219 reply

    The other WTF is here:

    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.

    Acceptable Use Policy links to https://www.mozilla.org/about/legal/acceptable-use/ which says "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"

    It's against the Terms of Use to use Firefox to... watch porn?

    Either their legal team made a mistake, in which case they should correct it and issue an apology ASAP, or they really do intend to own you, in which case I recommend switching to an alternative browser which is only a browser, like Dillo, Ladybird, or Netsurf.

    • By jcranmer 2025-02-281:4513 reply

      > It's against the Terms of Use to use Firefox to... watch porn?

      Firefox isn't a Mozilla service. The Mozilla services are things like account sync, or the review tool they use.

      • By wongarsu 2025-02-281:571 reply

        So only bookmarks of porn sites if you have Sync active, sending porn tabs to a Firefox instance on another device, browsing porn while on the Mozilla VPN, or using Firefox Relay to sign up to a porn website with an anonymous email address

        Fine by me since I don't use a Mozilla account, but sounds to me like I shouldn't get a Mozilla account either

        • By altairprime 2025-02-282:566 reply

          Bookmarks and tab URLs don’t contain porn, generally? References are not typically considered explicit, though certainly their language isn’t clear enough about that.

          If you bookmark a collection of data: / blob: links then that would be the outlier scenario where you shouldn’t use any third-party server-involved bookmark syncing service, as presumably they’ll all either break or ban you once they find you using their bookmark table space for data storage.

          Good point about Relay.

          • By caturopath 2025-02-283:34

            It seems like they might be "use[d]...to...[u]pload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality"

          • By wongarsu 2025-02-283:32

            Bookmarks and tabs hinge on how you interpret "grant access". Do URLs to publicly available websites grant you access, or does the phrase only apply to cookies, passwords, login-urls, etc.? I'm pretty certain it would apply to login-urls, email-confirmation emails, password-reset emails, etc, but for normal URLs I could see it either way

          • By Swizec 2025-02-283:492 reply

            > Bookmarks and tab URLs don’t contain porn, generally?

            Do URL stubs of porn titles count as explicitly sexual? They can get pretty raunchy

            • By altairprime 2025-02-2819:07

              I think this is the most damning point: their terms extend to cover the text in URLs, and so by definition all text including titles and URLs — as well as any pages visited, due to tab syncing — would need to be in compliance with policy. If it’s as clearcut as presented here, anyways. Do the other browser profile syncing services have similar language? Is such overreach unique to Mozilla Corporation?

              Though, considering how few people are likely to care about the legal exposure risk of continuing to use Firefox Sync, I don’t imagine this will end up being particularly enforceable in practice.

            • By 0cf8612b2e1e 2025-02-2816:541 reply

              Back in the Wild West of geocities days, I seem to recall animated pornographic favicons.

              • By altairprime 2025-02-2818:51

                Favicons are not contained within bookmarks under normal circumstances, but I don’t know if Sync syncs those or if the browser fetches them on each endpoint.

          • By neuroticnews25 2025-02-2812:15

            Blob URL is also just a reference to a (local) resource. I guess another valid example would be something like javascript:document.write(<data>)

            Do you know any other?

          • By rosstex 2025-02-2816:02

            Then you haven't seen my browser

      • By caturopath 2025-02-283:483 reply

        I think Mozilla VPN is a Mozilla service?

        It's pretty odd if you aren't allowed to use their VPN to watch or share porn

        - send unsolicited communications (for example cold emailing an employer about a job) - Deceive or mislead (for example inviting your brother over for a surprise party under false pretenses) - Purchase legal controlled products (for example sending the pharmacy a refill for your Xanax) - Collect email addresses without permission (for example putting together a list of emails to contact public officials)

        • By Grimblewald 2025-02-2811:172 reply

          look, i'd have similar clauses if I ran such a service. Porn gets very messy very quickly. Revenge porn, porn of generally unconsenting parties etc. are all to common and people who share know it is wrong and so try to use things like vpns to hide. The problem for you as a vpn provider is proving they're doing the wrong thing with your service, so it is much easier to simply say there is a blanket ban and then selectivly enforce.

          The upside for users in general is such a vpn service tends not to be associated with underbelly behaviour and so isn't blocked from 90% of the web.

          • By ragnese 2025-02-2815:372 reply

            Do hammer manufacturers required you to sign an agreement at the hardware store with a bunch of legalese so they aren't held liable if you use the hammer to beat someone to death?

            Do alcohol companies get shut down when people drink and kill someone with their car?

            Did you know that a nonzero percentage of child molesters wear Nike sneakers when they kidnap children? Why doesn't Nike actively try to prevent this?!

            So why should a VPN provider need to explicitly dissuade its customers from breaking the law with their service? Why should a web browser be afraid of being on the hook when someone breaks the law via the web?

            • By olyjohn 2025-02-2817:225 reply

              Bars certainly get in huge trouble if they let someone drink too much, and they leave and drive and kill somebody.

              • By gunsle 2025-03-0213:51

                I don’t think this is really true at all, at any decently busy establishment there’s no way the bartender could possibly be responsible for what their patrons do after leaving when they barely have time to take their orders

              • By knowitnone 2025-02-2817:501 reply

                but bars are aiding these drunks. a hammer is a tool specifically for hitting and removing nails. If you put that burden on a hammer, you'll have to put that in a pencil and every object in the world.

                • By eth0up 2025-02-2821:40

                  Minor objection...

                  I have and continue to use my hammer, which is none but an Estwing, for demolition work. Often there are no nails directly involved and when there are, I use a prybar. I have also used it to open beers, 'fix' computers, as well as procure therapy to various things that plead for it. On several occasions I've even used it tied to a rope to throw over an unreachable tree limb.

                  That this may be used as evidence in court against me, well, has me almost welcoming a firing squad. What a silly silly planet.

                  Is there any hope for Midori?

              • By stefanka 2025-03-0110:50

                I honestly doubt that this is true for the country I live in. How would a bar keeper know your intention to drive? And your ability to drive might be impaired before showing obvious symptoms of intoxication

              • By bigbacaloa 2025-02-2818:01

                That's because a bar is generally required by law not to serve someone already drunk.

            • By Grimblewald 2025-03-0410:28

              I am unsure you know how a VPN works, because non of your comparisons work in anyway shape or form as representing the same thing.

              A more appropriate comparison is a real-estate company which manages corporate offices, leasing out a corporate office space. That space is being offered under the proviso that NO brothel is opened there, underage or otherwise. Now, they won't ask you what you're doing and generally won't look but if there is a single complaint of you running an underage brothel, they look, and see any brothel activity, instead of wasting time they'll simply evict you and avoid the entire mess and waste of resources spent investigating. Easy.

              The alternative is having to painstakingly prove the wrong thing was done, which is notoriously difficult, and ties up a lot of resources.

          • By shakna 2025-03-015:39

            "Graphic depictions of violence" also covers every 18+ movie or TV show. So I guess streaming Underbelly would also be against such a policy.

            That's a bad idea, and a badly formed policy. The legal team and the marketing team need to talk things over here, a wee bit more.

        • By rafaelmn 2025-03-0211:58

          All of that should be covered by not allowing illegal content ?

        • By ddalex 2025-02-2810:36

          "If you're doing it you have to give us the data, and btw you can't do it either"

      • By blendergeek 2025-02-2811:08

        > Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy

        The fact that Firefox isn't a "Mozilla Service" seems irrelevant.

      • By mmooss 2025-02-282:251 reply

        > Firefox isn't a Mozilla service.

        They might clarify that in the agreement. I doubt many people are intimately familiar with Mozilla, Firefox, 'services', etc. to distinguish. I am and I didn't think of it in a brief reading (which is all I have time for).

        • By cwillu 2025-02-2816:14

          Then they shouldn't explicitly say “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.”

      • By alwa 2025-02-283:28

        And yet these terms of service—for Firefox—specifically apply the AUP to “your use of Firefox,” no?

        The entire AUP is prefixed “You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to:”. There’s nothing in the AUP that doesn’t refer to “Mozilla’s services.” When the Firefox TOS explicitly includes this AUP, how could it make sense unless they think of Firefox as one of their services?

        At the risk of restating the gp’s quote:

        > 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.

      • By progval 2025-02-2820:39

        The French translation of the Terms of Use says they apply both to services and products:

        > Vous ne pouvez pas utiliser les services et produits de Mozilla dans les buts suivants :

      • By tofof 2025-02-282:582 reply

        It's against ToS to watch R rated movies.

      • By devhe4d 2025-02-2816:04

        with this new TOS, Firefox became Mozilla "service"

      • By manquer 2025-02-281:51

        Mozilla VPN is a service Mozilla provides though. White-labelled Mullvad or not, it a contract between Mozilla and the user and therefore presumably covered by this terms of use.

        I would say porn is probably in the top 3 if not number 1 use for VPNs

      • By immibis 2025-03-013:33

        But it says "Your use of Firefox must follow [the terms of use for Mozilla services]"

      • By laszlokorte 2025-02-281:513 reply

        So what about synced bookmarks?

        • By tiltowait 2025-02-283:081 reply

          I wouldn’t expect the bookmark to run afoul of this clause, since the bookmark isn’t the content. Now it’d be a curious case if the bookmark contained a base64-encoded pornographic image.

          • By smolder 2025-02-2812:26

            You seem to be assuming competence on the part of the author. But, as is common with documents that lawyers generate, they probably don't care if it's reasonable or if practically every one of their users violates it. Like when you get an employee contract that claims your new company owns every idea you ever had. Some people will claim it's just "lawyer stuff" and is somehow okay. It's really not okay.

        • By pentagrama 2025-02-281:54

          And synced history.

        • By kevingadd 2025-02-281:542 reply

          If you're syncing a bookmark that is somehow illegal content, it would come to rest on their servers and they'd potentially be liable for it. (IIRC they encrypt everything at rest, so this is a speculative risk)

          • By wongarsu 2025-02-282:01

            Depictions of sexuality or violence are legal in most places, even if said depictions are graphic

          • By llm_trw 2025-02-281:59

            Porn is not illegal, either are the Rambo movies.

      • By BeFlatXIII 2025-02-2815:46

        Imagine using Mozilla Sync to ensure you have the same horse porn on your phone as your laptop out of spite.

    • By Hizonner 2025-02-2814:062 reply

      Welp, they stopped being open source, then. From the OSD:

      6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

      The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

      • By spacechild1 2025-02-2815:062 reply

        AFAICT there is no restriction on the application itself: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/eula/

        • By gpm 2025-02-2821:171 reply

          The terms are very clear that they apply to Firefox the application itself (but not the source code if you compile it from scratch)

          > Mozilla grants you a personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the “Executable Code" version of the Firefox web browser, which is the ready-to-run version of Firefox from an authorized source that you can open and use right away.

          > These Terms only apply to the Executable Code version of Firefox

          But not the source code if you compile it from scratch

          > [Continuing previous quote], not the Firefox source code.

          However the source code excludes DRM components, and while the terms don't mention it I believe also some API keys

          > In order to play certain types of video, Firefox may download content decryption modules from third parties which may not be open source.

          (It's not clear to me that these terms are currently in effect. Certainly I haven't been asked to agree to them yet).

      • By mattl 2025-02-2819:29

        They've had a different license on the binaries vs. the source code for a long time.

    • By burnte 2025-02-2816:042 reply

      Mozilla's management and legal has always been amazing when it comes to unforced errors. These changes are actually pretty normal, but they're also worded more scarily by being more encompassing than they need to be. Mozilla has always sucked when it comes to communicating with the outside world.

      • By mhh__ 2025-02-2820:482 reply

        A shooting match between AMD and Mozilla would be a good day to be a cobbler

        • By thot_experiment 2025-02-2820:58

          actually the funniest HN comment i've read in years, bravo

        • By dcuthbertson 2025-03-0112:07

          It took me several minutes, but you're talking about foot guns - brilliant reference. :-)

      • By giancarlostoro 2025-02-2820:35

        They know how to send cake at least

    • By Mistletoe 2025-02-281:4510 reply

      We are under an attack by Puritanism that is quite astounding actually. And no one is doing anything. Everyone just keeps bending the knee.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1hqqpbt/newest_ver...

      Some of the things that are happening are just from the threat of “something bad might come down from the new administration”. It’s so ridiculous.

      • By tavavex 2025-02-282:183 reply

        The squeeze on any content that religious people find 'yucky' is double-pronged in the US - encouraged both by governments and businesses. Paypal, Visa, Mastercard et al are given complete discretion over what transactions they can block, and they have already extensively used this to deprive legal NSFW platforms and creators of their income.

        So, on one end, state governments are trying to strongarm NSFW services by imposing draconian requirements that ask users to submit their private data to some random opaque 'benevolent' third party business - and on the other, payment processors are using their legal right to refuse whatever transaction for any reason so they can starve them of income.

        • By ikr678 2025-02-284:522 reply

          I dont think the pressure from payment processors is because of puritanism, but rather payments in this space tend to come with a much higher % of fraud and chargebacks and they've decided it's not worth the risk.

          • By sitkack 2025-02-287:101 reply

            That is half truth that gives them cover.

            • By sitkack 2025-03-016:19

              Many people agree with this comment, for a leaf comment, it is substantial at 15.

          • By throw16180339 2025-03-0219:37

            Visa and Mastercard also have limits on what percentage of a bank's transactions can be adult.

        • By kbelder 2025-02-2822:40

          I don't think it's particularly driven by religion anymore. The new puritanism is as much left-wing as right, and often atheist.

        • By duped 2025-02-2817:202 reply

          "risk management" is not puritanism - sex work has a different/higher risk profile for PSPs (fraud, chargebacks, etc) and it's easier to say "no" than to come up with a new product to serve customers.

          An enterprising PM at a PSP or fintech could look at the size of the sex industry, measure the risk of providing payment/banking services to sex workers and businesses and offer them at a premium like any other "niche" financial area.

          And while we're on the topic of "draconian" regulations from the government - it's not outside their interest to limit the availability of obscene content from children. This isn't a "think of the children" argument so much as "children consume graphic pornography at huge rates and porn providers make money off them as consumers and producers with such inept guardrails that age verification has been a meme for 25 years." I don't think validating your identity with a government ID (and storing it forever) is a good countermeasure but I disagree its some kind of draconian limitation on free speech. If porn sites didn't buy and sell sex from kids and self regulated, this wouldn't be necessary (nb4 "it's the parent's problem" - good luck!)

          • By tavavex 2025-03-053:22

            I know this is late and likely won't be read, but I have a few objections to what you said.

            First of all, not all NSFW transactions are created equal. A person subscribing to a website, a person buying a physical product, and a person paying an artist to draw what they want all have different risk profiles. (The former is far more likely to cancel). Does this change the opinion of Paypal, Visa, Mastercard et al? No, they blanket ban everything. They pressure businesses and platforms to stop selling this content and to cut out any of their NSFW creators, and the websites often have no other option. These big companies are the only available avenue for sending and receiving money.

            Second of all... I think that being free to do legal transactions with whoever you want in exchange for anything you want should absolutely crush the payment processors' right to moderate their transactions in accordance to their own guidelines, rather than the law. Again, you have almost nowhere to run if these businesses turn you down - there is no digital cash. I think that companies that process transactions should be mandated to not discriminate between them, as long as it is lawful.

            Lastly... The reason why this verification debate has been standing for 25 years is because it's not solvable. Every proposed scheme for reliable age verification that I've heard of either trades off your privacy, or isn't watertight (and might as well not be there). You can only have one. Given that private companies and governments love private data, and that we've had open internet for 30+ years now and nothing catastrophic has happened so far, I say we should let it be.

          • By smallmancontrov 2025-02-2820:311 reply

            That's exactly a "think of the children" argument. CSAM moderation was always fairly strict on the big sites -- they knew it was both an existential threat and the route through which puritans such as "duped" here (nice name) would try to attack -- but they really tightened up with the ban on third party content. Now they have a chain of responsibility for every video. So, "duped," if you actually have an example of the problem you claim is rampant, why aren't you acting on it? Why aren't you lighting the fuse on that chain of responsibility? Do you want to promote the abuse of children? Or do you admit to making it up so that you could use it as a pretext for your agenda?

            Also: yes, building a government blackmail database is draconian.

            • By duped 2025-02-2821:10

              > CSAM moderation was always fairly strict on the big sites

              Except on the largest of the sites which was successfully sued just a year and a half ago over it's years-long policy of looking the other way.

              I'm no puritan, I'm just not an absolutist. The real world is complicated and I find arguments like yours annoying and naive.

      • By 0xbadcafebee 2025-02-282:571 reply

        The Puritans have been trying to ban porn here since the concept has existed, it's never stopped, and it's never going to stop. They're miserable and they want everyone else to be too. That's like most of their religion. Going to church, being ashamed of bodies, and judging people.

        • By jack_pp 2025-02-283:505 reply

          [flagged]

          • By nisa 2025-02-285:271 reply

            It's about imposing your view of the world on others. That's the problem here with the puritanians.

            • By account42 2025-03-0314:11

              > It's about imposing your view of the world on others.

              That's literally every ideology.

          • By m000 2025-02-289:411 reply

            > ...had access to the best porn tracker in the world where I could find almost anything I wanted and trust me it did not fulfill me.

            Why does everything have to be about fulfillment and enrichment?

            > ...Watching porn is like eating junk food or doing cocaine. Next dose you need something stronger, or more novel.

            Did you similarly cancel all your streaming services? How is binge-watching a Netflix show different than binge-watching porn?

            • By jack_pp 2025-02-2811:262 reply

              Yes, I'm working on cutting every addiction, that's a big part of being a practicing Orthodox Christian. My biggest weaknesses are video games but I have wasted plenty of time on shows as well and I haven't done either as much in the past month or so.

              But sexuality is a big part of our lives and while wasting time on any addiction like doomscrolling and binge watching is not good for us, porn can taint our relationship with the opposite sex and that's worst in my opinion

              • By dingnuts 2025-02-2820:141 reply

                Your beliefs do not give you the right to impose your beliefs' lifestyle restrictions on others, period.

                Even if they did, forcing people through state violence to adhere to your lifestyle isn't very Christian of you.

                • By jack_pp 2025-03-015:50

                  Can you quote me exactly where I imposed or endorsed imposing my beliefs on others?

              • By m000 2025-02-2813:511 reply

                Sorry if I may have sounded judgemental and good luck with your self-improvement trip. Orthodox Christianity can be helpful with tackling self-moderation issues. Just make sure you don't pay much attention to any extreme guilt-tripping moralisms you may hear along the way. (I am of Orthodox Christian background myself, and I have heard my fair share of them.)

                • By jack_pp 2025-03-0123:10

                  It's ok, you were right to doubt that I understood that porn isn't the only sin. Any waste of time/ resources in pursuit of egotistical pleasure is a sin as far as I understand it. But we are taught that God is merciful, as long as we fight truly with our sins.

                  Regarding judgement: https://chatgpt.com/share/67c393b3-5ad8-8009-9991-edbf43df1a...

          • By schneehertz 2025-02-288:032 reply

            Do you think pornography is harmful to you, and can it be inferred that pornography is also harmful to others? This is the reason why your viewpoint is not accepted by others

            • By jack_pp 2025-02-288:402 reply

              If you search YouTube for "effects of porn addiction" you will find mostly clips from secular sources. A lot of scientists/psychologists say it's harmful

              • By kergonath 2025-02-2811:54

                > If you search YouTube for "effects of porn addiction" you will find mostly clips from secular sources.

                This is not an argument. You can find sources saying anything you want on YouTube. If you want to be taken seriously, you need more than random videos or a Wikipedia article.

                > A lot of scientists/psychologists say it's harmful

                Sources? A lot of studies show it’s fine.

              • By dingnuts 2025-02-2820:201 reply

                addiction to anything is harmful. You might as well have said using porn unhealthily is unhealthy. It's a tautology, and it's moving the goal posts disingenuously.

                The argument is about moderate use, just like any other vice.

                • By jack_pp 2025-03-015:51

                  Even cocaine or heroin can be used responsibly, but there's a reason it's banned

            • By lr0 2025-02-2817:54

              Yes, pornography is harmful, for everyone, for people who watch at and many of those who participate in its production. No exception, it's a bad thing and it's a shame that society is being okay with it.

          • By rvba 2025-02-287:381 reply

            So because you did X and had a problem, it means it should be banned for everyone, including people whp dont have a problem with X?

            • By jack_pp 2025-02-288:131 reply

              Are you seriously saying porn is being suppressed? It's a bigger industry than it has ever been.

              Visa has the option to do business with whomever they like or dislike and I'm not even sure they don't support them because of religious reasons.

              I'm not saying it should be banned but saying the people who are against it or don't want to do business with such entities are miserable is twisted given it is an industry where most of the actors are victims of abuse, the viewers learn a distorted view of sexuality and younger generations have less respect for each other because of it.

              • By yencabulator 2025-03-0117:261 reply

                > Are you seriously saying porn is being suppressed?

                You are doing it right now!

                • By account42 2025-03-0314:141 reply

                  How is gp suppressing porn by stating his views?

                  • By yencabulator 2025-03-0315:201 reply

                    All speech is "just stating one's view", if you want to view it like that. That doesn't mean it doesn't have effects on the world. Consider white racist group members standing outside a mostly-Black voting location shouting slogans.

                    • By account42 2025-03-0316:11

                      So everyone disagreeing with you is now suppressing you? Absurd.

          • By Juliate 2025-02-289:27

            > I'd say porn makes people miserable not happy/ fulfilled.

            Yes. And no.

            It depends on a lot of other things: what porn you're looking at [1]; what stage you are in; how fulfilled you are with your life; etc.

            The addiction to porn is like any addiction: a symptom of something else not going well; addiction which you won't get out of if you don't find a way to fix the issue. That isn't to say that you shouldn't treat the symptom as well, if/when it hurts you too (and any addictive behaviour can quickly hurt).

            The very tricky thing is that, the same thing (alcohol, sex, drugs, porn, sport, work, food) can be addictive to someone, and just recreational to another; beneficial and harmful.

            The key is understanding why, for each and every one. Not to shame.

            [1] porn is not necessarily the most extreme, garbage, inhuman stuff; although those are very liberally used by most porn websites. Some stuff are definitely harmful, to anyone, on either side of it. Some are well thought-out and promote educational, healthy, loving behaviour - guess why, those of most often written and produced by women.

      • By lenkite 2025-02-288:021 reply

        Confused. What do Firefox's terms of service have to do with puritanism ? Have Firefox developers become puritanist or something ? That would be extremely surprising if true. Any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to this ?

        • By Mistletoe 2025-02-2813:511 reply

          "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“

          • By olyjohn 2025-02-2817:37

            When I run Transmission, it also says "don't use this for piracy." Of course people are gonna pirate with it. It's just to cover their asses.

      • By Spivak 2025-02-282:003 reply

        It's gonna be a weird few years that's for sure. I'll leave it to the historians to decide when the actual tipping point was but the shift in the GOP from being run by Republicans with a few bones thrown to Conservatives every now and again when it's time to drum up votes to the show now being run by Conservatives is going to be the point between two political eras.

        It's by far not the first time this has happened but it's kinda surreal to be alive for one.

        • By jltsiren 2025-02-282:191 reply

          I'd say it was the decline and fall of the Soviet block. Without the external pressure to remain competitive, the balance shifted from realism towards ideology.

          • By ragnese 2025-02-2815:431 reply

            The U.S. still has competition from Europe and China, no? I'm not convinced that the puritanical fanatics would ever make the rational decision to ease up on their efforts for the sake of the economy. For non-Western examples, see Iran and Afghanistan since the mid 20th century.

            • By kloop 2025-03-0214:40

              > The U.S. still has competition from Europe and China, no?

              Not militarily, at least not the way the Soviets were competition.

              If the US really is on the Roman path and transitioning from the republic to the empire, it's not clear Europe + China have enough force to keep MAD in place.

              Europe + China have between 500-750 nuclear weapons usable on short notice. Depending on how well classified US missile defense programs work, it's possible for the US to only lose a single digit number of metropolitan areas.

              Combine this with the fact that large, dense urban areas primarily contain the current administration's political opponents, and that may become acceptable losses.

              A potential alliance between the US and Russia being on the table (or at least a non-aggression pact) further bring a non-MAD world order into the range of possibilities.

        • By account42 2025-03-0314:19

          It's not any more surreal than the extreme shift in the other direction we had before. If anything, what you are experiencing now is just the expecte (over)correction to that.

        • By gunian 2025-02-282:182 reply

          wait till you unlock 1984 esque reality they are beta testing on us rn

          when you see slavery is still very alive im sure this will seem like just a playful moment

          • By jmb99 2025-02-287:522 reply

            At least in the US, slavery is alive and well. 13th amendment abolishes slavery except as punishment for a crime, and prisoners all over the country perform forced labour for a small fraction of federal minimum wage.

            • By blah2244 2025-03-0117:02

              Attempts to eliminate this have even failed in solid blue states -- Prop 6 in California failed 53-47 last election.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_California_Proposition_6

            • By gunian 2025-03-014:381 reply

              haha just wait until you unlock the open air slavery they are testing don't even need a conviction just gotta piss off the right spoiled rich folk :)

              ever seen a reality where multiple people have access to all your accounts but no matter what you do your bank or anyone else can't seem to help

              • By boppo1 2025-03-031:09

                This is what the 2nd is for.

          • By notyourwork 2025-02-283:201 reply

            I want to entertain you but use a caps lock and some punctuation from time to time. It gives your comments more credence.

      • By userbinator 2025-02-282:451 reply

        I don't think that's the problem here, as I don't want to see porn on e.g. Mozilla's forums either. There's a place and time for that content and Mozilla shouldn't be the one to decide for others. The problem is whether Firefox is a Mozilla "service" or not, and the way the terms is linked implies that it is.

        • By yencabulator 2025-03-0117:27

          There's a huge difference between a public forum and cloud storage for e.g. your private bookmarks.

      • By mmooss 2025-02-282:26

        IIRC, terms like that have been in agreements for many years. It's boilerplate, almost.

      • By ForTheKidz 2025-02-282:57

        I'm all down to write off contract law as "puritanism" but the rot is far deeper than an aesthetic (and frankly I'm unclear how puritanism applies to this situation at all).

        EDIT: I'm not sure why porn is particularly interesting here when most internet activity seems to be potentially against terms of service.

      • By tokioyoyo 2025-02-285:293 reply

        My conspiracy theory is that gears are slowly turning to revamp the culture, redefine what’s acceptable/not acceptable and eventually suggest that if you won’t have kids you’re not accepted in the society. Basically a funky way to reverse the population decline, as the governments are realizing this problem won’t be fixed by free markets and etc.

        • By anonnon 2025-02-287:073 reply

          People aren't having kids because of stagnant real wages and soaring home prices. In the US, the median home price is now $450k. In Canada, it's $650k. And when people do have children, they're on average having fewer, later in life (with a greater risk of complications): https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/geriatric-pregnanc...

          I doubt banning porn or abortion or engaging in cultural engineering will fix this.

          And then there's this phenomenon, discussion of which was once verboten in goodthink circles (like HN) due to its anti-feminist and "incel" optics, but has since grown enough in strength and scale to shove its way through the Overton Window so that even respectable, MSM sources cover it: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-yo...

          • By tokioyoyo 2025-02-2812:04

            Top income brackets aren't really having more than 2 children either, which is a requirement for growing population. Like most studies has shown that, in general, educated women, freedom of choice and etc. will negatively impact birthrates. It's the same thing everywhere. Sure, income, less social pressure and etc. affects it somehow, but there's just no real need in general to have 3 kids in this day and age. Asking a woman to give away at the bare minimum 6 years of their youth won't cut it nowadays. And honestly, I don't blame them, I think exactly the same way.

          • By sitkack 2025-02-287:132 reply

            The best way to have more kids is to increase the size of the middle class, while lowering housing, food and childcare costs.

            • By tokioyoyo 2025-02-2812:111 reply

              I have no idea why people keep saying it's monetary reasons. Why would anyone have 3 kids nowadays? There are no real incentives, other than "I want a big family". Society actively discourages large families as well. The amount of people in their 20s aiming for that is getting smaller and smaller too.

              The best way to have more kids, unironically, is making everyone as poor as possible, removing any other method of entertainment, and making "having kids" the only choice. That's how it worked for the eternity, and some people want a percentage of people to go back to it, so it would support the current established system.

              • By sitkack 2025-02-2815:041 reply

                I didn't say 3. Perhaps I should have said, any.

                • By tokioyoyo 2025-02-2822:081 reply

                  If everyone has 1/2 kids, the outcome is the same as having no kids, just with more years to get there. That’s Japan’s biggest problem right now. People are having kids. Tokyo is fairly kid friendly, and infrastructure/culture is there. But nobody wants to have 3 kids.

                  • By sitkack 2025-03-016:17

                    Simply not true. 2 is the replenishment rate. 3, is a 1.5 increase generation to generation. Our population is out of whack with the resource load. Your model is orders of magnitudes too simplistic.

            • By ahoka 2025-02-287:51

              I don't think creating the illusion of an imaginary middle class ever helped anything. I believe it only makes things worse, as now a lot of people think they are not working class, just because they have an above median wage. Snap it, even some even hold to the illusion that they are rich, just because they have a house with a mortgage and a private pension.

              What you need to have a modern, western country instead of a dog-eat-dog wild west is welfare, including universal health care.

              But welfare is considered as an evil communist plot in the US and the people who are led to believe that they are somehow above the working masses keep voting against their own interests. Not just in the US, unfortunately.

          • By account42 2025-03-0314:25

            > People aren't having kids because of stagnant real wages and soaring home prices.

            That's proably a non-insiginficant factor but unlikely to be the only one. Poorer people have never had problems reproducing in any society.

            I think media exposure plays a much bigger part. Not porn exactly, but anything that glorifies a "free" lifestyle over settling down.

        • By lII1lIlI11ll 2025-02-288:302 reply

          First of all, US population has been steadily growing, so I don't get why big business (whose interests current administration represent) would need to engage in long-term culture engineering for steady supply of new workers.

          Second of all, majority of US population is urban. People in NY or Bay Area can't elect a president who represents their interests due to how Electoral College is designed but attempting to change their opinions on having children by banning porn is a pipe dream.

          • By Mistletoe 2025-02-2813:551 reply

            “The population growth rate is projected to slow from 0.6% per year between 2024 and 2034 to 0.2% per year between 2045 and 2054.”

            And almost all growth is immigration, the fertility rate hits new lows constantly.

            https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/...

            “U.S. Fertility Rate Drops to Another Historic Low”

            • By lII1lIlI11ll 2025-02-2814:142 reply

              [flagged]

              • By tokioyoyo 2025-02-2822:111 reply

                It doesn’t support economic models in the long run, unless you start modifying the definitions of “consumption”, “growth” and “value created”. It also doesn’t work well unless you create some utopia where everything is automated for old people and they can live without support from the younger generation.

                The problem has not been solved, and all western governments are hoping to delay the problem through immigration. This buys them time to see what solution Japan, SK and China can come up with, and copy that instead of taking risks with potentially abysmal results.

                • By lII1lIlI11ll 2025-03-016:541 reply

                  There is a huge line of people wanting to get into the US. Authorities can pick and chose whatever they need at the moment (highly educated tech professionals and scientists or cheap labor for manual jobs, etc.) and instantly "magically" get such people, already grown and educated at someone else's expense.

                  • By account42 2025-03-0314:31

                    This sentence belongs in a dystopian novel, not in the real world where people have to live with the consequences.

              • By dingnuts 2025-02-2820:341 reply

                The culture dies if locals don't have children and the immigrants don't assimilate. There are already many pockets of micro cultures in the US and that's what the people in power are using to divide us already.

                I'm increasingly convinced that the goal is to balkanize the US and establish a Network State guided by silicon valley, as described by Curtis Yarvin

                • By lII1lIlI11ll 2025-03-016:511 reply

                  The whole modern US culture is literally "immigrants who didn't assimilate" with small pockets of native Americans. From my outsider perspective there is very little common between techie from Valley, NY yuppies and a rust belt redneck. Adding some asians and mexicans just improves your cuisine ;)

                  • By account42 2025-03-0314:30

                    You really are hitting the propaganda talking point bingo here.

          • By tokioyoyo 2025-02-2812:07

            Again, it's just a fun conspiracy theory in my head, and no, it doesn't have to be big business. Like you realize churches have been pouring money in ads, apps, and etc. right? They're actively trying to get back all the lost memberships.

            US population is growing for a combination of immigration and just slightly better birth rates than others. It's nowhere close to above-replacement levels (2.1). Just check out the population pyramid, and you can see there are less younger kids than older ones.

        • By ryandrake 2025-02-285:383 reply

          It seems like not so much a conspiracy theory as something totally transparent and out in the open. There's a huge political push to birth as many babies as possible. Major political parties have it as part of their platform. Their spokespeople talk derisively of "childless cat ladies" and how you're not a real contributor to society unless you produce babies.

          The "Birth" lobby is a stool composed of several legs:

          1. Attack abortion

          2. Attack contraception

          3. Attack porn

          4. Attack education

          5. Attack "women in the workforce"

          All of these things are seen as contributing to declining birth rates, so they're opposed by Big Birth. You can see the same politicians tend to go after these things in lock step.

          • By AndriyKunitsyn 2025-02-286:372 reply

            I don't think they can succeed though, because the 5. is the crucial step, as being a baby-making machine is a full-time job, and no lobby is going to get a lot of following from the business with the premise to cut the available workforce by half.

            • By jmb99 2025-02-287:491 reply

              With the absolutely massive investment in (and push for) AI, I assume the belief is that the the reduction of workforce will have less of an impact.

              • By lII1lIlI11ll 2025-02-288:22

                If the plan is to have most people out of job soon-ish, then big population with bunch of young people without good prospects is a recipe for disaster.

            • By Juliate 2025-02-2812:51

              If 1. and 2. are done, 5. falls very easily. It's no surprise they started with attacking Roe vs. Wade.

          • By tokioyoyo 2025-02-285:50

            Pretty much, yeah. Like everything is factually right, but I completely disagree with their method. So far, they’ve failed at each step.

            There’s a very obvious “pro-religion” push going on across all social media as well, but it’s hard to pinpoint when/how it started. Not sure how far they’ll have to roll back women’s rights to get where they want to, but it’s incredibly sad to watch. Not sure how fathers with daughters are going to watch this happen in real time as well.

          • By account42 2025-03-0314:34

            Now consider that perhaps the current state is the result of a similar conspiracy but in the other direction.

      • By salemh 2025-02-2818:04

        [dead]

      • By BoingBoomTschak 2025-02-2810:33

        "We"? Do we live in the same first world where people fuck like animals and promiscuity is the overwhelming norm?

    • By sunshine-o 2025-02-289:171 reply

      > Either their legal team made a mistake, in which case they should correct it and issue an apology ASAP

      I don't think it is a mistake but more the translation of a vision and strategy that took hundreds of meetings to be laid down very precisely.

      I have nothing to back what I am gonna say but I am wondering if their strategy might be to truly become the default browser of governments who are uncomfortable having Chrome or Edge as the default browser. Especially since now they get augmented by a lot of AI.

      Firefox has it largest market share in Europe and Germany it seems and with the concerns with are hearing over there about Big tech I wouldn't be surprised at some point some govs try to make their workstations Firefox only.

      Also some governments are trying hard to restrict access to porn, violence and social media for children but we know it is almost impossible to do it at the network level. So they might try at the browser level with the help of Mozilla and some "sanctioned Internet AI safety" inside the browser?

      I really don't know but think about it, Mozilla is a dead man walking with it's 2% market share and huge cost of maintaining one of the most complex piece of software. They have to do something about it.

      What just tipped me off is reading on Wikipedia [0]:

      > On February 8, 2024, Mozilla announced that Baker would be stepping down as CEO to "focus on AI and internet safety"[2] as chair of the Mozilla Foundation.

      - [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker

    • By thayne 2025-02-2823:341 reply

      > Acceptable Use Policy links to https://www.mozilla.org/about/legal/acceptable-use/ which says "You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to[

      So the text of the policy itself limits its scope to Mozilla Services.

      But the purpose of that section is unclear to me. If it just means you have to comply with that policy when using features that use Mozilla services, why is that section necessary, since the license for the services should already apply.

      If it is trying to mean that all the terms for Mozilla services also applies to any use of Firefox... that is really clumisily written, and also just generally terrible.

    • By spacechild1 2025-02-289:223 reply

      I'm pretty sure this is about Mozilla services. AFAICT, Firefox itself is licensed under the https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License and as such doesn't put any restrictions on how you use the software.

      • By graemep 2025-02-289:49

        That is what I expected to see, but the title of the page is "Firefox Terms of Use"

        I think its a good argument for using a Firefox fork.

      • By Delk 2025-02-2821:46

        A bit of an issue is that the Firefox terms of use page [1] says "Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy", and the Acceptable Use Policy link points to their Acceptable Use Policy page regarding Mozilla services [2].

        So either they're saying your use of Firefox, regardless of whether you want to use Mozilla services, must also follow the same acceptable use policy that your use of their services would, or it's a massively ambiguous way of saying your use of Firefox in combination with actual Mozilla services must comply with the policy.

        If it's the former, their terms of use would be in conflict with the commonly understood definition of open source and free software licensing. If it's the latter, it's just poor legalese that fails to make its intent clear. (Interestingly, the Mozilla Public License does not seem to explicitly say that there are no restrictions regarding the use of the software for any particular purpose, although that is a commonly accepted part of the definition of free software and open source.)

        [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250228155328/https://www.mozil...

        [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/

      • By 3836293648 2025-02-2811:551 reply

        That's the Firefox source code though, not necessarily the Firefox binary. A Visual Studio Code situation, basically.

        • By spacechild1 2025-02-2815:051 reply

          I don't think they use a separate EULA for the binaries. I've found this:

          > Mozilla software is made available to you under the terms of the Mozilla Public License 2, a free software license, which gives you the right to run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to give copies to your friends and to modify it to meet your needs better. There is no separate End User License Agreement (EULA).

          https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/eula/

    • By DoingIsLearning 2025-02-288:423 reply

      > I recommend switching to an alternative browser which is only a browser, like Dillo, Ladybird, or Netsurf.

      Did not know any of those alternatives thanks for sharing.

      After a quick online search, I see they could work for casual browsing and it's great that they don't rely on Chromium

      But do you think these can be a full browser replacement without extension ecosystems like ublock origin et al.?

      • By osmsucks 2025-02-2817:42

        Firefox was the last bastion of freedom on the internet and the replacements aren't ready.

        > But do you think these can be a full browser replacement without extension ecosystems like ublock origin et al.?

        I'm now actually trying to use qutebrowser as a replacement... it's not easy due to the lack of extensions, but mitigating factors are:

        1. it has integrated adblock (though no cosmetic filtering) 2. there are userscripts to integrate with the Bitwarden CLI or a running instance of KeepassXC.

      • By justinclift 2025-02-2810:462 reply

        If you're on macOS, then Kagi's Orion seems good:

        https://kagi.com/orion

        It's been working fine for me anyway.

        • By ac29 2025-02-2816:382 reply

          They are working on Orion for Linux this year as well

          • By DoingIsLearning 2025-03-0119:36

            I pay for Kagi and I would definitely pay for Orion on Linux.

          • By justinclift 2025-03-010:31

            Thanks, that's extremely good news. :)

        • By knowitnone 2025-02-2817:551 reply

          interesting they have resources to build a browser. also interesting (and sad) they focus on Apple and not Windows. Hopefull, they'll port it to Windows and Linux.

          • By isametry 2025-02-2821:03

            Worth mentioning that Orion is fully based on WebKit. Calling it a “Safari wrapper” would be unfair, but it’s also not extremely far from that either.

      • By account42 2025-03-0314:47

        None of these three are currently suitable for casual browsing unfortunately.

    • By wyclif 2025-02-2815:142 reply

      Dillo is only sporadically developed. They even lost control of the dillo.org domain a long time ago, which pretty much spells amateur hour.

      Ladybird would be a better choice, but it's not even fully baked yet. Coming sometime in 2026, supposedly.

      I'd recommend the Brave browser for people concerned about recent bad news from Mozilla.

    • By b3lvedere 2025-02-287:14

      The applicable laws of North-Korea might differ than the applicable laws of Russia which may differ from the law of Qatar, etc. It might be even impossible to uphold this world wide even if you tried.

      So i guess it's more a 'we at Mozilla don't want any trouble' thing.

    • By ksec 2025-03-0316:05

      I hate to say this but I am again surprised not by the ToS update from Mozilla but by the people who are surprised that Firefox or Mozilla is doing this.

      May be I am way too cynical than average people. What is being stated here is actually inline of what they think is right. They think watching Porn is wrong. Which is why you shouldn't use Firefox to watch porn, or anything else they deemed wrong.

      And that is speaking from someone who joined the Firefox 1.0 New York Times Ad.

      I guess we will all have to do it again. This time for Ladybird.

    • By bryant 2025-03-010:321 reply

      They're basically saying you can't use Mozilla VPN to get around state age restrictions for access to adult content.

      Gives them an out to claim it's already not permitted on their platform and that they're not enabling crime in these states.

      • By knob 2025-03-010:34

        No they are not. They are saying exactly: "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"

    • By msh 2025-03-0113:241 reply

      By the wording here there are many Netflix shows you could not watch using Firefox.

      • By account42 2025-03-0314:52

        Why would you want to watch TV in your browser in the first place?

    • By kevingadd 2025-02-281:545 reply

      Firefox-the-browser isn't a service, it's a product. Their services are things like profile syncing. It makes sense to me that they wouldn't want content on their servers that they could get in legal trouble for hosting.

      • By bad_user 2025-02-285:501 reply

        Comments such as yours are missing the point.

        Mozilla's ToS applies for Firefox's use, and this is literally written by Mozilla themselves:

        “Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy”

        There's no distinction between the browser and Mozilla's online services here.

        ---

        And even if it were referring only to features such as “profile syncing” (and it doesn't refer only to that), does this mean that people can't have bookmarks to porn? And why would Mozilla care about how people use profile syncing at all? I thought it was e2e encrypted.

        • By spacechild1 2025-02-2815:073 reply

          How do you square this with the following:

          > Mozilla software is made available to you under the terms of the Mozilla Public License 2, a free software license, which gives you the right to run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to give copies to your friends and to modify it to meet your needs better. There is no separate End User License Agreement (EULA).

          https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/eula/

          • By Delk 2025-02-2821:581 reply

            It should really be up to Mozilla to make the licensing of their products and the terms of use of their services clear and unambiguous. If users have to figure out how to square Mozilla's legal terms with Mozilla's other legal terms, they've failed.

          • By spacechild1 2025-03-011:41

            Ok, turns out there are separate ToS for the official binaries: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/

          • By immibis 2025-02-2818:04

            That's for the court to decide, when you sue Mozilla for remotely bricking your browser.

      • By esperent 2025-02-282:06

        So, as someone else pointed out, saving bookmarks of porn and using their bookmarks sync service would be a problem.

        It's easy to laugh and dismiss that. But what if you're a journalist covering war? You're going to have plenty of bookmarks of graphic violence, and therefore run afoul of this license.

      • By shmel 2025-02-282:051 reply

        Legal trouble for sexuality and violence? I am sorry, in what jurisdiction are their servers? Iran or North Korea?

        • By kevingadd 2025-02-282:291 reply

          Porn bans get proposed in the US on a regular basis.

          • By porridgeraisin 2025-02-286:54

            Got to love the (oblivious) american moral superiority

      • By procaryote 2025-02-2810:39

        If they're worried by what might be in the profile data they're syncing they should just make it e2e encrypted so they can't know what's in it

        But they clearly want to collect and sell that data

      • By knowitnone 2025-02-2817:59

        I agree with you but I'm jumping ship because it is not worth it for me to stick with Mozilla.

    • By EasyMark 2025-03-014:25

      these EULA agreements aren't worth any more than the paper they're written on

    • By ForTheKidz 2025-02-282:57

      TOS has always been a mark of arbitrary service and ownership of all products. None of this is new or surprising.

  • By MrAlex94 2025-02-289:5213 reply

    I might have differed with Brendan Eich on a few matters, but he was a good steward of Firefox in my book.

    When Mitchell Baker took the reins, Mozilla became rather more heavy-handed towards us - the irony being that Waterfox was once proudly displayed on the Mozilla website under their "Powered By" banner.

    I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces, but they've made some peculiar decisions as of late.

    On one hand, they're finally implementing features users have been clamouring for ages (tab groups, vertical tabs and the likes) - on the other, rather odd policy choices.

    I should point out, it seems daft to me when others suggest using forks with no well-established governance of their own, essentially shifting trust from an organisation at least answerable to certain regulations, to individuals with no proper framework or guidelines.

    I've done my best with Waterfox over the years to have it represented by a proper legal entity with policies to follow; so if anyone is interested take a look.

    Edit: FWIW I've written some more thoughts on it here: https://www.waterfox.net/blog/a-comment-on-mozilla-changes/

    • By sph 2025-02-2811:2010 reply

      Here's my question: in light of what Mozilla is doing, why don't other forks like Waterfox or Librewolf write a manifesto/contract saying they'll never sell your user data and won't turn "evil" (until they do, of course), and then decide to offer a paid version of their browser.

      Two possible outcomes:

      1. No one cares. No one pays for it. Nothing changes and nobody loses anything.

      2. Enough people pay for it to keep the product healthy and the user-centric promise alive. The Internet is saved.

      So why isn't anyone trying to replace Mozilla yet, with a more sane business model than living on the back of Google's fear of antitrust investigation? What's the worse that can happen?

      Just sell a bonafide paid version alongside the free one, don't just rely on donations. There is a massive difference between offering a paid product and begging passers-by to spare some change.

      • By Eddy_Viscosity2 2025-02-2812:306 reply

        The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either. MBA creep will happen and suddenly the TOS changes and my paid tier is going to have data collection and 'some' ads. I have to move to a high tier to avoid them. After a few cycles of that, one day all the tiers have data collection and ads.

        • By heresie-dabord 2025-02-2814:271 reply

          > The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either.

          Yes, Trust is at the foundation of the whole problem with the Tech Industry:

          /1/ users (consumers) expect to be protected (not injured, not cheated, not surveilled) by the products that they use, and

          /2/ the WWW is a monstrosity, the only software that we can in fact trust is never connected to the Internet (in other words, we don't trust any software)

          Ergo...

          Given /2/, we cannot trust any software, full stop. Even paying $CORP for its products is no guarantee of care, safety, and security.

          and

          Given /1/, which software do we accept? For OS, I prefer Linux by far. Even where usability is a little rough, I can exclude components that I do not want. When obliged to use Windows, I hold my nose and try as much as possible to foil all the bloat, anti-user patterns, and telemetry. I resent it all the way!

          I prefer Firefox because I like the features and I insist on a small set of extensions: uBlock Origin, Multi-Account Containers, Privacy Badger. Google is a nasty surveillance ecosystem and Microsoft is a Spaghetti Western: by turns good, bad, and ugly.

          If it will fund further development and maintain the current commitment to respect for privacy, I am willing to allow Mozilla to do some aggregate analysis of my browsing habits, just as I am willing to provide survey answers for products that I buy.

          I don't love the aggregate analysis, but Mozilla needs to do browser business in the modern world.

          • By ryandrake 2025-02-2816:58

            The tech industry is just one rug-pull after another, but still people line up to try standing on the rugs!

            1. We won't show ads in our product -> We'll show skippable unobtrusive adds in our free product only -> We'll show bottom-of-the-barrel scum ads in our free product only -> Those skippable ads are now not skippable -> We'll add a few vetted ads to the paid product -> We're going to shove ads onto every surface of the product we can find!

            2. We don't collect or sell data about you -> We will collect limited data for "telemetry." -> We'll also collect some demographic data "to improve the product." -> We're going to collect everything we can get our hands on, but we won't sell it. -> We share your data with only vetted, trusted "partners." -> We share your data with everyone we do business with -> We firehose your data to anyone willing to pay for it!

            It's the same progression every time, but users keep thinking this time it will be different.

        • By bluGill 2025-02-2814:02

          Paid version have that problem somewhat less because they have a source of income that could dry up if they do. Paying someone means they are beholden to you as well, while free gives you nothing.

          There is a reason I get my email via fastmail: they differentiate themselves on privacy features. I also have my own domain, so if fastmail does turn evil they know I can easially move away. I can run my own email server, but having done that I know it is harder than I want. There are other services I'd pay for if I could find someone I could trust to take a small amount of money. (small is key - plenty would do this for thousands, but I don't have that much free cash)

          Don't get me wrong, the above is not very large, but it is still something.

        • By ibejoeb 2025-02-2813:50

          Nothing is forever, but if you get a contract that prohibits their data play (collection, derivation, sale, all of it...) for a year or whatever, you're good for that long. That'd be enough for me.

        • By throw10920 2025-02-2814:41

          You have to trust and/or monitor and apply active pressure to (something that virtually nobody does) the developers to some extent either way. The difference with a paid distribution is that there's at least some revenue that helps keep the project afloat, and with a free distribution there's not.

          e.g. if you have a CEO/lead developer that's initially acting responsibly, but has a "bankruptcy threshold" beyond which they'll start selling your data, a revenue stream will stave that point off.

        • By winwang 2025-02-2823:501 reply

          Semi-crazy idea: Add clauses which destroy half the company if they change the deal without a year of advance notice.

          • By vetrom 2025-03-0317:55

            A modern equivalent to the 'usenet death penalty' is what's really needed. Without a grassroots method to censure and more or less permanently injunct and/or eject bad actors, you can't stop them from harvesting profit from the ecosystem to the exclusion of all other concerns.

        • By tremon 2025-02-2814:06

          Yes, this. When Mozilla (or any other corporation) demonstrates positive cashflow, the odds of MBAs and other vulture capitalists descending on it increase massively. And I have never seen customer agreements like this survive a buy-out: the new owners are never constrained by the promises (or even contracts) of the previous company.

      • By mariusmg 2025-02-2811:263 reply

        >So why isn't anyone trying to replace Mozilla yet,

        Because writing manifestos is easy and making a browser is proper hard work ?

        • By sph 2025-02-2811:343 reply

          My comment is targeted to the developers of Waterfox and Librewolf - they're already making a browser, so the hard part is done.

          I'm wondering why don't they try to step it up further by selling a paid version alongside their open source product. What is the worst that can happen? Nobody pays for it and they continue making $0 just like they are happily doing now.

          • By bluebarbet 2025-02-2811:59

            >the hard part is done

            The hard part is the rendering engine and security. Both are done by the maintainer of the upstream source, i.e. Mozilla.

          • By bluGill 2025-02-2814:071 reply

            https://buymeacoffee.com/waterfox wasn't hard to find that. (they also make money from search). Put your money where your mouth is and donate.

            Librewolf doesn't want to deal with the administrative overhead of donations - which if they'd only get a few donations makes sense. It likely costs several hundred a month just to hire the accountants and lawyers needed to get the paper work right (you can do it yourself at cost of time doing other things. Often you can find accountants and lawyers who will donate their services, but it is still several hundred dollars worth)

            • By carlosjobim 2025-02-2814:541 reply

              Donating is not the same as buying. When you donate you are subsidizing every freeloader who doesn't donate. No thanks.

              • By olyjohn 2025-02-2818:061 reply

                Everybody who doesn't donate isn't a freeloader.

                • By carlosjobim 2025-02-2820:01

                  Sure, I'm not counting those who contribute with their work. But if you don't contribute with your work or with your money – that's a freeloader by definition.

          • By Fnoord 2025-02-2812:112 reply

            A paid version needs to offer something on top of it, which is usually in one way or another proprietary (such as a proprietary service).

            Something like this is regarded as the enshitification process, so what typically happens is they (e.g. VC) want to do such after they lured in their users. Which Firefox has (or arguably: had), but Waterfox and Librewolf have not.

            Good thought experiment.

            It ain't the first drama or controversy with regards to Mozilla, who have had a long tendency which didn't occur recently (and included the time Eich was there). Nostalgia just makes people forget the bad.

            • By kiba 2025-02-2813:331 reply

              It doesn't need to be proprietary or have an advantage. It just need someone willing to pay for it and a mechanism for doing so.

              However, the default assumption is that all open source software is free to download and use.

              Of course, there's the matter of revenue. If you get 100 dollars or 1000 dollars a month, is that significant to do anything useful for the project?

              • By nottorp 2025-02-2814:221 reply

                It doesn't even need to be an extra service.

                I'd donate to Firefox for no additional service if they would guarantee my money only goes to the browser and not crypto or AI initiatives.

                Note donate. As in one time payments at a time of my choice. They also try to push towards subscriptions when you hit that donate button.

                • By kiba 2025-03-013:57

                  I wasn't thinking about subscription but one time payment for a download.

            • By bee_rider 2025-02-2814:25

              It does actually seem pretty difficult to sell a browser; I don’t really see how anybody in their right mind would trust a closed source browser. So, it will be hard to make any parts of it proprietary. It isn’t impossible to sell open source software of course, but it does seem to be pretty difficult.

              Rather, I wish we would stop accepting web standards that don’t come with reference implementations. Then, we could have a reference browser, and just run that. I don’t expect it to be performant, but I also don’t think browser performance matters much at all. Web pages are not HPC applications.

              Currently we’re accepting the anti-competitive behavior of Google, just DDoSing the community with new standards to implement. This is the root problem. The fact that Mozilla is being killed by funding problems is downstream of the fact that maintaining a web browser requires multiple full time engineers.

        • By araes 2025-03-012:54

          And making a browser that's actually financially viable enough to pay for your time and effort without pissing off your user base because of paid features is even worse.

          Especially in a crowded market, where we're arguing extensively about a browser that has 2.54% of the market share. Chrome (67%), Safari (18%), Edge (5.2%) [1]

          [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

          Most of those also have a browser mostly as add-ons, bundling, ecosystem value, or trademark / brand name trojans.

          Admittedly, if you're looking to make a browser, there's a lot of various prior attempts that remain in existence, yet have never really received that much attention. [2]

          [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Timeline...

          Personal preference is that somebody would implement a scripting language alternative other than Javascript. Anybody heard of TCL lately? It's supposed to be a browser scripting language alternative according to the w3.org specification [3] Really, almost anything other than Javascript as an alternative. Just for some variety.

          [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/scripts.html

        • By rat9988 2025-02-2811:45

          Exactly, so why not write them?

      • By lurk2 2025-02-2821:51

        I am at the point where I would happily pay an annual subscription on the order of a few hundred dollars per year just to avoid the headaches of today's browsers. Don't add new features, don't change the look of anything, just give me security updates and bug fixes. The only problem with this model is what we saw happen to the streaming services; paying to avoid ads just means your data is worth that much more. Paying for a higher-tier plan is a signal that you have a greater level of disposable income, and are hence more valuable to advertisers.

        When this topic has been discussed on Hacker News in the past, it has also been pointed out that developing a browser with feature parity to Firefox or Chrome would be prohibitively expensive.

      • By bloopernova 2025-02-2813:134 reply

        Kagi's Orion browser has a lifetime sponsor price of $150. That plus the Kagi subscription support its development.

        It's currently macOS and iPad/iPhone only, but a Linux version is being worked on. I don't know their plans for a Windows version.

        • By traverseda 2025-02-2813:561 reply

          Which is great, but I'm not going to buy it until it's fully open source: https://orionfeedback.org/d/3882-open-source-the-browser/34

          • By tigroferoce 2025-02-2815:30

            On one hand I agree, on the other hand, their claim that they are too small to support a large community of developers is not wrong.

            Also, they claim "zero telemetry", so I don't really know what's going on, I know it's not leaving my computer.

            I find that currently even if it's far from perfection, Orion is the lesser evil in the browser scenario.

        • By wobfan 2025-02-2814:19

          Tbh while I have been using Kagi as search and their AI assistant a lot lately, their browser lacks massively in functionality. uBlock Origin has never been working for me, neither on macOS nor on iOS, and for me it just doesn't deliver enough to convince me to switch.

        • By bluGill 2025-02-2814:121 reply

          What is a fair price? Developers are not cheap and you need to pay many of them every month (or get the equivalent in donated time). We can debate that number of course, so I'm going to start the discussion at $50/year. So your "lifetime sponser" is only worth 3 years (ignoring interest which isn't significant at this time scale).

          Accounting for lifetime anything is hard (I don't know how to do the math, I'm sure people that do debate a lot of complex issues), but I'm again going to suggest that a lifetime subscription needs to be 20x the yearly fee to give a number to start the debate at.

          • By bloopernova 2025-02-2815:01

            oh absolutely, I agree. I don't think $150 is adequate to fund development of a browser.

        • By eduction 2025-02-2814:26

          And it crashes constantly. Lots of other bugs that you start noticing when doing deeper things. I tried it for about six months. Just not a reliable or serious browser although very fast when it actually works.

      • By SJC_Hacker 2025-02-2813:351 reply

        Brave https://brave.com/ has been around for a while

      • By nerdponx 2025-02-2811:532 reply

        Kagi is making the Orion browser, which you can pay for. I am a happy customer.

        There's also Ladybird and several Webkit wrappers.

      • By agumonkey 2025-02-2812:441 reply

        I tip some projects that help me. It's been years since mozilla started to do evolve in ways that feel weird. I'd tip for a fork.

        Question is: how many people would jump ship, and then how much money would that represent to pay devs.

        • By bluGill 2025-02-2814:141 reply

          https://buymeacoffee.com/waterfox

          please do tip a fork. Right now this money seems to go to one person, but if that person starts making significant money we can probably talk them into hiring others to work on the project.

          • By agumonkey 2025-02-2815:021 reply

            do you know if he has a paypal link ?

            also, slightly related, people should look into / take inspiration tor browser. they're really great at releasing regular updates with high quality and features, surely they know how to handle this kind of projects

            • By bluGill 2025-02-2816:151 reply

              I didn't find one on the website, but maybe you can find it.

              I'm personally not a fan of paypal so I look for alternatives, though I have no idea if this is a good one.

              • By agumonkey 2025-02-2817:08

                yeah paypal is not the greatest, iirc opencollective and liberapay were nice too

      • By Y_Y 2025-02-2811:561 reply

        This idea of having an moral alignment covenant I think is a great one. I'm fed up of being bait-and-switched by companies that get buy-in by being open and friendly, and then later they decide to kill the golden goose. If you're committed to FOSS then commit! Make it official so that people can trust that you're not going to enshittify later.

        • By paulryanrogers 2025-02-2812:532 reply

          Open AI is still technically a non-profit. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

          • By Y_Y 2025-02-2816:29

            Didn't you hear? After inflation there isn't a thing to be had for the paltry sum of mere eternal vigilance.

          • By nottorp 2025-02-2814:23

            Lol and they're as open as they're non profit.

      • By aerzen 2025-02-2812:06

        I'd pay for this.

      • By yyyyz 2025-02-2813:06

        [dead]

    • By jchw 2025-02-2810:13

      Most of the other "forks" (e.g. Librewolf) are just patches on top of vanilla Firefox sources, so it's really not a whole lot to scrutinize by hand. I've skimmed at least most of the patch files personally just out of curiosity. In my distro of choice, NixOS, the sources are built by Hydra or my local machine, so I'm not trusting that their binaries match the source either.

      That makes it a bit easier to trust, but it does run into the issue that it stops working if Mozilla hits a certain level of untrustworthiness.

    • By KingOfCoders 2025-02-2812:342 reply

      They got more than $7B to build a browser.

      "I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces"

      I would also love to face $7B existential wobbles.

      • By ta1243 2025-02-2812:522 reply

        To put that number in perspective, drawing just 1% of that down each year and putting in a bank account earning interest would fund 100 engineers on $500k/year indefinitely.

        • By karaterobot 2025-02-2814:382 reply

          I get what you're saying, but the reality is that it takes more than engineers to run a browser company. You'd have to find 100 engineers who can double as lawyers, designers, project managers, etc., and handle payroll, and HR, and after those 100 engineers end up doing the job of 300 other people, how much code are they writing? Your point about them appearing to waste money is taken, I'm just pointing out that it's not quite as bald-faced as that.

          • By superq 2025-02-2821:04

            It doesn't take more than engineers to maintain an open-source browser, though. Why does it have to be a company at all? Remember Firefox? Firefox was literally just an act-of-love fork from some engineers from a dead acquisition by a dying dot-com era behemoth.

            Put another way, does the Linux kernel or the Python language need to be run by a company, or will foundations does these jobs ok?

            There are plenty of open source projects that are enormously successful without a single lawyer or project manager in sight.

          • By gunsle 2025-03-0213:58

            Or you could literally outsource 90% of that and focus on what you actually should be, engineering and development of Firefox and other Mozilla products. These companies are bloated beyond belief and they have nothing to show for it, clearly it’s not working.

        • By dtech 2025-02-2814:144 reply

          They got it over many years with ongoing expenses because they had a browser, so comparing it with 7B lump sum is silly.

          With the same argument you could probably retire, after all you already earned (years you've been working) * (average salary).

          • By itsoktocry 2025-02-2814:411 reply

            >so comparing it with 7B lump sum is silly.

            It's not that silly, because that's a huge amount of money. What do you think the gross expense of building software like this should be? Because this may be the end of the line.

            • By tempest_ 2025-02-2815:15

              How much has Google spent on Chrome.

              Big numbers without context are not useful outside of taking advantage of people who don't think critically.

          • By nottorp 2025-02-2814:24

            I don't know... do they even have 100 engineers? Or 20 and the rest is management and crypto and AI projects?

          • By ta1243 2025-02-2814:372 reply

            so if I've worked for 20 years from age 20 with a 100k average salary that's 2m

            A 2m lump sump at 20 would allow me to live a lifestyle of a 20k/year life, not good enough.

            Had I lived that over the last 20 years and saved the rest of the 100k in an 8% return fund then I'd have 4m today and could drawdown a 40k/year life at 1%.

            Had I been given a lump sum of 100 times my desired salary though, or 10m, then sure, no need to work.

            • By mock-possum 2025-02-2815:12

              And depending on where you live, 40k might be barely scraping by now, and certainly not enough another 20 or 40 years down the road when you get to the point where you need daily care and medical services.

            • By warkdarrior 2025-02-2815:28

              You may want to double check your math before you retire.

          • By KingOfCoders 2025-02-2814:26

            You are right, they got $400M+ a year.

            I stand corrected, I would want to face the $400M+ per year existential wobble.

      • By gunsle 2025-03-0213:561 reply

        Yeah Mozilla at this point is really like the kid riding the bike and putting a stick in his own front tire meme. I had an interview with them years ago and even then it was clear they were wasting time on the most pointless bureaucracy while Firefox was languishing. Doesn’t google literally give them millions a year to exist? Like idk if I can even think of something more mismanaged than Mozilla.

        • By account42 2025-03-0315:09

          Wikimedia tries but despite their best efforts Wikipedia is still unrivaled.

    • By wraptile 2025-02-2811:271 reply

      > I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces

      The wobble seems to somewhat artificial. I'm having trouble believing Firefox could ever not be able to afford to continue browser development — there are way too many interests at stake. Google alone would have no choice but to bail Firefox out because Chrome can't be the only browser without being regulated to hell and back.

      • By SiempreViernes 2025-02-2812:151 reply

        Google providing most of their funding is a fact, and that this provides a large amount of leverage over what Firefox can do is obvious. So how is the balancing act artificial?

        For it to be self-imposed there needs to be an comparable amount of money ready to spring forth if Google ever pulled out that Mozilla is somehow keeping a lid on.

        • By themaninthedark 2025-02-2812:34

          We are able to develop not just an open source kernel, multiple different distributions and a large suite of software. I would think that we could also develop a browser that doesn't need to spy on us.

    • By dmantis 2025-02-2810:551 reply

      I don't see how a regulated entity is better in any way than an individual.

      We repeatedly see attacks on freedom and privacy by the people who are supposed to protect them, those so-called "regulators": chatcontrol, recent UK backdoor wishes, repeated French proposals to enforce DRM even on opensource. And I wouldn't even google Russia, China, or other less democratic states.

      Regulated is probably worse than some anarchistic who-knows-by-whom software, but FOSS and auditable these days, tbh. Especially as everyone's audit capabilities grow day by day with AI. It's kind of good at grinding tons of code.

      A heavily regulated entity with all licenses in the world might be more hostile toward users than some niche project.

      • By MrAlex94 2025-02-2811:112 reply

        > I don't see how regulated entity is better in any way than individual.

        I feel you. Regulatory bodies have definitely fallen short in many cases, and we've seen concerning proposals from governments that threaten digital privacy and freedom. "Who watches the watchmen" seems incredibly apt nowadays.

        However, I feel there's a fundamental difference between imperfect accountability and no accountability at all. With a legal entity governed by stated policies, users have:

        1. Transparency about who makes decisions and how

        2. Clear terms that create binding commitments

        3. Legal mechanisms for recourse if those commitments are violated

        4. A persistent entity that can't simply disappear overnight

        Perfect? Not really. The ICO in the UK, for example, hasn't been amazing at enforcing data protection. But the existence of these frameworks means that accountability is at least possible - there are levers that can be pulled if someone can be bothered to.

        In contrast, with software maintained by anonymous or loosely affiliated individuals, there's no structural accountability whatsoever. If privacy promises are broken, users have no recourse beyond abandoning the software.

        FOSS and auditability are valuable safeguards, sure, but they primarily protect against unintentional privacy violations that might be discovered in code reviews. They don't address the human element of intentional policy changes or decisions about data collection.

        • By Defletter 2025-02-2812:51

          I grow wearier by the day by the incessant calls to denounce and disown everything that isn't perfect.

        • By EndShell 2025-02-2813:511 reply

          > I feel you. Regulatory bodies have definitely fallen short in many cases, and we've seen concerning proposals from governments that threaten digital privacy and freedom. "Who watches the watchmen" seems incredibly apt nowadays.

          Many regulatory bodies seem to constantly fall short of what they are supposed to do and then demand more money and powers to continue to fail at what they are supposed to do.

          At what point would you accept that they maybe not fit for purpose and other solutions should be considered?

          It maybe better to put resources into educating people on how to protect themselves from privacy breaches or minimise the impact.

          The only thing I've ever seen from the ICO is a letter saying that if I have customer data I have to pay them a fee or pay a fine. Then I have to go through the inconvenience of telling them I don't have any, so I don't have to pay this fee.

          • By sesqu 2025-03-011:161 reply

            I never see regulatory bodies demand money or powers. That's private companies and law enforcement, respectively. Regulators seem to be staffed by skeleton crews allowing them to take on one case a year, and the Google-tier customer support that entails.

            • By EndShell 2025-03-0113:01

              > I never see regulatory bodies demand money or powers.

              It happens quite often after a big failure. I've worked in government myself as a contractor and seen huge amounts of waste while completely failing what they were supposed to be doing. I left after a few months (I was asked to stay) because I was utterly disgusted by it.

              > That's private companies and law enforcement, respectively.

              Law Enforcement most certainly, but private companies that just isn't true.

              Maybe if you are at some large corporation, however generally waste at large corporations I've seen is due to having to cancel projects because of situations changes e.g. I was working on a large project to that was to integrate the platform with Russia, that got cancelled for geopolitical reasons.

              Most private companies aren't large corporations though and most work is done by a few super stars in the company.

    • By Propelloni 2025-02-2810:03

      Hey, thank you for Waterfox! I'm using it a lot across all my machines. Well done!

    • By 1oooqooq 2025-02-2811:521 reply

      we need to clean cut from mozilla.

      do they still make ot worthwhile for developers? are any on the payroll still?

      i think the community should mobilize to sign up for adopting A single fork* as the official fork and completely drop mozilla from existence.

      * only criteria should be the fork that is most convenient for all the other forks to just point to instead of mozilla and continue to ship with their patches. and that one fork should have the minimum resources to respond to security disclosures in place of mozilla, nothing else as a requirement.

      • By bluGill 2025-02-2814:202 reply

        More importantly that fork should be what other forks base off of. Anyone can put a skin on a browser, but someone needs to do the engine. If every fork who wants an engine improvement goes to the one place there is some mass behind making the fork real, and the other forks can still to their skin if they think it useful. That one fork also means that when mozilla comes out with a new version there are enough hands to merge (at least until Mozilla diverges too far from the fork)

        • By Y_Y 2025-02-2823:061 reply

          What about Servo? That's coming along and already has a company/coop behind it.

          https://blogs.igalia.com/mrego/servo-revival-2023-2024/

          • By account42 2025-03-0315:14

            > and already has a company/coop behind it

            Considering what has happened to Firefox, that's not encouraging.

        • By 1oooqooq 2025-03-017:36

          the first part of your comment is exactly what i said.

          the second part, it looks like you ignored my whole comment.

          there should be no more mozilla. if they exist by means of opensource contributors. i question if they have their own developers on payroll still? which might be slightly harder to replace.

    • By simpaticoder 2025-02-2812:551 reply

      >it seems daft to me when others suggest using forks with no well-established governance of their own

      Yes, it may be that we are jumping from the frying pan into the fire. On the bright-side this opens up an opportunity for a company, or a suite of companies, to fund an alternative browser. Such an entity might have Signal at its lead, or similar, who's mission is solely to "tighten up" the software stack on which it runs.

      • By Lio 2025-02-2815:28

        That sounds very much like Ladybird's mission.

        Truly independent

        No code from other browsers. We're building a new engine, based on web standards.

        Singular focus

        We are focused on one thing: the web browser.

        No monetization

        No "default search deals", crypto tokens, or other forms of user monetization, ever.

        https://ladybird.org/

    • By AyyEye 2025-02-2814:581 reply

      > I should point out, it seems daft to me when others suggest using forks with no well-established governance of their own, essentially shifting trust from an organisation at least answerable to certain regulations, to individuals with no proper framework or guidelines

      Individuals that care about these things have a far better track record than any business with employees, bills to pay, and investors.

      • By dylan604 2025-02-2815:031 reply

        Until that individual tires of the work, and then stops working on it completely or sells it to someone with less scruples or the project gets hijacked by malicious actor.

        • By GuinansEyebrows 2025-02-2815:051 reply

          Aren’t the latter two more or less what happened to Firefox?

          • By dylan604 2025-02-2815:41

            I think it's pretty much what happens to every thing

    • By account42 2025-03-0314:55

      > I should point out, it seems daft to me when others suggest using forks with no well-established governance of their own, essentially shifting trust from an organisation at least answerable to certain regulations, to individuals with no proper framework or guidelines.

      That just shows that trust in Mozilla has sunk below "random stranger" levels. IMO that shift is entirely deserved.

    • By lolinder 2025-02-2814:441 reply

      Rather odd policy choices is an understatement.

      The context to keep in mind here is that Mozilla purchased an ad company back in June. They spent money on it, and they will move to earn a return on investment.

      Absent that context this could just be another tone deaf policy choice that gets rolled back when there's enough heat, but with that context in mind it's far more likely to be them laying the legal foundation to incorporate Anonym's targeted advertising into Firefox.

      From the Register article about the acquisition:

      > Arielle Garcia, director of intelligence for ad watchdog Check My Ads, told The Register in an email that she's generally skeptical of claims about privacy-preserving ad technology.

      > "For example, how do Anonym’s audience capabilities, like their lookalike modeling, jibe with what Mozilla considers to be 'exploitative models of data extraction?' The data that is 'securely shared' by platforms and advertisers to enable ad targeting and measurement have to come from somewhere – and there’s more to privacy than not leaking user IDs."

      https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/18/mozilla_buys_anonym_b...

      • By jeltz 2025-02-2819:30

        This is not the first time Mozilla bought an ad company, last time it was Qlikz. And last time it cost them most of their German users. Wonder how many users they will lose this time.

    • By itscrush 2025-02-2812:411 reply

      1. Is github the best place to report bugs / issues for Waterfox?

      2. When (not in your lifetime obviously) Waterfox is broken, what canaries do you have deployed that we can archive now, like Mozilla's tell here?

      3. What keeps waterfox afloat? Where/how do you accept funds?

      4. How do I find a sync alternative or provide my own? Such that, I'm not reliant on Mozilla sync/backend? ... If none exists, how much would it cost for you to embed one? Would you accept a serious bounty for it assuming the focus is self hosted / no Waterfox backend services?

      • By rafram 2025-02-2813:52

        > When (not in your lifetime obviously) Waterfox is broken, what canaries do you have deployed that we can archive now, like Mozilla's tell here?

        This is so melodramatic. It’s a set of patch files applied to the Firefox source tree. If an evil maintainer hatches a maniacal plan to collect user statistics and deletes the patch that removes telemetry or whatever, you can just `git revert`.

HackerNews