this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)

Linux

53618 readers
57 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
0
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

... I mean, WTF. Mozilla, you had one job ...

Edit:

Just to add a few remarks from the discussions below:

  1. As long as Firefox is sponsored by 'we are not a monopoly' Google, they can provide good things for users. Once advertisement becomes a real revenue stream for Mozilla, the Enshittification will start.
  2. For me it is crossing the line when your browser is spying on you and if 'we' accept it, Mozilla will walk down this path.
  3. This will only be an additional data point for companies spying on you, it will replace none of the existing methodologies. Learn about fingerprinting for example
  4. Mozilla needs to make money/find a business model, agreed. Selling you out to advertisement companies cannot be it.
  5. This is a very transparent attempt of Mozilla to be the man in the middle selling ads, despite the story they tell. At that point I can just use Chrome, Edge or Safari, at least Google has expertise and the money to protect my data and sadly Chrome is the most compatible browser (no fault of Mozilla/Firefox of course).
  6. Mozilla massively acts against the interests of their little remaining user base, which is another dumb move made by a leadership team earning millions while kicking out developers and makes me wonder what will be next.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Ok idealist.

What is your alternative funding stream for Mozilla?

It's bad.

Is it worse than the advertising owned browser that gives your information directly to said advertiser?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I used to say the same, but now I wonder if they need as much as they have?

I am genuinely curious. There have been a lot of threads like this full of criticism for not spending enough on the browser.

It seems the browser is plenty funded, so maybe the org and co have too much and are in search of where to spend it?

Maybe it's just the company with too much and the org is still struggling?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I mean, that argument starts to wade in to the Mozilla foundation as a whole, and what their purpose is, and that's a giant kettle of fish.

Theoretical game. They lowball Google on how much Google pays them. How do people react? I don't see them doing that and say, "Man, I'm glad Firefox is reducing Google's influence over them". I see them making a thread about how Firefox is giving Google a discounted rate because they're all corrupt technofacists.

The core problem there still exists IMO. Funding.

What we really need is a reasonable way for open source, free, software, that exists for the good of the whole, to get money. But that has it's own kettle of fish, where does it come from, how big is big enough to get some, what if they charge for support, how open is open enough.

Something something, seize the means of production, communism, etc.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So you didn't care reading up what PPA is, eh?

But yeah I agree with the toot, we need more browsers heck even more browser engines to not end with just one engine controlled by fucking Google.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is after they bought an ad company last month, Mozilla is compromised now

Edit: Somebody pointed out the reason: Mozilla Foundation has no members. It's just the executives, no one in the actual community has any input in Mozilla's direction, and considering how wildly out of touch tech executives are this explains it all

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think it’s more because the Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit company and people barely understand the difference between the Corporation and Foundation or what the Foundation even does, or the rules that allow a non-profit to own a for-profit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (7 children)

A bunch of Firefox devs need to leave Mozilla, fork it and start up an actual non-profit not based around monetization. I would happily donate monthly if I knew it were going to Firefox development, instead of the dozen other things Mozilla spends its money on. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think I would pay for a proton browser as well, if it isn’t just chromium. 5$ a month seems reasonable, but I am more the pay 250$ for lifetime type 😄

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

All of these claims clash with the reality of so many core open source projects, used by private users and massive corporations alike, that rely on single voluntary developers or super small groups which receive no flowers and no donations.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In the meantime you can give a look to the Servo project. If Servo is clean for you, you can support them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You’re definitely not alone. If this happens and it becomes some major news in the community with reasonable visibility, I’m sure many people would support this.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (40 children)

This is misinformation. The setting in question is not a "privacy breach setting," it's to use a new API which, for sites that use it, sends advertisers anonymized data about related ad clicks instead of the much more privacy-breaching tracking data that they normally collect. This is only a good thing for users, which is why the setting is automatically checked.

load more comments (39 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The way it works is supposed to anonymously allow the measuring of advertising performance. Which ads do well with which kinds of users. Instead of tracking each individual user this tracks context, meaning what site the ad was seen on etc. Thereby providing a way to know what kinds of ads work with what kinds of users without profiling every individual in the world.

That is what it's supposed to do. Data still goes to an allegedly "trusted third party" (let's encrypt, apparently) which then does this anonymization.

The idea is a lot less egregious, but it's still only a good idea assuming you agree ads would be a good and ethical way to make the internet go round, if only they weren't profiling everyone. I don't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah the title of the post makes it sound much worse than what it seems to be in practice? Maybe I'm just naive

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I think this a problem with applications with a privacy focused user basis. It becomes very black and white where any type of information being sent somewhere is bad. I respect that some people have that opinion and more power to them, but being pragmatic about this is important. I personally disabled this flag, and I recognize how this is edging into a risky area, but I also recognize that the Mozilla CTO is somewhat correct and if we have the option between a browser that blocks everything and one that is privacy-preserving (where users can still opt for the former), businesses are more likely to adopt the privacy-preserving standards and that benefits the vast majority of users.

Privacy is a scale. I'm all onboard with Firefox, I block tons of trackers and ads, I'm even somebody who uses NoScript and suffers the ramifications to due to ideology reasons, but I also enable telemetry in Firefox because I trust that usage metrics will benefit the product.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The original mastodon post was with more details, and some drama, but the guy is trying to spam this link everywhere he can. so desperate for attention. lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (4 children)

anyone who cares about privacy is running ublock and/or umatrix anyway so it's negated.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

People should just use LibreWolf at this point

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Be careful what you wish for. Firefox needs income and without audience for Firefox, Firefox is no more and then LibreWolf is no more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I think Mozilla could find another way of getting profit without without tracking its users or depending on Google's funding.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›