Firefox deletes promise to never sell personal data, asks users not to panic
arstechnica.com
Mozilla says it deleted promise because “sale of data” is defined broadly.

Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users’ personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn’t fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users’ personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:

Does Firefox sell your personal data?

Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise.

That promise is removed from the current version. There’s also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, “Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you, and we don’t buy data about you.”

The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define “sale” in a very broad way:

Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

Mozilla didn’t say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Don’t collect anything on your own and don’t sell the things you don’t collect. Bam, problem solved.

      • Zak@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Depending on how the requirement to accept the ToS is implemented, a config file might be able to disable it and any features that depend on it.

      • horse_battery_staple@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Ah, thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression it didn’t call out to mozilla servers if you didn’t enable sync.

        I guess Mullvad would be the next popular browser yeah?

        • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          afaict Mullvad browser doesn’t support plugins which - it does some adblock by default (more ifyou have the VPN) and so on but i gots to have my DarkViewer so it’s a sometimes browser for me atm.

          • WrittenInRed [She/They]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            It does work with Firefox plugins, there just isn’t a button to open the extension “store” in the extensions settings page like stock Firefox has. You can add them by manually going to the url though, it’s just recommended that you don’t since that increases your risk of adding a malicious plugin or being fingerprinted, etc. I still added a few plugins that I really dislike not having though, like a password manager and darkreader, just because I valued the convenience slightly more than the added security.

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Mozilla needs to understand that I don’t want it to have my data to sell or not in the first place.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Nahhh, trust them, bro. People working on other things with the same product name as their company name were great people. That should be endorsement enough.

      Wait. They have this ‘open source’ flag. If they wave it about - oooh, pretty - does that help?

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      That’s the thing that bothers me about all these companies now. My data is my data, not theirs. They shouldn’t even be allowed to collect it, let alone sell it or give it to anyone who wants it.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          I’m checking right now, but it’s kind of unclear. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like Librewolf picks and chooses what to use from Firefox, yeah?

          I’m also looking into the TOR browser.

          • heavydust@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            All the forks pick and choose but features can be enabled or disabled, or removed entirely. Telemetry is always removed, whereas DRM or cookie settings can be turned off by default.

            If you want some kind of Tor browser without all the Tor thing, Mullvad has its fork too from Tor (like the fixed display as a rectangle to prevent fingerprinting).

            It’s free and open-source but it’s probably a bit annoying to use daily and it’s barebones: https://mullvad.net/en/browser

          • bizarroland@fedia.io
            0·
            2 months ago

            The thing about open-source software is that if you fork the software, then your fork can have its own rules.

            You can even make the fork of the software fully closed source except for the open source software that you used to originally develop it.

            You can sell open source software as if it were proprietary.

            You can basically do anything you want with it as long as you respect the original source from the code that you have taken.

            Once the software is no longer in Mozilla’s hands, then Mozilla’s portion of the license no longer applies.

            • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              0·
              2 months ago

              That’s what I thought, but there are many people in this very thread saying the opposite. From what I read on Librewolf’s site, it seems to back up what you are saying.

              • Balder@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                What @bizarroland@fedia.io is saying is not correct, because it depends on the license. For example, GPL software requires that ALL the source code that uses some GPL code to be released as GPL too. That’s why some people avoid GPL at all costs.

                Other licenses, such as LGPL allow you to link your proprietary code with open source parts and only release the code of the open source part (along with any modifications you did to it).

    • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.ukEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Floorp?

      No User Tracking

      We don’t collect personal information from users. We don’t track users. We don’t sell user data. We have no affiliation with any advertising companies.

    • wizzim@infosec.pubEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I read somewhere that Librewolf is not recommended because they are a small team and slow to patch vulnerabilities / integrate security fixes from Firefox.

      Is it true? (Sincere question)

      • afk_strats@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        I’m considering adding it to the alternatives list I posted. Can anybody else validate their privacy policy? Seemd ok but I’m a bit iffy regarding their use of telemetry. Maybe I’m overthinking it

        • The Giant Korean@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          No telemetry, allegedly.

          Edit: There does still appear to be some, although it’s less than FF and it’s anonymized. I ended up going with Fennec just in case.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      There’s also Servo by the Linux Foundation and Ladybird.

      These are actual different browsers and engines all together compared to FF spin-offs.

      • afk_strats@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        I’m excited for these to mature but they are still developing and would not recommend them for regular use

      • bizarroland@fedia.io
        0·
        2 months ago

        I’m still super waiting for Lady Bird. I cannot wait to give it a try, but it’s gonna be like 2026 before they start rolling out builds for general use.

  • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    I see it said agian and agian. because its true. Firefox is one of, if not the best of the mainstream browsers. (Not included its many forks) but Mozilla is a horrible caretaker of it. Mozilla does not focus on firefox and they dont care/believe in it nearly as much as its users or devs who fork it.

    The motivations of a company are extremely important, and has Mozilla does not care for a lightweight, good, privacy centric browser, the enshitification will and has corrupt firefox.

    It’s only a matter of time until it is as bad as chromium or flat out joins it.

    • Engywook@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Chromium is bad only in your head. It’s a fucking rendering engine with different incarnations. How can this be bad? And no, FF is not “the best”, otherwise it wouldn’t have the shitty market share it actually has.

      • RecallMadness@lemmy.nzEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Ah silly us.

        We spent a decade hating on IE, it’s slowness, poor support for any standards, plugins that fuck your shit up, etc.

        But it was obviously the best because it had that huge market share.

        • Engywook@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          It’s even worse. You spent several years worshipping a misguided Corp. making a mediocre browser fir laughable reasons and you have been f*cked in the end.

      • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Each person has thier own opinion. I have used IE, edge, before it went chromium and have used chrome. They work, and if you get into the ecosystem they work really well, but if you don’t want to be in the ecosystem or try to stop some it, I ran into problems.

        When I just accepted all google ecosystem products, chrome worked great, when I needed to use alternate google accounts for school I ran into issues. So I moved to edge and it worked fine, except for with google I ran into issues, then it became chromium.

        Then ads, and popups being an ad company, google doesn’t like supporting ad or content blockers, which makes sense but ublock has been so great at blocking unwanted popups and ads and as far as I am aware it doesn’t wirk as well on chromium based browsers, or at all.

        So agian Chromium is a solid system and if you don’t care to change it it can work grest for you, but I found trying to change it to suit my needs as been problematic, in ways firefox or some fork of it hasn’t been.

        If you are happy with Chrome or Edge or whatnot, great, there isn’t a problem but I want other options, I want more options about how it works, how it runs on my system and what data it collects or shows, things chromium doesn’t support.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I don’t know why they haven’t floated the idea of some kind of subscription or one-time payment (though a subscription might be just as infuriating). I’m not above paying for software and if it was a reasonable price, say $10 one-time, I’d much prefer that over it becoming the new Chrome.

      • RecallMadness@lemmy.nzEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Could you imagine the enshittification cries if they did this. “Mozilla to add subscription model to your browser”.

        They have other products that have subscriptions you can pay for to support the company.

        Instead of using Mullvad, use Mozilla VPN (it is literally exactly the same, you just pay Mozilla not Mullvad)

        If you’re a web developer, Subscribe to MDN Plus.

        Hate spam? Firefox Relay.

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          I learned more about their paid services from this one post than in the last 5 years of using their browser. Not that their browser should be constantly inundating you with ads for their other services but dang.

          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            The problem is that none of this revenue or profit is guaranteed to go to Firefox. It goes to Mozilla and they decide how it is spent. It could go to pocket, a new overpaid CEO, or a hundred other ways that don’t benefit FOSS.

            I would have donated hundreds of dollars to Firefox development already, if that were possible, but that is not an option. The only option is Mozilla, and they may spend that on anything else but Firefox.

            Also Mozilla VPN is shit. It is a severely limited implementation of Mullvad, and they even enshittified their browser for it. You can only have per container VPN’s (a major gain for user privacy) if you pay for Mozilla VPN… They’ve already chosen to harm their users privacy for profit. This is the kind of shit that guarantees I will never donate as long as a for profit entity has control over Firefox, and its features.

      • morrowind@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        They’re already dying. This would be throwing themselves in the grave. People aren’t used to paying for browsers

      • Balder@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        I’m pretty sure a $10 one time payment won’t pay for the costs of development that Firefox requires.

        Open source only works when there are people motivated enough and skilled enough to maintain something for free or when the organization managing it has another source of income.

    • ShadowRam@fedia.io
      0·
      2 months ago

      Considering how critical a browser is these days.

      I’m surprised there isn’t a very popular Open-Source one that everyone is using.

      • Telorand@reddthat.comEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        It’s because it’s hard to maintain a browser. There’s lots of protocols and engines and other moving pieces; I remember when web pages would render in Netscape but not Internet Explorer, for example.

        We take for granted how seamless and ubiquitous the internet is, but there were lots of headaches as internet devs decided to adopt or include different users (or not).

        And now, it would take a lot of effort and market upset to convince the capitalist overlords to include something new in their dev stack. The barrier to entry is monumentally high, so most people don’t bother to try inventing something better.

        • idefix@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          It looks as if it’s hard to maintain a browser by design by making overly complicated HTML/CSS/Javascript/etc standards.

          It makes me want to spend more time using the Gemini protocol.

          • Telorand@reddthat.comEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, the standards of the internet are just piled on top of each other. Rendering code and whatnot is the easy part. Keeping up with the standards is the hard part (or so I have read).

        • ShadowRam@fedia.io
          0·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, I have no doubt you are correct. It’s one of those situations that if it were that easy, it would already be done.

          • 4am@lemm.eeEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            Wasn’t there some stuff about the ladybird devs not too long ago?

            I just hope that project doesn’t end up being the Voat or Parler of browsers.

            • UnculturedSwine@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              0·
              2 months ago

              It’s a browser, not a platform. Having a bunch of groypers use it doesn’t ruin the experience for everyone else so long as it retains good privacy features.

              • emogu@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                While I agree with this sentiment on the surface, using a privacy focused application that was built by folks who yield to cops as part of their identity doesn’t inspire long term viability in that space.

                It’s the same reason I moved away from Proton when their CEO told us all where his values lie. It’s not outright backtracking on privacy promises but with so many comparable alternatives in this space, why chance it with the bootlickers?

      • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Ive seen a few foss options but they generally lack certain features alot of people have gotten used to either because they cant implement them or it was committed for privacy/resource reasons.

        So it becomes a balance of features vs privacy and right now fire fox has been a good enough balance there hasn’t been enough backing for a “good” feature rich foss that less computer adept users can easily install and migrate to.

    • afronaut@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Do Firefox forks allow us to avoid this enshittification or will they also be affected as well?

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Yes, they allow full avoidance of any potential data collection through the browser, if they remove the collection features.

        Mozilla would need to change their licensing terms to prevent forks from being able to remove things like that, and forks could just use the last version of the code before the license change and just backport new features.

        Also Firefox is fully open source, unlike chromium which relies on a closed source binary blob in the middle. Some chromium forks have replaced the binary blob with open source code, but the default is for chromium forks to have a nice chunk in them controlled by google that no one can deeply inveatigate what it does. Firefox does not have this issue.

        Mozilla can’t hide any potential data collection in Firefox due to the full open source nature (unlike chrome forks). They also can’t stop fork devs from stripping out any data collection functions. And as of today, they have not introduced any data collection that is not supremely anonymized, and they have not introduced any data collection that cannot be opted out of through the browser settings (and about:config).

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.clubEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        In theory yes. But remember that Chrome is based on Chromium which is open source. But nobody has stepped up to do a viable hard fork to take power away from Google.

        Maintaining a modern browser is a huge undertaking which is why almost nobody except Google, Mozilla, and Apple are really even trying. Even Microsoft threw in the towel.

        The more bad stuff is added to Firefox the harder it will be for any forks to keep up removing it while also keeping it up to date. Will anyone step up?

        • morrowind@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          Because it hasn’t been needed. Alternatives like vivaldi and brave do make some changes to allow you to disable Google services. Ungoogled chromium is also a thing.

          For all the hate, Google has mostly done fine beyond a few boneheaded decisions.

        • theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          There are at least two projects trying. Ladybird is one and will make a splash next year. In addition, since the Servo project was adopted by the Linux Foundation it is again under active development.

        • zecg@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          It’s just Firefox but you trust some nerds they’ve weeded all of Mozilla out. It comes with ublock origin installed and a simple searchbar homepage. It’s great because Firefox is great and the nerds who added value by stripping bullshit did a good job, but if Putin replaced them with some blyat and pushed an update I’m not sure I’d notice on time.

    • RecallMadness@lemmy.nzEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I don’t believe Mozilla doesn’t have the best interests of the browser at heart, I believe that they do think their browser is the their number one product.

      But that’s the problem. It’s free software, going up against a juggernaut whose browser is just another side project to drive engagement with their core product.

      A juggernaut who just so happens to be one of Mozilla’s primary source of income. All it will take is a little bit of legislation somewhere in the world to make that deal less attractive and Mozilla could be dead in the water. And it will take all of those forks with it, paving the way for Google to become the true web Hegemony.

      Mozilla needs to diversify to ensure they can continue to provide stewardship to the browser.

      But trying to make money in 2025 just seems to summon the enshittification brigade.

      Free software is not free. Someone has to make it.

      • lemminator@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Have they considered just asking for money? Also getting rid of the giant holes that they keep pouring their money into?

        A lot of people love Firefox, and would happily donate. They could also trim a lot of fat at Mozilla quite easily.

  • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable)

    So in other words we sell your data and get paid for it, and some countries won’t let us lie about it.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, I think it would be very fucking easy to say “we don’t sell your data” by any definition… Literally all you need to do is not fucking sell people’s data

  • Viri4thus@feddit.orgEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Women CEOs are as shit as Male CEOs. Who would have thunk the war of the sexes was a cause dangled in front of the bougies so the elite could parasitise free from fear of popular revolt huh?

    • angrystego@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      These are two separate things. Men and women are all human beings and are OF COURSE capable of being shitty or good on the same level. But it’s important to give the same opportunity to both, there’s no reason one of the sexes should be discriminated against. Women are still not equal in many ways (the exact ways depending on the particular society).

      • Ledericas@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        They are often used as scapegoats in the CEO position, when the company gets really bad reputation. Musk being an obvious example of X, chose a woman as a human shield

    • Ledericas@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I read somewhere that women CEO are often chosen when the company is declining or about to fail, as a way to take the blame off from themselves. So your comment seems kind of misogynistic and saying women are just as bad, but you are not accounting for the misogyny in the corporate world. In many cases a male dominated BOD often use women as a scapegoat for their failings, musks twitter for example, he hides behind a woman to take criticism off himself. Women also earn significantly less than men in the same position. Another is YouTube’s Late ceo. Theranos had Holmes, but if you look further she was chosen to be the face by a male BOD

      • Viri4thus@feddit.orgEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Sex, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour are red herrings used to distract the people from the fact they have a boot on their neck. The replies to my comment are yet another evidence people are OK licking the boot as long as the party is “insert preference here”. The problem is not particular to any of the aforementioned classes, the problem is the incentive structure is broken and the fiduciary duty is enshrined in law rather than good governance and long term sustainability. Firefox is just another evidence that cheerleading for a CEO because of intrinsic characteristics is a folly.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Fucking what?

      What the fuck are you even talking about? What kind of brain rot pushes a person to bring this shit up out of the blue?

  • parmesan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Am I the only one here who’s pretty much okay with this? I do wish they’d clarify exactly what they mean by “Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about ‘selling data’),” but having my anonymized data sold so that Mozilla can continue to operate (combined with Firefox being the best browser I’ve used in terms of both performance and flexibility - ability to install add-ons from sources outside of the Mozilla store, for example) - seems like a worthy tradeoff to me.

    They also have an option to opt-out of data collection, which I do wish was opt-in instead, but with the way every other mainstream browser operates I’m just happy the option is there at all. Let me know if there’s something I’m missing here though.

    • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      The problem I have with this is that “anonymized” data in the past has often been trivial to de-anonymize. And if they can remove some promises now, they’re going to keep going in that direction. Just like Microsoft telemetry used to be less but is getting worse and worse.

      • parmesan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        I’m not trying to unilaterally defend the decision, it’s just not going to make me personally switch browsers. From what I’m hearing a lot of the viable alternatives are forks of Firefox anyway.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      To generalise, just as Reddit is the neolib centrist hivemind and Facebook is the conservative boomer hivemind, Lemmy is some overlap of privacy/techy/ultrapolitical groups - so whenever you get this kind of news that is ultimately pretty mild and uncontroversial to most you get lots of Lemmings buttons pushed and what seems like an oversized reaction in the comments.

      Is Firefox perfect? No. Is it still the best available mainstream browser option? Yes. And if the small groups that presently use it walk away and its tiny market share (~5%) declines to a point where Firefox becomes insolvent - well then browsers will be just a two-horse race between Google (Chromium) and Apple (WebKit). Every web spec and page will be beholden to the desires of those companies - I’m sure the same Lemmings will be complaining about that too, and by then it will be too late to realize what they’ve lost.

      • Ledericas@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        It was a neolib site, but it’s starting to lean right wing, and soon will.be with the ranks of Facebook soon enough. The reason, they have been aggressively banning accounts as of late, and alot of its based around trump posts. They allow heavy astroturfing from the right, either from troll farms or conservative comments, you report them you will get banned. Many people criticized the site for pushing so many trump sanewashing posts in the front page, the conservative sub have been consistently in the front page for a while, before you almost never hear a peep from them, unless it’s being talked about in other subs