Risa @startrek.website MalikMuaddibSoong @startrek.website 20h ago

Sokath, his browser’s eyes wide open

They're the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my ~~pain~~ privacy taken away. I need my ~~pain~~ privacy!

15 comments

Because you are the product
- Sokath, his eyes opened.
- Data, Mozilla has issued a ruling. You are the property of Firefox. You can not opt-out.
They've updated it to be worded better https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
- tbh that just reinforces my growing distrust of the direction they are headed
They are just covering their butts legally against someone suing them for typing a URL into the URL bar.
- I've seen this sentiment, but I don't think it's credible. I don't think we should normalize legalese 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.
  
  Perhaps if you gave an example from the TOS to illustrate what you mean by "enabling bullshit" your position would be more clear?
- 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!"
  
  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.
As long as it’s in Debian, I’ll use it.

15 comments