←back to thread

1036 points deryilz | 7 comments | | HN request time: 2.288s | source | bottom
1. bgnn ◴[] No.44548565[source]
Reading the comments, I see a lot of hate for Firefox. What is the explanation for this (other than people not trying Firefox and assuming it's inferior)?
replies(4): >>44548584 #>>44548685 #>>44548703 #>>44548966 #
2. jacquesm ◴[] No.44548584[source]
I love Firefox, I've bee using it for as long as it exists and Netscape before that. It's Mozilla I have a problem with. Mozilla has allowed itself to become controlled opposition rather than the aggressive underdog that it should be. Lots of the money they take in that could go to improving Firefox is spent on stuff I could not care less about. There is no way to earmark funds sent to Mozilla as 'browser only'.
replies(1): >>44548691 #
3. hashstring ◴[] No.44548685[source]
Also their browser security always seems to lag behind…
4. WhrRTheBaboons ◴[] No.44548691[source]
Ultimately the issue is allowing Google to skirt around anti-monopoly rules by throwing money at Mozilla. Can't really blame the latter for cashing in when the rules fail at enforcing a competitive environment.

Hate the game, not the player, basically.

5. haloboy777 ◴[] No.44548703[source]
I love using firefox. Mozilla has lost all the trust I had in them. The biggest blow for me was them shutting down pocket.
6. qilo ◴[] No.44548966[source]
Mozilla sells user data to third parties. Their statement:

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612

replies(1): >>44572873 #
7. Anamon ◴[] No.44572873[source]
I wouldn't say that this implies they really are selling user data. By that definiton of sale, I can understand why their lawyers would consider it almost impossible to fully comply with.

I totally understand why the Act would use such vague wording and cast such a wide net, considering the underhanded actions of ad companies. But I also understand no longer feeling comfortable guaranteeing that nothing that could reasonably be argued to fall under this definiton would ever happen. Heck, I think some lawyers might argue that even just sending an anonymous GET request to any web server would qualify (disclosing personal information to a third party). Seems like the only way to stay fully compliant is to ship a browser with only an offline mode, haha.