deleted by creator
Also, just because they have that feature now doesn’t mean they will have it in the future.
It’s like saying “yes we gave you a loaded weapon but we have a safety which you can manually engage” and the implication there is “it’s not our responsibility if it somehow disengages. Also we may remove the safety entirely at some point in the future.”
How about not giving people a loaded weapon if they don’t want one?
So they’ve said. It should be opt-in not opt-out.
How much will they scrape before you turn it off? What will it scoop up immediately on a fresh install? And what will it grab from your system on an existing upgraded install?
Willing to bet the answer to both of those is not “nothing”.
Although after the ToS update bullshit earlier this year no idea why anyone even halfway paying attention didn’t switch to an alternative that’s more privacy focused already.
If you cared to open the link, you’d get some answers.
Oh I did. I don’t believe a goddamned thing they say at face value, especially with the changes to the ToS back in February. The new Mozilla CEO was the General Manager for Firefox previously, so there is no new perspective here.
Until the AI slop update is released and their claims can be independently verified, there’s no reason to believe them
@firefoxwebdevs Right now, Mozilla would probably be the first company to be diagnosed with ADHD. It really can’t seem to focus and do something productive. The question was never “should Firefox have IA?”. The question is “to do what?”. Mozilla is communicating that IA is coming. Not announcing a new feature. TBH, it’s worrying. IA should be an implementation detail, not the central point.
Christophe Henry @christophehenry
@firefoxwebdevs It’s like Mozilla is a car company and it’s advertising a new car with leather in it. Ok, cool but what is it? A berline, a pickup, a SUV? Will I recharge with electricity or fuel? And Mozilla’s answer is: “it has leather in it!”
It’s… not great.
cool, cool…still not using it.
