The problem I have with these kinds of hot-takes is that they often don't tell the full story, and it's seemingly for the purpose of generating rage. For some inexplicable reason, this guy truncates the paragraph from the Terms of Use, repackaging the information without a key part of the final sentence: "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."
I'm not saying that this definitely makes a material difference, but it certainly changes the framing of it. The way he has framed it makes it sound like Mozilla has given itself carte blanche to do what it wants -- but the little caveat at the end of the sentence really does change the narrative a little bit. So why cut off a sentence half-way through it -- is it maybe to make it sound worse? For that reason alone, I can't take this guy seriously.
I generally wait before jumping on the outrage-train for this reason, but two things stand out:
- Mozilla explicitly deleting "we don't sell your data" statements across their documentation
- Following up to criticism that the statement is vague, bullshitty and open to interpretation with statements that are even more vague, bullshitty and open to interpretation.
By now, they've had time to notice that something is not right and that they need to make a clear statement, and they haven't taken the opportunity.
They didn't delete it. Go to the github diff they reference and check. It's still there. They just removed it from one of the JSON files but people here aren't actually checking facts, they're just jumping on the hate train.
Yes and this phrasing is used in many other products, like credit cards. Additionally, the fact that the phrasing can be interpreted as such means that it will be interpreted as such and so makes Mozilla's new Terms unacceptable to anyone who values their privacy or data.
For me it sounds similar to Google‘s phrasing that they use to make people activate personalized ads:
„used to deliver better, more helpful experiences“
So, what do you read the end of that sentence mean? Because the way I read it is worse:
> to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."
I don't read that as a caveat, so I'm assuming it means something different to you. To reword slightly and hopefully show how that sentence is coming across to me:
> As you have indicated by using Firefox you have given us the right to...
Im fully on board that people should try to include or link as much of a story they can so that I can form my own opinion. There are way too many times that I read a reasonable take, then you read the original source, only to find that the reasonable take is completely off base.
In this case I don't have the reaction, but I will agree that in general its a good idea to include more rather than less.
The redacted part here looks to be a GDPR boilerplate for consent. GDRP require consent to be specific. In order to do so the lawyers of Mozilla seems to have used industry standard phrasing to comply with the law, such as "to help you navigate, enhance experience, and interact with {INSERT SERVICE/PRODUCT}".
For those with some interest in legal history, there is similar stories in other boilerplate texts that consumer get exposed to. I always find the background to the WARRANTY DISCLAIMER text to have a fairly funny historical background that is a few centuries old legal case regarding a mill axle. The current form we see now was created as the first example in a list from US regulation guidelines (which reference the mill axle case). A company can use any other form given in that guideline, but as it happens, everyone just jumped on the first example, slapped it onto stuff and shipped it. Lawyers know it is valid for US trade regulation and that was apparently enough for the rest of the world.
> "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."
We weren't born yesterday, and companies pull this shit all the time. This sentence is meaningless. You could use this sentence to justify literally any behaviour.
One _easy_ way to read this change:
> "... to help you interact with online content"
Selling your data to have more relevant ads could easily be justified as helping you interact with online content
> as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
Using firefox indicates that you want us to do this.
Or,
we made it an opt-out that is quietly rolled out in an update.
Correct, that quote is very typical corporate language that includes selling your data to advertising companies to ""help users discover new experiences which align with their interests"" or some other weasel speak. People acting like that language meaningfully changes the meaning are either painfully naive or think the rest of us are.
If it's simply a matter of principle, quoting the full section with no abridgements because we're larping like we're in a court room or something, whatever. But get real, that section doesn't make Mozilla look any better.
No. We are talking about legality. Quote the whole bloody thing. If you don’t get to say “I picked out the bit I like” in court, then you don’t get to do it here. If you’re so right, then it’s not worth taking out in the first place.
Yes exactly this -- thank you for getting my point, I'm a little tired of internet people misunderstanding things. I'm not even disputing that Mozilla is trying to pull a fast one on all of us, I'm purely questioning the framing by the "journalist" this post links to. To be taken seriously, quote the whole thing -- if it really is a case that the last part of the sentence is meaningless, then leave that in your quote, and address that in your wittering diatribe, explaining to all of us why it's meaningless. Without that, all I see is someone cherrypicking half-sentences and trying to mislead people.
While I'm by no means defending Mozilla here, one quick look at the linked twitter user's history shows that generating rage and taking text out of context is their modus operandi and very much intentional.
I'm bummed that out of all the posts on the topic, this is the one that gets to stay on the frontpage.
Quoting the whole bloody thing is meaningless when the added bit adds nothing to the context. Nothing about the "added context" says they won't sell the data. If anything it just improves the case that they are going to sell the data.
None of this matters -- quote the whole sentence if that part of the sentence adds any kind of modifier or caveat to what came before -- which this did. Again, not saying it makes a material difference, but I just find it weird when people decide to "quote" things and leave out the whole thing. It tells me that they don't mean well.
are you replying to wrong post? the linked tweet says:
> Mozilla has just deleted the following:
> “Does Firefox sell your personal data?”
> “Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise. "
That tweet is 100% correct, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209001 for two links, all references to "not selling personal data" are gone. There is no missing context or truncation here, and this says nothing about terms-of-use (except commit message but that's immaterial)
But Mozilla said what they will do. They also had very expensive rebranding to support it! They are now activist AI company that wants to fight disinformation, censor people and sell ads.
You know, I was just wondering why no one has yet shaped the Rust vs C/C++ in US culture war terms. One side is clearly progressive in the sense of wanting to make changes for the sake of a better (more memory safe) future. The other side is more conservative, seeing enormous benefit in keeping the status quo unchanged.
And that's before getting into the politics of the people working on the language, of which I won't say more.
Here was me thinking we had at least one discussion where the US culture war hadn't metastasised. But I guess in the long run twitter.com/lundukejournal and friends will eventually win. Can't say I'm looking forward to it.
I'm not saying that this definitely makes a material difference, but it certainly changes the framing of it. The way he has framed it makes it sound like Mozilla has given itself carte blanche to do what it wants -- but the little caveat at the end of the sentence really does change the narrative a little bit. So why cut off a sentence half-way through it -- is it maybe to make it sound worse? For that reason alone, I can't take this guy seriously.