Ooops, I posted a reply to someone earlier and got it right (and forgot this one). Thanks for the heads up (fixed now)!

Interestingly, I just interviewed the Waterfox developer, who actually references Oblivious HTTP and his interest in developing this into a paid feature for Waterfox.

I added a section to my post with some additional comment.

I began thinking of privacy because Mozilla was clearly thinking of it when designing this feature, but I don’t think they really thought it through.

People’s browsers are visiting pages that they never intended to. If a random extension did that, you would say that it was violating your privacy. The browser does it, and you get people defending it as “optional”. Yes, but the user never installed the malware extension that is leaking your privacy. It is your browser doing it in an automated update.

If you don’t think this is a privacy issue, why doesn’t the next version of Firefox just visit every page on every page that I visit, so that when I hover over a link, I can get a link preview immediately, without needing to wait. That would save me some real time and effort!

As opposed to the case where you don’t have a link preview, and you click on a website to see what it contains, and they get your IP. The author seems to think Mozilla should have protected our privacy by having someone act as the proxy for the request. Because involving a thirds party that receives all these requests and does work for us for free is absolutely how we protect our privacy.

But that is exactly what Mozilla is telling us – trust us.

Why was the feature added if my browser is going to browse to the page anyway? What is the value add? I was looking for some way for it to make sense - ah right, it could be a privacy preserving feature - I can preview the link and verify whether I want to visit it before I actually visit it. But that isn’t how it works.

Yes, a feature clearly designed for pushing onto that juicy “people with mobility impairments” userbase.

Love that you ignore all of the people who are currently seeing the popups and not understanding why.

It transforms the contribution to no longer be “share alike”.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Plenty of OSS licenses have rules baked into them about how you can use the code, or lay out obligations for redistribution.

“Is it really open source if I have to edit the source code I was given to remove a feature I don’t like?”

I’m really not being aggressive about this position and I tried to express the ambiguity here. I think what irks me most are these things:

1. Forking Firefox means it isn’t Firefox - yes, this means that the original was OSS, but you really need to be an expert to get at all the OSS code running on your machine. I mean that it is literally not Firefox, since your fork doesn’t have permission to use the trademarked name.
2. If we think of the enabling functionality in Firefox as a virtual lock, breaking that lock is illegal under the DMCA. That seems very weird for code that is ostensibly open source.
3. The addition of the Terms to Firefox seems like an additional restriction (a la Grsecurity, as I mentioned in the post) to the existing license in Firefox. Indeed, Mozilla says that the existing license isn’t “transparent” enough for Firefox users.

Yes, the purpose of a system is what it does, but the author isn’t presenting any evidence of what it’s doing vis a vis their claim of making technical users quit FF.

The purpose of the system being what it does is Firefox being spyware - you can’t escape it if you want to use Labs features.

Love the feedback, and I while I think Firefox is open source, I do see the addition of software locks as backing away from OSS.

I also went ahead and posted a small update with some additional clarifying thoughts - I don’t think it will satisfy you, unfortunately - but it might help people understand where I am coming from.

Well - I don’t know about them being the same.

The new terms specifically disclaims Mozilla’s ownership of your data:

This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

which limits their license to your data to processing it for usage within Firefox or Mozilla services. That is a huge difference. I don’t see how they would be able to claim - in a clickwrap agreement - that Mozilla saying that they don’t own your data somehow grants Mozilla ownership of your data.

That would be mind boggling.

My feeling on this is basically with Mozilla potentially running advertising campaigns on their own in Firefox (especially with Google funding possibly drying up), Mozilla felt that they needed to clarify their permission for access to user data.

Still, that doesn’t really explain why their initial terms were so over-broad in the first place – that is why everyone’s thinking went straight to AI as soon as they made their initial announcement. They haven’t deigned to provide us with an explanation for that - besides telling us that it was due to the CCPA.

Clearly we can’t lay all the blame on CCPA, since the rights grant is more limited today than at first introduction - a fact that they readily admit.

Yep, it is also not enabled for Linux, and your distribution might not be using a Mozilla binary anyway.

Right now, it is for new users only. Existing users are going to have to opt in at some later date.

Not really, when you push immature alternatives when ignoring a real choice. Seems more like you are supporting monopoly by ensuring that actual competitors get ignored - along with even smaller vendors.

“Look, don’t use LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Word, what you really want is VIM!”

You are saying there is all of this wasted money, but as soon as you are asked for evidence, it is all “I’m not a tax auditor”. Defend your claims!

They are both worse than Gecko, a platform you wish to die.

Sorry, you aren’t a tax auditor, but you are out here making claims. Try defending them?

Thanks for letting us know to discount what you say – if you prefer monopoly over choice, we’re really not having the same conversation.

This you?

Personally I hope firefox dies as fast as possible so we see some focus on good alternatives.

Gecko is not a good platform, there is a reason why people who use geckoview eventually all migrate away from it, the most recent example I can think of is wolvic, which hasn’t replaced geckoview yet, but does have the version 1.0 of a chromium release now.

The sooner we get real alternatives to chromium and stop pretending that gecko is one the better. Currently servo is progressing really fast, has good APIs and usability for both a full desktop browser and embedded usecases (but still very immature).

deleted by creator