Sokath, his browser’s eyes wide open

Comments

• julianh@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They’ve updated it to be worded better blog.mozilla.org/en/…/update-on-terms-of-use/

  source

  • toodd@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    tbh that just reinforces my growing distrust of the direction they are headed

    source
• data1701d@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  As long as it’s in Debian, I’ll use it.

  source
• possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Because you are the product

  source

  • MalikMuaddibSoong@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Data, Mozilla has issued a ruling. You are the property of Firefox. You can not opt-out.

    Grimace

    source
  • Reddfugee42@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Sokath, his eyes opened.

    source
  • Corgana@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Annoyed

    source
• Corgana@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They are just covering their butts legally against someone suing them for typing a URL into the URL bar.

  source

  • grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    No, they’re not. No software company has ever needed legal cover for that and nothing changed in the legal landscape to create that need now. To pretend that there is such a need is to deliberately misrepresent the fundamental nature of what a product, such as software running locally on the user’s machine, actually is.

    ---

    The only justification for having ToS is if Mozilla is transforming Firefox into a service that depends on communication with Mozilla’s servers themselves, which is absolutely not just “typing a URL into the URL bar!”

    source

    • essell@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I think their blog makes it clear that it isn’t them that’s changing

      Its that legal definitions are changing around them and they need to reflect that in their terms.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • isosphere@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’ve seen this sentiment, but I don’t think it’s credible. I don’t think we should normalize legalize that explicitly enables bullshit; it’s not like it couldn’t be written any other way. It’s written in English, though it has legal intent, and we have words and phrases to clarify such things.

    source

    • Corgana@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Perhaps if you gave an example from the TOS to illustrate what you mean by “enabling bullshit” your position would be more clear?

      source

      • -> View More Comments