Yes we all know mozilla sucks, still ff is the best browser by far
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
611 points (82.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
27389 readers
2019 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Lesser of two evils
Wayyyyyyy lesser.
We're talking Mussolini versus your local grocery store clerk who's a dick sometimes.
I agree
Even at the same level it would be the preferable browser to stop Google from doing whatever they wanted.
Three. There are three evils in the browser space.
Ehhhh Microsoft edge is just chrome that steals your data for Microsoft rather than Google. It's like 2 different bank robbers that use the same brand of gun to hold you hostage.
Safari is the third, not edge.
Who is the third one?
Fuck that guy, all he does is make ragebait
True theo, was one of the devs who went against the stop killing games campaign claiming it was to hard for developers to have a basic end of life plan for software and other nonsense to justify game publishers screwing us over.
throw std::future_error(std::make_error_code(std::future_errc::broken_promise));
Important context!
They had to change this because newer laws like the CCPA classify some ways of transferring/processing data as a "sale", even if no money is exchanged.
See: this Firefox FAQ where they say:
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.”
Similar privacy laws exist in other US states, including in Virginia and Colorado. And that’s a good thing — Mozilla has long been a supporter of data privacy laws that empower people — but the competing interpretations of do-not-sell requirements does leave many businesses uncertain about their exact obligations and whether or not they’re considered to be “selling data.”
In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. We set all of this out in our privacy notice. Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
We’re continuing to make sure that Firefox provides you with sensible default settings that you can review during onboarding or adjust at any time.
The text you quoted sounds like a reasonable and normal definition of a sale to me. i.e. transferring to another business in exchange for something else of value.
So yeah, Firefox previously promised not to do this, "not ever", and now they say they need to do sell your personal data "in order to make Firefox commercially viable".
But hang on a second... Firefox is not a commercial product. So making it 'commercially viable' is highly questionable in itself.
It's a shame that Mozilla's current leadership is more interested in self-enrichment than in the past. But Firefox is still the very best option by far. I hope that the Ladybird project becomes strong the future, if for no other reason than pressure Firefox into staying good.
Firefox is a commercial product. Is it not?
They need to make money so that they can fund hundreds of engineers salaries to keep building it and maintaining web standards operability.
And somehow do this while keeping off with Chrome who has a team 4-5x their size.
Trying to figure out a way to be independent of Google while competing with Google is a tough nut to crack. If they can't sell it and they can't get enough donations, then then it comes down to partnerships and advertising.
Firefox is a commercial product. Is it not?
Well, it's partially a matter of semantics. Perhaps different people have different understandings of the word 'commercial'. For me, I'd say that Firefox is not something a user pays for. It's existence is not about making a profit, or strengthening a business, or anything to do with money at all - and therefore it is not a commercial product.
I agree that the engineers should be paid, and that browser development is very difficult. But nevertheless, Firefox historically has not been about maximising a profit - or even making any kind of profit at all. (Although it does seem Mozilla leadership are looking to change that.)
What you say is true.
It's not a product that you pay for or product that is sold. It is a product that is provided for free. However, that product can no longer be provided for free because Mozilla doesn't profit off of you using their free product.
Mozilla (the non profit) actually doesn't aim to profit at all. They aim to support the ongoing development of Firefox and similar projects. Which is currently under risk of not having the necessary funding to pay engineers to build and maintain it.
Mozilla needs more money so that they are not under the risk of sudden collapse if they stop getting money from Daddy Google.
Honestly, it's a shitty situation to be in. As the grand majority of users don't understand just how involved browser development is. And those users instead donate to projects that are either forks of Firefox (and directly depend on Mozillas investment) or are (at this stage) toys, like Ladybird.
Which leaves a slim set of choices for the continued funding of the project. All of which it's core user base hates (Market trend following, new features to see what sticks, AI related integrations, ads, subscription services....etc)
Yet it's core user base isn't willing to donate so it's kind of a self-caused problem.
Side note. IIRC the foundation's highest paid executive employees make about what a senior engineer at Netflix makes. To put that into perspective.
All those things they listed I would also consider selling my data. Even if you are offering my info in exchange for peanut butter cookies, you are trading it for something else.
Then donate!
They are in this situation because they have to keep up with chrome's capabilities _ velocity with a team that's 1/4 the size at best.
Essentially they have to produce more with less and they have a funding problem. Almost all of their funding goes into software engineering salaries.
At the risk of not being able to keep up and becoming an obsolete web browser leaving Chrome as the only dominant one there is a shitty position of being the bad guy so that you can get money.
In short, I sympathize with the reasons why they are having to do this even if I greatly dislike them. Reality is complicated.
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.”
Yes. That is selling. If you exchange customer data for money or other valuables, that is the definition of "selling".
Not in all cases.
As an example, Firefox has the option of sponsored results, which send anonymized technical data when a link is clicked, essentially just saying "hey, this got an ad click, add it to the total." It doesn't send info about you, your identity, or your other browsing habits.
This counts as a "sale" even though no actual identifying information about you was exchanged. They mention this in the paragraphs I attached, when they talk about data sent via OHTTP.
I don't think any reasonable person would consider a packet being sent saying "some unknown user, somewhere in the world clicked your sponsored post" as "selling your personal information", but that's how the CCPA could be used to classify it, so to avoid getting in legal trouble, Firefox can't technically say that they "never sell your data", even if that's the extent of it.
load more comments
(20 replies)
Thank you. I was hoping this would be among the top upvoted comments.
Also: this isn't news. It happened in February. Source: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e
load more comments
(2 replies)
Blue checkmarks fund Nazis
Theo is a shill and product expert masquerading as a 10x developer when at best he's an intermediate web dev
Not even intermediate. He makes so many bad calls that it’s honestly great to watch him to know what not to do. You’ll be right about 95+% of the time.
I had to stop watching him though because I’d spend hours writing up comments to correct everything he said.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
Didn't Firefox just release a new feature that prevents fingerprinting? Hard to get a reading on Mozilla these days.
It's because people looked at a line of a diff without looking at the actual context.
It's like finding the line in a diff where someone deleted a call to "check password" and concluding that this means the service is no longer verifying passwords.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
We never sell your personal data. Unlike other big tech companies that collect and profit off your personal information, we’re built with privacy as the default. We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from.
Basically, they consolidated and clarified their data privacy policies to be legally accurate. People took a content change to be a policy change on the assumption that you can't just delete words in one place and put new ones somewhere else.
Ha. I'd expect nothing less from Theo.
load more comments
(9 replies)
You don't like it? Go donate to Servo: https://opencollective.com/servo
Check out Ladybug as well
*Ladybird
view more: next ›