“I want a puppet”

Tech speeds things up. If you want to do good, it’ll help you do it faster. If you want to do evil, it’ll help you do it faster.

This has happened before in the software world, and its usually not a huge deal after a little bit of rockiness.

OpenOffice->LibreOffice. ddwrt->openwrt->tomato etc.

Development will continue, but maybe in a less resourced fashion.

I’m aware that history is against them. The one thing in Firefox’s (not Mozilla) favour is that its open source. The browser and codebase will live on even if Mozilla crashes and burns.

The forks already exist, the only “moat” that Mozilla has is trust and goodwill, which they are burning rapidly.

The angle I was thinking along was that if Mozilla was prevented from making those data transfers, then their browser becomes worthless. So in reverse, by making the transfers, their browser gains value. The obvious problem with that interpretation is that its basically impossible not to make a sale, as every transfer provides value - which very much defeats the purpose of the definition. (Not a lawyer, just an internet idiot, and I very much hope your definition is correct)

Spinning them out would have been preferable to me as well, and tbh, at this stage, I think I would prefer if firefox was spun out of Mozilla entirely. It really deserves to be managed by something like the Linux foundation or some other not-for-profit steward.

If the legal definition of a term has changed such that their current activities now fall under it, changing the terms of use legal document does make sense.

They are pretty clear that under California law, they are “selling” data. They have two options, keep the ToU document the same, and try meet the new laws requirements (which as I’ve said in other comments, seems impossible for a browser - not a lawyer though), or update their ToU without changing their current behaviors.

They have gone with the latter, but it does also allow them to be far more “evil”. Its definitely the first step down a bad road, time will tell if they go further.

If you want to play it safe, block their domains via pihole: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Websites/Domain_List/Mozilla_Owned

I’m not a lawyer, but “other valuable consideration” seems very broad. For DNS, getting the returned IP address is valuable. Ditto for http, getting the returned webpage is valuable?

I only suggested the translation thing because it (imo) fell under a “transfer of data for value provided”, which makes it a sale?

Its even more broad than that, because its any exchange of data for valuable consideration. No money has to change hands, but if it benefits FF, its a sale. And the benefit could simply be “if we do this we will function correctly as a browser”.

Yup. And it doesn’t help that they have been throwing away good will for a while now, with their crypto/AI/etc bandwagon jumping. They are still the least worst option, as I dont trust the forks either, but its getting hard to trust them.

Yup, its been terribly handled. Dunno if it was driven by a panicy lawyer, but those steps would have been much better. At a minimum, that blog post should have come first.

Yeah, its definitely wide open for abuse now. But the California law also seems way too vague as well. What about DNS lookup? That takes a users input and transfers it to someone else, is that a “sale”? Can hardly start separating that out of the browser? Http requests? Its all users initiated, but is it a “sale” in California? Not a lawyer, haven’t a clue.

The rationalization they have given is that legally, they may have been seeking data all along, as some jurisdictions define it extremely loosely.

For example, if you use their translation feature, they are sending the page your looking at (data) to a third party, which provides a benefit to Mozilla. Thats technically a sale in some laws, but most would agree that is acceptable given the user asked for it to happen.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

I’m overall concerned with Mozilla, but not sure this is malicious yet. But definitely needs to be closely scrutinized.

The 3rd gen iPod shuffles used the headphone port for USB, definitely uncommon though.

Not OP, but combustion byproducts/impurities mostly. Get a air quality sensor and watch it go mad when you start cooking.

The one real downside to induction is actually its speed. You can really easily burn your food very quickly if your not careful. IKEA sell an induction hot plate for $40AUD, well worth giving it a try.