They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my
painprivacy taken away. I need mypainprivacy!
They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my
painprivacy taken away. I need mypainprivacy!
I’ve seen this sentiment, but I don’t think it’s credible. I don’t think we should normalize legalese that explicitly enables bullshit; it’s not like it couldn’t be written any other way. It’s written in English, though it has legal intent, and we have words and phrases to clarify such things.
Perhaps if you gave an example from the TOS to illustrate what you mean by “enabling bullshit” your position would be more clear?
Exhibit A: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-promise-to-never-sell-personal-data-asks-users-not-to-panic/
Exhibit B: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
I don’t agree to this as written; and I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt given Exhibit A. I think an argument could be made that selling my data to advertisers would help me “experience” and “interact” with online content. Perhaps it would be a difficult argument, perhaps not. I think skepticism is warranted.
Firefox has struggled to find a profitable business model outside of Google paying to be the default search engine, and it looks like these changes are a pivot to address this. I don’t think it will be good for users.
Well I do agree to it as written lol. I didn’t realize this was a matter of opinion.