The whole “legal definitions are why we changed” is definitely what they’re rolling with, but I don’t think a lot of what you said is correct. Websites selling data is not the same as firefox selling data. If a site sells your data while you’re using firefox, that is in no way shape or form involved with firefox. That’s also not what they are claiming. They are strictly talking about the data that firefox directly collects and distributes. It would include search results if you searched via the address bar, I suppose. They have sold data for a while, but it’s anonymized (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy).
Firefox is free to use, but it costs a lot of money to develop. They need money, nobody here is denying that. Many users on this platform have tried to avoid any form of data collection as much as possible (myself included) so they would rather pay to fund it (though many don’t). However, most people would rather pay for the service with ads and data collection. Because to them, it’s basically free. Most users would never even consider moving to Firefox if it was paid. They could offer two options, one paid and one “free”, but they haven’t done that yet and it’s not clear if they plan to.
Most importantly, it’s really about being transparent. If they need money, they shouldn’t try to hide the fact they are selling anonymized data by saying “We never sell you data” or to be like “oh no, we are doing it because of legal definitions” when in reality they are selling data. I get it’s a PR movement, but most of the people intentionally using Firefox are tech savvy people wanting to get away from Google’s big brother approach. I get people defending Firefox, and I also get people hating on Mozilla, but we should also be clear about the reality. Firefox is, and has been selling your data (in some form), but now the laws are changing to make it more clear that what they’re doing is in fact selling data.
Which parts do you disagree with? I’m not talking about websites selling your data after you access them through Firefox, I’m saying that now - with new definitions of “sale”/“sell” - that Firefox giving anybody any data for almost any reason can be legally construed as “selling”. This isn’t just the case for Firefox, it’s the case for literally any web browser, and anything that can access the internet for any reason.
Yes, I thought about including the fact that Firefox does engage in ad-based revenue, and I suppose I should’ve, but Firefox is pretty upfront about this and allows users to opt out of targeted advertising - and this has been the case since long before this past week or two. These ads only appear on the “new tab” page, and only if you consent to seeing them. Anybody who’s dropping Firefox for this recent controversy seens to be missing that. It’s very possible (and personally I think it’s likely) that nothing at all has changed from within Firefox.
This comment reads differently to me than the one of yours I replied to. When you said:
for example if you use it for: literally any shopping or even just browsing store pages
That read to me like you were talking about the store itself, and not firefox.
Regardless, I agree with what you’ve just said more. My argument is moreso that Firefox has been selling data (so nothing really has changed with them), but now they’re being required to state that they’re selling data. I get that Mozilla doesn’t want to be lumped in with “selling data” groups, because it can be done in very extremely different manners with varying levels of invasion on privacy. But I also think they should have been more up front about where they get some of their revenue, and not tried to be like “We never sell your data” while literally having sponsored suggestions (both on the new tab page, and website suggestions in the address bar).
As for what the current drama impacts on this? Nothing, really. Other than they are being required to disclose that they sell data, and their getting backlash because they’ve been trying to pretend they don’t. Now that they’re lumped in with the “data selling” corporations in peoples minds (even though they’re very different than google), who knows if that will give them the extra room to be a bit more invasive with their data collection. They’ve already crossed the largest PR hurdle, so the future incremental changes would be much easier. There’s no guarantee, but with traditional enshitification, it wouldn’t surprise me.
The whole “legal definitions are why we changed” is definitely what they’re rolling with, but I don’t think a lot of what you said is correct. Websites selling data is not the same as firefox selling data. If a site sells your data while you’re using firefox, that is in no way shape or form involved with firefox. That’s also not what they are claiming. They are strictly talking about the data that firefox directly collects and distributes. It would include search results if you searched via the address bar, I suppose. They have sold data for a while, but it’s anonymized (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy).
Firefox is free to use, but it costs a lot of money to develop. They need money, nobody here is denying that. Many users on this platform have tried to avoid any form of data collection as much as possible (myself included) so they would rather pay to fund it (though many don’t). However, most people would rather pay for the service with ads and data collection. Because to them, it’s basically free. Most users would never even consider moving to Firefox if it was paid. They could offer two options, one paid and one “free”, but they haven’t done that yet and it’s not clear if they plan to.
Most importantly, it’s really about being transparent. If they need money, they shouldn’t try to hide the fact they are selling anonymized data by saying “We never sell you data” or to be like “oh no, we are doing it because of legal definitions” when in reality they are selling data. I get it’s a PR movement, but most of the people intentionally using Firefox are tech savvy people wanting to get away from Google’s big brother approach. I get people defending Firefox, and I also get people hating on Mozilla, but we should also be clear about the reality. Firefox is, and has been selling your data (in some form), but now the laws are changing to make it more clear that what they’re doing is in fact selling data.
Which parts do you disagree with? I’m not talking about websites selling your data after you access them through Firefox, I’m saying that now - with new definitions of “sale”/“sell” - that Firefox giving anybody any data for almost any reason can be legally construed as “selling”. This isn’t just the case for Firefox, it’s the case for literally any web browser, and anything that can access the internet for any reason.
Yes, I thought about including the fact that Firefox does engage in ad-based revenue, and I suppose I should’ve, but Firefox is pretty upfront about this and allows users to opt out of targeted advertising - and this has been the case since long before this past week or two. These ads only appear on the “new tab” page, and only if you consent to seeing them. Anybody who’s dropping Firefox for this recent controversy seens to be missing that. It’s very possible (and personally I think it’s likely) that nothing at all has changed from within Firefox.
This comment reads differently to me than the one of yours I replied to. When you said:
Regardless, I agree with what you’ve just said more. My argument is moreso that Firefox has been selling data (so nothing really has changed with them), but now they’re being required to state that they’re selling data. I get that Mozilla doesn’t want to be lumped in with “selling data” groups, because it can be done in very extremely different manners with varying levels of invasion on privacy. But I also think they should have been more up front about where they get some of their revenue, and not tried to be like “We never sell your data” while literally having sponsored suggestions (both on the new tab page, and website suggestions in the address bar).
As for what the current drama impacts on this? Nothing, really. Other than they are being required to disclose that they sell data, and their getting backlash because they’ve been trying to pretend they don’t. Now that they’re lumped in with the “data selling” corporations in peoples minds (even though they’re very different than google), who knows if that will give them the extra room to be a bit more invasive with their data collection. They’ve already crossed the largest PR hurdle, so the future incremental changes would be much easier. There’s no guarantee, but with traditional enshitification, it wouldn’t surprise me.