Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.
Seriously, do better and stop needlessly shaming Mozilla.
[edit]
Read the replies to my message. There is good insight. Im probably very wrong here. Leaving my comment intact for context.
Did you read anything else in that PR? Explain why every other mention of them never selling your data has been marked as obsolete come 25th of April? Changing things like
Super free, actually. No hidden costs or anything. You don’t pay anything to use it, and we don’t sell your personal data.
to
Super free, actually. No hidden costs or anything. You don’t pay anything to use it.
# Obsolete string (expires 25-04-2025)
nope-never-have = Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. { -brand-name-firefox } products are designed to protect your privacy. <a href="{ $url }">That’s a promise.</a>
So much for that promise. Companies aren’t your friend.
This should very much be illegal. Companies should be held to the promises they make on their websites, it can’t be as easy as deleting it and pretending it never happened.
Also, “You don’t pay anything to use it” is still a false statement. You’re not paying money, but being tracked and sold means giving up something more valuable than money - information and potentially influence about who you are as a person - in exchange for access to a service.
All of this sucks, but I’m going to specifically complain that the first edit just makes no sense. The old terms say “Super free, actually” and then explain how super free is different from free. The edited version just defines super free the same way every normal human defines free: “You don’t pay anything to use it.” What’s super about using words for their intended meaning?
I know Mozilla has been under fire for not being truly non-profit, but it is a corp fully owned by a non-profit. Are there any billionaires in Mozilla?
Also (completely basing on your comment btw, “every other mention”), if there is still one mention of it in the ToS the policy doesn’t seem to have really changed? Just a change in emphasis.
The current CEO is an Airbnb shill. Further, OpenAI is a non-profit, so I don’t really see what difference that makes. If the ToU isn’t changing, then why is there a flag labelled tou-changed? Further, like I said, all the other mentions are being scrubbed, doesn’t that just further indicate that they are in fact changing it?
{% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
<p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
{% else %}
<p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
{% endif %}
Top paragraph is what they’re changing it to (behind a feature flag) and bottom is what it currently is. i.e. they are REMOVING the bit you marked in bold in your quote when the new ToS is active.
That particular snippet is being changed so there’s a conditional for testing – if you toggle to show how it will be when the new ToS is active, it shows the version of the paragraph WITHOUT “Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data.” otherwise it shows the old text (i.e. exact same text in the paragraph in red).
Also, note the references to # Obsolete string (expires 25-04-2025) where selling personal data is mentioned elsewhere – and the entirely removed FAQ entry!
The diff shows that the single paragraph has been replaced with an if/else clause. If switch('firefox-tou') evaluates to true, then the paragraph without the “We don’t sell access to your data” is rendered, if it evaluates to false, then the same paragraph with that particular sentence remains intact. Ergo, they’ve not added an extra paragraph.
Whoever posted this probably extrapolated that it’s likely that Mozilla will change their Terms of Use, because that’s 100% what this looks like. They’ll probably announce their new ToU and flip a switch in the back-end and then when we navigate to this particular page we’ll see the paragraph that doesn’t have the “we won’t sell your data” instead.
TLDR; Mozilla is gearing up to sell your data. Get mad. Seriously, get mad because that’s fucking unacceptable.
It’s not an additional paragraph. It’s a condition that changes whether “firefox-tou” is set to render the page.
I’m guessing “firefox-tou” is used for the Firefox browser ToS. So all other services of Mozilla still use the “we don’t sell your data”, but Firefox itself will have that line removed.
Good point. Although I’m mostly interested in what “firefox-tou” means here, as that is actually what needs to be set. For non coders it can be understood as: “remove the sentence if it’s the firefox terms-of-use (tou)”.
My dude, there is no “extra” paragraph in there. There is a conditional statement that says:
if (this_flag_is_set) {
// [show this paragraph where we remove any mention of us not selling your data]
} else {
// [show this paragraph where we mention that we don't sell your data]
}
They add this line earlier in the code:
Seriously, do better and stop needlessly shaming Mozilla.
[edit] Read the replies to my message. There is good insight. Im probably very wrong here. Leaving my comment intact for context.
Did you read anything else in that PR? Explain why every other mention of them never selling your data has been marked as obsolete come 25th of April? Changing things like
to
# Obsolete string (expires 25-04-2025) nope-never-have = Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. { -brand-name-firefox } products are designed to protect your privacy. <a href="{ $url }">That’s a promise.</a>So much for that promise. Companies aren’t your friend.
This should very much be illegal. Companies should be held to the promises they make on their websites, it can’t be as easy as deleting it and pretending it never happened.
Also, “You don’t pay anything to use it” is still a false statement. You’re not paying money, but being tracked and sold means giving up something more valuable than money - information and potentially influence about who you are as a person - in exchange for access to a service.
All of this sucks, but I’m going to specifically complain that the first edit just makes no sense. The old terms say “Super free, actually” and then explain how super free is different from free. The edited version just defines super free the same way every normal human defines free: “You don’t pay anything to use it.” What’s super about using words for their intended meaning?
I know Mozilla has been under fire for not being truly non-profit, but it is a corp fully owned by a non-profit. Are there any billionaires in Mozilla?
Also (completely basing on your comment btw, “every other mention”), if there is still one mention of it in the ToS the policy doesn’t seem to have really changed? Just a change in emphasis.
The current CEO is an Airbnb shill. Further, OpenAI is a non-profit, so I don’t really see what difference that makes. If the ToU isn’t changing, then why is there a flag labelled
tou-changed? Further, like I said, all the other mentions are being scrubbed, doesn’t that just further indicate that they are in fact changing it?Read the PR, the proof is right there.
Top paragraph is what they’re changing it to (behind a feature flag) and bottom is what it currently is. i.e. they are REMOVING the bit you marked in bold in your quote when the new ToS is active.
My dude, its being changed to add an additional paragraph. It is not being removed.
That particular snippet is being changed so there’s a conditional for testing – if you toggle to show how it will be when the new ToS is active, it shows the version of the paragraph WITHOUT “Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data.” otherwise it shows the old text (i.e. exact same text in the paragraph in red).
Also, note the references to
# Obsolete string (expires 25-04-2025)where selling personal data is mentioned elsewhere – and the entirely removed FAQ entry!This is serious.
The diff shows that the single paragraph has been replaced with an if/else clause. If
switch('firefox-tou')evaluates to true, then the paragraph without the “We don’t sell access to your data” is rendered, if it evaluates to false, then the same paragraph with that particular sentence remains intact. Ergo, they’ve not added an extra paragraph.Whoever posted this probably extrapolated that it’s likely that Mozilla will change their Terms of Use, because that’s 100% what this looks like. They’ll probably announce their new ToU and flip a switch in the back-end and then when we navigate to this particular page we’ll see the paragraph that doesn’t have the “we won’t sell your data” instead.
TLDR; Mozilla is gearing up to sell your data. Get mad. Seriously, get mad because that’s fucking unacceptable.
It’s not an additional paragraph. It’s a condition that changes whether “firefox-tou” is set to render the page.
I’m guessing “firefox-tou” is used for the Firefox browser ToS. So all other services of Mozilla still use the “we don’t sell your data”, but Firefox itself will have that line removed.
Both paragraphs specifically state Firefox. Not other Mozilla services.
Good point. Although I’m mostly interested in what “firefox-tou” means here, as that is actually what needs to be set. For non coders it can be understood as: “remove the sentence if it’s the firefox terms-of-use (tou)”.
Seems like there’s two versions of the paragraph now, what’s the
firefox-toubit about?Feature flag – toggle the change on and off for testing. If you go over to the linked PR (#16018), the description under testing is:
My dude, there is no “extra” paragraph in there. There is a conditional statement that says:
if (this_flag_is_set) { // [show this paragraph where we remove any mention of us not selling your data] } else { // [show this paragraph where we mention that we don't sell your data] }So it’s an “either/or,” not a “plus.”
It wasn’t “removed”, which was what I was responding to.