Hm. Reading further in the article and since its not the first no-no… I have doubts.
Comment on [deleted]
kingshrubb@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
thehackernews.com/…/mozilla-updates-firefox-terms…
Apparently they changed it due to backlash.
DegenerationIP@lemmy.world 3 months ago
airportline@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Ok so I don’t have to change browsers?
PullPantsUnsworn@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
There are no alternative browsers out there. Our situation has came down to choose one of the least evil out there.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
I don’t know about you but I fulfill all my e-commerce needs with Offpunk.
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
God, I love what people manage to create
I also love that any time someone asks if (tool) exists in non-evil form and someone says “no, not really” that you can almost guarantee someone will show up with a CLI solution that nobody wants to use because it’s a CLI solution
MrMcGasion@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Glad they clarified. To me the “selling data being defined broadly” argument made sense in the context of Google paying them to be included as a search provider. Because there is an argument that Google paying Firefox, and then the user entering a search and that being sent to Google’s servers could be legally seen as Mozilla selling data to Google.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
They should clarify that then. Explain any and all situations that could be considered “selling user data” and explain what data that consists of. Then explain how to avoid it.
That shouldn’t be hard.
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Across every country they operate in, and if anyone in those countries disagrees they might sue?
Not saying Im supporting FF here but it’s not as easy as you might think if their stated reason is honest
blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 months ago
They wouldn’t have to do every country. A single example would be helpful, for context and clarity.