Give the comment a couple minutes to reply, otherwise you might look even less normal

If you’re not responding in bad faith and genuinely couldn’t follow, I’ll simplify matters:

I found it interesting that Mozilla hasn’t had much to say about ad blockers either this year, or last year. Things have changed considerably at Mozilla over the last couple of years. General consensus appears to be that those things are worse.

I never said Mozilla’s silence was proof of anything, I just find it curious when you add it to everything else Mozilla has become. Because they are now an ad company, we must place extra scrutiny on how they discuss advertisements.

It’s fair to say that if you can’t read past the first doesn’t words and respond to them, you do have a problem.

deleted by creator

Mozilla Corp purchased FakeSpot over a year ago. FakeSpot changed the privacy policy right before the buyout, in order to explicitly give Mozilla the rights to the private data they had acquired over the years.

By buying FakeSpot, they objectively bought “data about you” for any “you” who was using FakeSpot. So we know it’s untrue when they say they don’t buy data. And if that part isn’t true, I’m not sure why you would take stock in the part right after it.

And if it turns out Mozilla is making an “oopsie” on this privacy policy, (and in the a FakeSpot one that goes to great lengths to describe the data Mozilla purchased), it loops back pretty significantly to the “oopsie” they made with uBlock Origin Lite.

You don’t understand it? It’s pretty clear that in California, they can’t get away with claiming they don’t sell your data, but in Nevada they can. They also clearly seem upset that they must declare that they sell your data, putting “sale” in scare quotes quite often.

Pretending Mozilla FakeSpot and Mozilla Firefox have no common denominator is wrong. They are both operated by Mozilla, and they both allegedly conform to Mozilla’s ethical principles. And if FakeSpot can clearly sell data, then that’s evidence that there is root at the rot of the corporation.

Surely you know better than to take the most charitable interpretation of carefully constructed legal speak.

Mozilla says FakeSpot sells private data to advertisers in their own privacy policy. In case you were genuinely unaware:

There are actually two very specific events that occurred after 2022 which are crucial to note.

• In May 2023, Mozilla purchased FakeSpot and permanently retained the policy that allowed them to sell private data to advertisement companies
  

• In June 2024, Mozilla purchased Anonym and took it on as an official advertisement subsidiary

The fact that Mozilla hasn’t talked much about ad blockers since then is, I think, significant.

It’s a bit ironic because Steve Teixeira, who sprearheaded Mozilla Social, got fired after bringing to light the fact that Mozilla wasn’t an inclusive company. I’m a fan of inclusivity, and I agree that accusations of “woke” are meaningless, but I didn’t spot any in that article.

In theory, no, but in practice… Every major Google Chromium fork has accepted the removal of Manifest V2 add-ons. It’s much easier to make a fork when 99% of your work is done for you. (That’s not to disparage any fork of any major browser, just a point that development doesn’t come cheap.)

I linked an article that was literally about how Mozilla could, but was not, capitalizing on Google Chrome’s missteps… And specifically laying the justifiable reasons that you alluded to. If somebody hasn’t been following Mozilla’s behavior, it might come in handy.

Every time Mozilla releases a new version of Firefox, LibreWolf applies patches on top of it and releases that. No Firefox, no LibreWolf.

There are hard forks of Firefox that work semi-independently of that project. But they often struggle with feature parity and, worse, security.

Gorhill does not seem like the sort of person to respond to problems by giving Up.

This is the developer who responded to the creation of Manifest V3 by pioneering a hack-free V3-compliant addon, and ended up making it genuinely compelling.

Regarding ad blocking: this isn’t the first time Mozilla has been a little weird recently.

IIRC it’s not just Eich but also political agent Peter Thiel, the guy who created a surveillance network so powerful that the NSA relies on him.

Mozilla doesn’t show their work (the reasoning behind the removal) but gorhill does.

Being on the fence is an interesting position to take, but I would be genuinely shocked if one of the most reputable creators of one of the most reputable extensions of all time is lying to its user base about the locations and contents of the files in the open source extension that can be audited by literally anybody just by browsing to that directory on their computer, because in addition to being open source on GitHub, it’s the same source on your PC.

ETA:

Mozilla also accuses uBlock Origin Lite of not having a privacy policy (a detail I removed from my post for brevity’s sake) but gorhill provides a screenshot of it. I guess that could have been faked too. Less difficult to fake: the archives of the privacy policy on Mozilla’s site, which took me too long to track down

This post is about how Firefox needs to be loved more and it has over 500 upvotes, I think Firefox still has plenty of circlejerk potential on Lemmy

Of the $65 million Mozilla has earmarked for AI and VC (mostly AI VC, of course), this grant is practically a drop in the bucket.

But you’re right, I support Mozilla giving money to good projects over bad projects, but I’d also prefer if they figured out their post Google finances.

it’s in the “labs” section, its disingenuous to imply it isnt.

You’re the one who volunteered the claim that it was in Nightly. Not me. It’s crazy you’re calling me disingenuous for using the same language as you did. This is tone policing at a whole new level.

truncating my arguments in quotes to make me look stupid and trying to exclude any facts you dont like is a dick move, and you know it

This is a bold claim without evidence. If you have multi-pronged points that require everything to be true, and the first part of it is wrong, I don’t feel like I have to go over the rest. And if you’re doing whataboutism, I have no problem with skipping that either.

the comment is going “grrr ai”

You asked how Mozilla betrayed users, so let’s focus on that. I don’t care about the ways they haven’t betrayed users, in the same way I don’t care about how Seamus built a bridge.

second, that chatbot thing you’re crying about is>>> only in nightly

No, it’s in Firefox 130. I know this because I use Firefox.

it most likely will never make it into a non-nightly release

LOL

Also, when i say that a model is open source, i am referring to the binary being downloadable

This is not what open source means. If that’s the case, Microsoft Windows is open source. Go nuts.

You clearly saw the word “ai” and decided that mozilla was as bad as google, without looking into it at all.

People aren’t blindly saying all AI is bad. They were pointing at a specific thing. Do not strawman.