
Firefox Fights for You. We keep your data safe, never sold - joeyespo
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/fights-for-you/
======
rcw4256
"You decide what to share and when."

That's demonstrably false. Disabling telemetry resulted in the collection of
meta-telemetry, in violation of users' explicitly expressed decision to not
allow collection of telemetry.

[https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/21/mozilla-wants-to-
estimate-...](https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/21/mozilla-wants-to-estimate-
firefoxs-telemetry-off-population/)

~~~
orcdork
For 1% of the users opting out of telemetry. And anonymized. And also the data
not being telemetry related.

Technicaly correct, but pretending that this is mozilla going against the
spirit of "decide what to share and when" is at best stretching it, and worst
case willingly misrepresenting the case.

~~~
dcbadacd
It literally went against the spirit of "decide what to share and when" if I
check "never" and it does.

------
vnw
Your decision to show ads to your users this last week without their consent
was the last straw for me. And believe me, I've stood A LOT from you. My
relationship with you has been practically abusive. Farewell Mozilla, it's
been real.

~~~
skyfaller
Where on earth are you going? Chrome? There are no other independent browser
engines left besides Firefox, web browsers are a duopoly now and if you think
Google is better on data collection and ads than Mozilla, I have a bridge to
sell you.

~~~
jkollross
Chrome isn't the only other option. There are tons of browsers that are more
respectful of user privacy than Firefox:

\- Firefox (but fixed with settings that are hidden from the user for some
reason)

\- IceCat, Waterfox, Pale Moon, etc.

\- Ungoogled Chromium, Iridium, Qutebrowser, etc.

Mozilla's actions (Cliqz spyware integration, ads in the browser, Google
analytics in the browser, locked enabled telemetry, etc.) show that their
"commitment" to user privacy is just marketing.

~~~
ForHackernews
> tons of browsers

So...some minor derivatives of Firefox, plus some hacked-on versions of
Chromium. What are you going to do if Firefox goes away?

------
pferde
Dear Mozilla, you have no business _having_ my data in the first place. If
you're promising to keep my data safe, things have already gone wrong.

~~~
tombuben
Except they actually provide useful features like Firefox Sync. If you opt
into that service it is impossible for them to provide it to you withouth
having your data on their servers.

~~~
craftyguy
They should be transparent about _what_ data they have. There are options like
"Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla" and "Allow
Firefox to send backlogged crash reports on your behalf" in Firefox, I don't
recall if they are enabled by default when you install the browser but I seem
to recall that at least one of them is. These options have nothing to do with
the Sync feature.

~~~
FooBarWidget
They _are_ transparent. Have a look at their privacy policy:
[https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/privacy/firefox/) It's simple, human-readable language, not even legalese.

------
jchw
They've been blasting the PR far and wide on social media but did they ever
address their recent 'experiment?'

~~~
rayuela
What are you referring to? Link please

~~~
rnhmjoj
Probably this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800175](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800175)

------
wwweston
"Who's that guy?"

"That's Tron, he fights for the users."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kcgosLwPDE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kcgosLwPDE)

~~~
drharby
That dialogue is gold.

------
ForHackernews
Does anyone else find it strange that threads on Mozilla articles submitted to
HN are filled with privacy-absolutists while articles about Google/Chromium
are disproportionately commented on by Google apologists?

Are there two radically divergent subsets of HN users who hardly comment on
articles about the other major browser?

~~~
oth001
Could possibly be brigading by Google (or whoever).

~~~
ForHackernews
Maybe? I'm not that conspiracy-minded, but it's weird comparing the comments
in this thread, to say, this one:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18595069](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18595069)

------
fxfan
Lets start with removing pocket and installing unlock origin by default. I'll
believe you. And I say this as a loyal user since 2006.,

~~~
ForHackernews
I honestly do not understand why so many people are angry about Pocket:
[https://help.getpocket.com/article/1142-firefox-new-tab-
reco...](https://help.getpocket.com/article/1142-firefox-new-tab-
recommendations)

> Important Note: Neither Mozilla nor Pocket receives a copy of your browser
> history. The entire process of sorting and filtering which stories you
> should see happens locally in your copy of Firefox.

Do you think they're lying? Do you just hate the idea of any built-in browser
integration with proprietary services?

~~~
knob
> Do you just hate the idea of any built-in browser integration with
> proprietary services?

Yes. I hate the idea of any built-in browser integration with proprietary
services.

~~~
ForHackernews
Do you feel the same way about including Google as the default search engine?
If not, why not?

~~~
rayuela
Switching to a different default search engine is trivial. Removing pocket not
so much...

~~~
SamuelAdams
About:config

Pocket.enabled

Set to false

Seems pretty simple to me.

~~~
GordonS
Trivial for your average HN user, but "normal" users can't be expected to go
poking around in an undiscoverable settings feature that warns them about
dragons.

------
k__
I liked the new fast Firefox until I tried the macOS version with Gmail. :(

------
peterwwillis
Mozilla bragging to me about how they're defending me on the web is like Smith
& Wesson telling me they're keeping me safe from guns.

It also seems like the height of hypocrisy to complain about data privacy when
people use almost exclusively free services online. Somebody has to pay for it
all, and since users refuse to do so, advertising has to. It's simple math: if
you don't pay for content, your data will be monetized to pay for it. If all
use of private data on the web was somehow regulated into oblivion, the web
would collapse, because there'd be no money to pay for it.

~~~
zzzcpan
Invasive advertisement doesn't fund most of the web, it only funds some
thousands of top websites and I bet most of them can exist without invasive
tracking and banners. There are still brand deals and content advertising and
other forms of non banner advertisement, not to mention non advertising
business models. And most websites can't exist on advertising revenue anyway
and are funded some other way.

~~~
peterwwillis
There's no question of whether a business _can_ exist without targeted
advertising ("invasive" advertising). But they're definitely going to use it
whenever feasible, because it's the most efficient form, possibly more than
direct marketing.

The ways a business can make money online are A) partnerships, B) advertising,
C) goods/services, D) subscriptions, or E) community. The last two are dwarfed
by the first three, which depend on advertising. Even if you're a B2B, you
still need marketing to get new clients, which almost invariably includes some
kind of advertising.

So the majority of websites people visit are still paid for with some form of
marketing. It may be indirect, such as by affiliate, partnership, selling of
private data, etc, or it may be direct, such as with advertisements and
spam/newsletters. The user is still going to pay for it, one way or another.
If they're not paying via a subscription or donation, they're paying through
their use as a marketing target. (And often, via both!)

------
ERD0L
I would use FF if they had a decent Mac app. Still no TouchBar support, weak
cpu and ram management, no native zoom like chrome implemented

------
casper345
The convenience of Chrome extensions that I use daily is a major hesitation
from me switching to any browser.

~~~
wutbrodo
If you don't have any ethical objections to adblocking, the Brave browser
supports Chrome extensions.

~~~
casper345
I will look into it!

------
throwaway2048
Never sold, just given away, see the cliqz debacle.

[https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/06/mozilla-to-launch-
firefox-...](https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/06/mozilla-to-launch-firefox-
cliqz-experiment-with-data-collecting/)

~~~
vnw
Before the apologists roll in: Cliqz GmbH is a media and advertising company,
and Firefox DOES NOT own Cliqz GmbH, they just own a bit of it (officially
they are a "minority investor").

The Mozilla Corporation sent private data of its users without their
permission to a third party ad company. It's despicable and unforgivable.

------
agumonkey
This era of data business is such a mental papercut..

------
onetimemanytime
First of all, what data do you have and why do you have it?

~~~
FooBarWidget
You could just check out their privacy policy you know:
[https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/privacy/firefox/) It's literally linked from just below the "Download
Firefox" button and in the page footer.

