The Big Lebowsky

Here in Germany, a non-profit is not allowed to do any profit

That is just not true… You are not allowed to pay your profits to anyone, but investing it or building reserves is absolutely permitted and a really important thing to do especially if you’re dependent on donations…

So, now, I am not willing to give them any more slag. They have to change

I agree, but that will never make me use Chrome or any Chromium based browser. Like probably a lot of people here I do not use vanilla Firefox, but rather LibreWolf and the like

The company itself is not for profit. The CEO gets payed way too much, but a for-profit company would return money to the owners (mostly shareholders/investors), which Mozilla is not

100% agreed

Well that is just the basis of browsing the web… If you don’t want to share your IP you have to proxy your traffic though some other server like a VPN for example…

(you should also listen to the people with knowledge, which are the legal people in this instance)

You should not need legal people explaining the change of mission statements or FAQs… Imo Mozilla just really sucks at PR (it not just this time)

As far as I know they do not get that. Mozilla aggregates and anonymizes the people that clicked on the sponsored link. Of course Amazon knows when you request their site, but they do not know that you clicked it from the sponsored link (as far as I know)

he goes far too ranty and repeats himself, it becomes hard to extract the real points.

I think it holds entertainment value, but if you want to watch the video for informational purposes, yeah I agree :D

The conversation isn’t focused on the net result, the loss of the pledge, it’s focused elsewhere.

I stated my opinion about the statement here:

They should not have deleted that statement and just clarify it instead of their absolutely messy changes…

So like expand on it instead of deleting it…

Maybe it is kinda the same as when Google decided to get rid of the “don’t be evil” statement…

In an aggregated and anonymized manner

Actually no, I don’t want to hold both to the same standard. Google is a for profit company. I expect them to do shady shit. I expect more out of Mozilla. Doesn’t mean that they screwed this up the way the media says they did. They screwed up the communication big time

Yeah I can see your point. Especially with Pocket and the adds on the new tab page…

As I have no legal clue this is my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bTquKjzos&t=151s

Maybe you’re right. I have not digged into it myself a lot, just watched a few videos. BUT I think the CCPA makes the selling of anonymized and not personally identifying data still count as “selling your data” even though you cannot be identified by it. As far as I understand it they are not doing anything new, but just reacting to a changing legal landscape. I might be wrong about it, but I don’t want to believe that the only FOSS browser enshittifies…

And as a friend of mine often states “don’t assume it’s malice if something can be explained by stupidity”

I think the fault lies in their online stuff. Things like their VPN, Pocket, FF Sync, etc… Also they collect the aggregated and anonymized ad click thing in the new tab page

Maybe I glanced over it too much, but as far as I know the problem is this exact line which is still in the law:

by the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration

Context:

“… 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 the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration.”

What is this “or other valuable consideration”? Could be anything which makes it very very very very broad

If what they have been doing for a while, is now legally “selling your data” in California they just cannot state “we will never sell your data”, as the definition of what is meant by “selling data” exactly is not the same everywhere…

They should not have deleted that statement and just clarify it instead of their absolutely messy changes…

As far as I understand it, yes possibly… But if their definition is very weird to me… I now watched 2 30 minute long videos about it and still don’t understand what the problem is exactly…

What I did get though is that they majorly screwed up their PR

https://youtu.be/-8bTquKjzos That sums it up. The definition of what counts as “selling data” changed…

The mozilla thing seems to be mostly bad PR, but yeah…