this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
757 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

63652 readers
3356 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

AI Summary:

Overview:

  • Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
  • Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
  • Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
  • Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
  • Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
  • Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] imecth@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Software makers did just fine without telemetry for decades

They actually did not, almost every software out there is mining your information. Software developers rely on and need data, you can't guess what people want. Whether it's from studies, testers, surveys, or telemetry, developers need information about what users like, what they don't, how they interact with the software... This is what makes data so valuable, and why businesses like Google can exist. Denying open source software telemetry is shooting yourself in the foot.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

. Software developers rely on and need data, you can't guess what people want.

Why would I want software developers (particularly web browser) to guess what I want? I will tell them what I want, otherwise they have no business serving it to me.

If I'm not offering that data, it means I don't want you to have it. Simple as that.

[–] imecth@fedia.io 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I will tell them what I want

You might, but 99% of users will never take a step towards giving any feedback whatsoever.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, which means they don't want anything from them. Rather than seeing those people as nothing more than potential profit, just move on.

[–] imecth@fedia.io 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, which means they don't want anything from them.

And yet they're using the application. Don't you want the applications that you use to work better? This is what telemetry enables, the ability to give feedback without jumping through 10 hoops, creating an account, responding to a survey, or whatever other method you're thinking of to give feedback.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The concept of informed consent continues to evade tech bros. It makes me wonder how many other areas of your life you apply this line of reasoning to.

[–] imecth@fedia.io 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Do you actively consent to everything that happens around you? When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them? Truth is, everyday of our lives we passively consent to a myriad of things to other people that know better than we do.

In this case no matter how many ways firefox is telling users that they have no reason to be worried, they keep clutching their pitchforks in the worry that firefox has suddenly turned into google (who btw have to abide by privacy laws just the same). There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them?

THAT'S the example you choose?

There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.

Absolutely stunning. You actually unironically do not understand what consent is. You need to take an ethics class.

I'll give you the really basic version:

#1: People are allowed to say no to you for any reason or no reason at all. It doesn't matter if you think their reasons are invalid or misinformed. No means no.

#2: A lack of a "no" does not mean "yes". If a person cannot say "no" to what you are doing because they have no idea you're doing it in the first place then that, in some ways, is even worse than disregarding a "no". At least in that case they know something has been done to them.

That, by the way, is what the "informed" in "informed consent" means. It doesn't mean "a person needs to know what they're talking about in order for their 'no' to be valid", like you seem to think it means.

Doctors used to routinely retain tissue samples for experimentation without informing their patients they were doing this. The reasoning went that this didn't harm the patient at all, the origin of the tissue was anonymized, the patient wouldn't understand why tissue samples were needed anyway, and it might save lives. That's a much better justification than trying to develop a web browser, and yet today that practice is widely considered to be deplorable, almost akin to rape.