> e is no way you can guarantee, even for a few months, that System1 won’t change Waterfox in any of its privacy aspects.
But if they did, they would legally have to notify the users of those changes (GDPR etc) and would lose all the users, rendering it pointless to have bought Waterfox. Not sure why they would shoot themselves in the foot like that.
This argument is hard to understand, given that this hasn't happened when companies did this in the past. At the end of the day, you can break your word as much as you like as long as there's a year or so between making the promise and breaking it.
I'm not sure I understand the criticism to my previous comment. If System1 would change any privacy aspects (which they won't) and I assume people are going to assume for worst case scenario - users would need to be notified. Then, System1 would lose all trust and no-one would use Waterfox.
> At the end of the day, you can break your word as much as you like as long as there's a year or so between making the promise and breaking it.
But nothing has happened and people are just pointing fingers. Seems rather unreasonable. People had the same criticisms in 2014 when I received investment into Waterfox. The same sort actually and 6 years later...nothing had changed.
What I was saying is that this isn't a factor and that means we don't have any guarantee of good conduct. Because of that, we shouldn't trust that it will happen.
To be clear: I don't actually care all that much - I never expect a browser to be privacy-focused and I respect your right to want money to do the things you enjoy.
But if they did, they would legally have to notify the users of those changes (GDPR etc) and would lose all the users, rendering it pointless to have bought Waterfox. Not sure why they would shoot themselves in the foot like that.