🐈⬛David SommersethThis is sad 😢
UPDATE (2026-03-02): This toot has gotten a lot more attention than what I would ever anticipate. Some clarifications are needed. A follow up is here: https://infosec.exchange/@dazo/116158898983233133
Nazanine (she/her)#Mozilla has lost their ground and is now in a free fall into a sinkhole. I doubt they'll ever get out if this again unless they do a 180-turn within the coming days. Mozilla has lost a lot of trust and credibility over the last couple of years. This accelerates that distrust even more.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
It looks promising, until you hit the last paragraph (my highlight)
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).
In my book, that's indirectly selling data.
Goodbye, #Firefox.
Update (2026-02-26): So this change happened exactly 1 year ago. I saw the date and missed the year. And since Mozilla is still doing the privacy whitewashing, there is no reason to trust Mozilla more today than a year ago. Leaving Firefox is unavoidable. The current Mozilla leadership does not deserver much trust from the community.
The Orange Theme@dazo I need to see that smarmy CEO out in the street with a Banker's box full of his shit before I reconsider Firefox as a web browser again.
Andrew Graves@theorangetheme @dazo The question is what to use other than Firefox forks. Waterfox and Librewolf work fine, on Android I use Fennec and Waterfox. Chromium based browsers aren't much better and I don't trust Brave either.
Ed@graves501 @theorangetheme @dazo
I went all-in on @zenbrowser and am really loving it. Waterfox on my phone for now.
Anything using Chromium is a non-option to me. Sure, let's just further cement Google's control of web standards. :-P
@EdCates @graves501 @theorangetheme
Agreed! We don't need to repeat the Internet Explorer fiasco.
@dazo @graves501 @theorangetheme
Exactly! It's why Vivaldi fans give me a headache.
mxk@EdCates @dazo @graves501 @theorangetheme not everyone has ensuring a balance in html-engines as one of their top priorities when choosing their browser.
Not sure why this is giving you headaches.
Especially in today's world where there only are 2 usable browser engines and both are connected and depending on companies that are not exactly trustworthy.
Firefox and chromium might be open source, but let's be honest, there isn't a community that could maintain them independent from Mozilla and Google.
Would I prefer if there was a Opera 12/Vivaldi like browser with a third engine? Sure! For all the issues it caused for me I loved presto and I hope one day someone builds something of that type around servo.
But also keep in mind: Mozilla killed Gecko as a standalone product, there is a reason why we only have lightly patched Firefox variants and not a single truly different web browser using Gecko nowadays.
Not sure why this is giving you headaches.
Especially in today's world where there only are 2 usable browser engines and both are connected and depending on companies that are not exactly trustworthy.
Firefox and chromium might be open source, but let's be honest, there isn't a community that could maintain them independent from Mozilla and Google.
Would I prefer if there was a Opera 12/Vivaldi like browser with a third engine? Sure! For all the issues it caused for me I loved presto and I hope one day someone builds something of that type around servo.
But also keep in mind: Mozilla killed Gecko as a standalone product, there is a reason why we only have lightly patched Firefox variants and not a single truly different web browser using Gecko nowadays.
@mxk @EdCates @graves501 @theorangetheme
What "gives me headaches" when a browser render engine gets a monopoly, we easily end up with the complete chaos we had with Internet Explorer roughly 20 years ago. Web sites had to account for IE3, IE4-5 and IE 6 version plus the "minority others". A web page would end up behaving completely different across all these aspects. The Opera browser was at that time one of the engines which was close to most compliant to the web standards.
Microsoft extended IE without caring about standards and since it was the dominating browser at that time, they didn't care much about the standards. They had their own standards. But they also didn't care about compliance between their own versions even.
Web developers at that time focused on getting the IE experience as best as they could and then came the minority browsers.
This can easily happen again if Chromium ends up without real competition. Then Google can do whatever they want with Chrome, drop caring about standards since it "owns" the browser scope. And by doing that, websites starts to adopt to make sure web sites renders best on Chrome, resulting in people being locked in with Chrome. And somewhere along this path, Google can ditch the open source Chromium - just as they try to squeeze out the third-party Android apps these days.
By not having a real competition in any market space, we users/consumers ends up as the losing part sooner than later.
@dazo all true.
But not everyone bases their choice of the browser solely on engine politics.
The feature set of Firefox and Chrome is similarly enough that one could argue for that, but Vivaldi is different.
Any other browser means I would need to give up on my mail client, calendar and so on in my browser. Also I use the sync between desktop and mobile, meaning any browser that's not available for both is out of the picture for me instantly.
If there will be a servo based browser that can do what ever Vivaldi does and that also exists for Android in a usable form, I would be happy to switch.
But not everyone bases their choice of the browser solely on engine politics.
The feature set of Firefox and Chrome is similarly enough that one could argue for that, but Vivaldi is different.
Any other browser means I would need to give up on my mail client, calendar and so on in my browser. Also I use the sync between desktop and mobile, meaning any browser that's not available for both is out of the picture for me instantly.
If there will be a servo based browser that can do what ever Vivaldi does and that also exists for Android in a usable form, I would be happy to switch.
@mxk Well, what to say ... Ignorance is bliss, perhaps?
The same arguments can be used about any type of politics. If you don't care about the details of the politics, you have not much to complain about when reality hits you.
Your arguments are common. And most users just want "something that works". Everyone gets that. Everyone, even I, want that. But if nobody fights for freedom, the freedom will eventually be taken away from everyone - also those who didn't care to join the fight. That's the reality.
But there must be room for some pragmatism. Sometimes you need to use what works while fighting the good cause. But that is not the same as ignoring there is something to fight for.
@dazo it's just naive to believe that individual decisions could solve regulation issues.
And asking people to make major sacrifices to their workflows just for political reasons is an incredibly privileged position.
And asking people to make major sacrifices to their workflows just for political reasons is an incredibly privileged position.
@mxk It's naive when you stand alone. Just as it is naive to call a single waterdrop a sea.
When individuals unite, it becomes a movement which can cause a change.
How else do you think Linux became the dominant server OS on the Internet? It all started with with a single individual saying:
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
Now it is available for lots of platforms and used "everywhere". There are tons of such examples.
People must unite. And even "going with the flow" of what "everyone else uses" is exactly the same thing. You've just joined a different movement.
If nobody does nothing, nothing will ever change.
@dazo Linux got adoption due to its features, not because of politics.
Some people might work on it out of idealism, but wide adoption and financing come from Linux actually being a useful project.
Linux got adoption due to its features, not because of politics.
Not quite so simple. You skip why Linux was created in the beginning. It was because there was no affordable Unix alternatives available to students.
All the features we take for granted in Linux today was lacking in the beginning. It was a pretty limited OS in the beginning, only supporting a very limited set of hardware.
But Linux got adoption because it was a community wanting to builds something better, which happened to happen in the open. And it gained features through open collaboration. It was not a commercial drive itself which gave Linux the adoption.
What gave adoption was the freedom it delivered. You can call freedom a feature in this context. And others have tried to stop Linux from gaining success over the years; from Microsoft calling it a cancer, to SCO suing it for copyright issues.
The reason more and more companies decided to bet on Linux, support it in various ways, the reason some companies tried to fight Linux ... they are all based in (corporate/business) politics.
What Mozilla is doing is contrary to this. And Firefox is the immediate collateral damage, which makes the whole browser scope more difficult unless a sustainable alternative surfaces. The Chrome/Chromium dominance today is therefore a considerable threat for an open, free and sustainable browser experience.
We have already been down this path before, with Internet Explorer. We don't need to repeat these mistakes. In that sense, the Chrome browser "saved us" back then. Now Chrome/Chromium has become the new threat.
@dazo even if I would buy into your position:
Which browser would be the freedom haven that people form a community around and enjoy the freedom.
Firefox isn't a community project in any serious fashion, nor is chrome.
If you look for that type of dynamic, servo is the best bet we currently have. And it's just not there yet, to be usable as your daily driver.
ohir@ohir Sorry for the late response. I've only heard briefly about it.
From a few simple tests ... NetSurf might have a future, but it would need to improve the page rendering by a lot. It can't even display a fairly simple site like lwn.net with the right colours.
I've added a comparison from another "lightweight" browser, Epiphany from GNOME.
@dazo
> NetSurf might have a future, but it would need to improve the page rendering by a lot.
And here we, I mean we FLOSS creators and users, have the biggest problem: we are used to say "they would need to improve". "They" are supposed to have resources to improve. Or "they" are supposed to find a backing corpo funds and then do something for "us". Uh, then we'd balk at "them" for being not enough pure having a corpo sponsor.
Time to start thinking about reversing this trend. What about scaling down the features to the bare bones that are needed for _useable_enough_ environment in which a small teams of passionate hobbyists can maintain useful tools? I can't browse youtube nor github with NetSurf. Yet it is good enough to browse Wikipedia.
I would like to see the webs being accessible from the NetSurf and similar engines. Or at least that 0.1% of web content that matters.
@ohir I agree that a browser doesn't need all the fancy bells and whistles. But when it struggles to render a very basic and, by design, very simple HTML page - then the bar for a MVP is set too low.
LWN is appreciated by lots of readers for being lightweight and avoid all the fancy web features so it renders well on most devices. And that's the level Jon Corbet is aiming for on that site. So it is a pretty good check to see how well a minimalistic browser engine works.
And that's why I say NetSurf is not ready for primetime yet. But it may get there. And I hope it will improve with time.
mystixa 🎶🎧
mirabilos@EdCates @mxk @theorangetheme @dazo @graves501 oh but
lynx, links2, www-wo-miru, @dillo and Arachne are also very usable browsers, all with their own rendering engines with respective upsides and downsides. I know I switch between them depending on what site renders better where.@mxk @dazo @graves501 @theorangetheme
What gives me a headache is contributing to turning the WWW into Google's private playground while carrying on like they're the scrappy, unsung rebel's choice.
Nah. It's just Chromium in a nicer suit.
My name is Gordo@EdCates @graves501 @theorangetheme @dazo @zenbrowser
I installed Zen on my living room PC, and was kinda liking it at first, and then suddenly an updated changed the tab behaviour as well as a bunch of shortcuts, and iirc, there was no option to switch them back to something I felt was sensible. It's got some nice ideas, and slick presentation, but mostly it just makes my head hurt, lol. My s/o and roomie both seem to like it though, so I just run LibreWolf in my workspace and they have Zen in theirs.
But yeah, I agree. I lost faith in Mozilla a long time ago, but Google single-handedly killed everything that was gained when normies started ditching IE for Mozilla and Firefox, and now they basically get to decide who gets to develop a browser people might actually use (nobody, it turns out). I'm still fuming that w3c let widevine happen.
@graves501 @dazo I'm okay with Firefox forks if they're not run by sociopaths. Realistically, that's probably the best we can do for now.
Cybarbie@dazo They aren't doing themselves any favors when they have an employee chime into the discussion claiming that giving themselves "a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use" the information you upload or input through the browser is necessary for things like internet searches to work.
Lynn McAlister UE 
@dazo Once profit becomes the goal, principles go out the window. Even Google started off with "Don't be evil."
craftydifficult@dazo so a depressing game to play is watching network traffic when Firefox starts. It pings a dozen servers unnecessarily. Luckily forks are OK and firejail & open snitch are very useful
circumspicio@dazo Don't walk, Run from FireFox!
JaggyJeff
Colin B.🇨🇦@dazo for the record, that was a year ago.
@swordgeek Hah! I'm clearly forgetting we're in 2026 ... But then it's even clearer that Mozilla deserves no trust at all.
Sree Ramana@dazo It's been almost a year since i first saw this meme, and sadly this still holds true today.
Tomáš F.@dazo Unfortunately, there is no alternative (only worse - Google). We are waiting and hoping for the #ladybirdbrowser
Duco
udo m. rader ☕ 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 🐧@dazo First, please don't get me wrong: Like anyone else, I don't want my data to be sold, and at the very last by the browser I've been using as my daily driver for anything internet for years.
But the question I can't find a viable answer for is: How can Firefox become a sustainable organization?
Selling our data is a no-go, that's for sure. But how do they make the money required to not only maintain but also invest in Firefox?
@riaschissl Let me turn that question around. How did Red Hat get so successful, also including being financially solid ? What about LibreOffice? OpenSSL have paid staff now. WolfSSL (which has Curl devs on their payroll, AFAIR), OpenVPN, Forgejo ... just to mention some very few more or less random things. Even Linux Foundation has lots of people on their payrolls.
And don't look primarily at what they achieve today, but how they got there over time.
A common denominator is that they provide additional paid services built on top of the projects they started. As well as adding support services. Many also gets donations. There are as many approaches to becoming sustainable as there are projects.
But to achieve all this, the base foundation of the project need trust and credibility. Just look at what Codeberg has achieved over the years. They've organised themselves to first of all build trust and credibility among software communities. GNOME and KDE communities, same thing. And there are guaranteed others who have managed similar things as well.
Mozilla seems to be more focused on burning bridges to the community, by taking steps which alienates their core community. They give an impression that the size of the paychecks the management and administration receives is much more important. And to afford that, they take steps to increase their revenues by putting that before the core principles the organisation had earlier. When the organisation takes a step to remove promises users have taken for granted for years, promises which generally makes a lot of sense when claiming to care about privacy, that is a huge red flag that the organisation is on the wrong path.
So when Mozilla loses credibility and trust, that will result in a negative impact on their revenue stream as well as a consequence.
chop wood, carry water@dazo maybe its github crashing under the load, but when i try to load this commit, it shows for a second before it disappears with "the page is unavailable due to a system error."
debug console shows a bunch of 429s from a graphql query just before it goes tits up.
the rest of the site continues to work
Victoria🏳️⚧️@dazo do you know what optional ads are? Its literally said right there. And where are you gonna move? Chrome? Librewolf (wich is essentiallt Firefox with a couple of config changes)?
NOTHING have changed when the TOS was slightly (yes, slightly, its still saying it) changed.
Ryan HuntJust an FYI, Mozilla’s privacy policy commits to “We never sell your personal data.”
🐈⬛David Sommerseth (@[email protected])
@[email protected] Hah, very good point! I'm still stuck in 2025 - and this was exactly one year ago when I posted that. But I'm not calmed at all by the latest privacy faq. > We strive to only collect the data we need to make the best products They say clearly they collect data, but not what they use it for in practice. _«[...] make the best products»_ can mean _sell data to get funding for development_. > We work to put people in control of their data and online experiences. Really? Just after lots of users push for a change, like the by default enabled AI engine. It took them a few releases to add the needed toggles. And do we still trust there are no more switches needed to be toggled via about:config - or can't be disabled at all? If Mozilla would have had credibility, yes, then we could trust this more. But they've done so much user and privacy hostile moves over the last few years their trust and credibility is vanishing fast. > We adhere to the “no surprises” principle, meaning we work hard to ensure people’s understanding of Firefox matches reality. Just like enabling AI by default .... taking lots of users by surprise when they realised that Firefox suddenly became a huge resource hog. I wonder what kind of _reality_ Mozilla lives in. It sure is not aligned with what most of the privacy aware Firefox users live in. > We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from. While that sounds good, they say earlier that they do collect information. And data being made anonymous or being pseudo-anonymous are still not good enough. There are plenty of stories where it's been possible to reveal the identity of persons based on anonymous data. Like having GPS tracking data for thousands of users and correlating that information with time stamps. Then patterns appears and you can start identifying where people live and work easily. But ... > Mozilla does collect a limited set of data by default from Firefox that helps us to understand how people use the browser. I don't think more is needed to be said. This whole faq is just trying to make Mozilla look nice. Google has also had similar claims back in the days, when they had the "Don't be evil" slogan. But it turns out that wasn't enough. The best way to preserve users privacy is to start by not collecting any data by default. In Firefox, any data collection need to be disabled explicitly by default. And they still do not dare to say explicitly "we don't benefit financially from your data" (since "sell" was a too broad expression for them). The fact is, we don't really know what or how Mozilla really uses the data they collect. All we know is that they do collect data, that it is being used and that they have removed any statements about "selling" data completely. It's just to connect these dots. There is nothing I've read lately which says there are no connection between them.
@dazo Really its been longer than a couple of years. They have for about 10 years been nothing but 'chrome done worse' with a consistent and relentless hunting down of each feature that differs and FF giving up their version of it.
There needs to be a cycle where web standards are implemented and nothing more and there isn't a steady push for updates on a regular cycle. That is a cycle nothing but a massively for profit entity can maintain. ..by design.
Tedel@dazo
Note: I have not read any of the other comments.
I think this topic was alerady discussed about a year ago. The explanation I remember is that Mozilla has two sides, an organization and a corporation, and that the browser is made by the corporation as a for-profit product.
You can deactivate all of the potentially tracking configuration options in the about:config section. Lots of Linux distros do it for you already.
One toot is not enough for more. I Invite you to read about it instead