Not a good look for Firefox. Third partners and device fingerprinting clearly mentioned in the documents.
The move is the latest development in a series of shifts Mozilla has undergone over the past year.
The gecko engine and Firefox forks, such as Tor, Mullvad, Librewolf, and Arkenfox, are stables of private, open source web browsing.
In fact, Mozilla’s is one of the few browser engines out there, in a protocol-heavy industry that many say only corporate or well-funded non-profits can reliably develop.
What is more, daily driving the more hardened-for-privacy Firefox derivatives can be frowned upon by many sites, including your bank and workplace.
Mozilla’s enshittification leaves the open source community without a good alternative to Firefox, after years of promoting it as a privacy-friendly alternative to spyware-cum-browser Chrome.
Have you considered what is driving this change?
Looking from the sidelines, I think it’s all about money, specifically, how to make the development of Firefox sustainable. Yes, I’m aware of the cynical view that this is about lining the pockets of the CEO, I have no evidence for this.
I think that’s essentially caused by how we have licensed open source software and had limited resources to combat abuse at the industrial scale that silicon valley companies have monetized other people’s work.
Bruce Perens is attempting to erect “Post Open”, but I’m not yet sure if that is going to solve the fundamental issues.
Disclaimer: I’ve worked a little on the community standards document for the post open project.
Being halfway between both sides, I can see the need for a monetary model to sustain development, yet I am challenged by the opacity that this feels like. The OP’s point that it feels like a downward slide toward principles compromise is challenging. Especially in light of the enshittification of everything lately, Mozilla needs to do a better job communicating how this is not going down that path and yet also trying to sustain itself.
Centrism is apathy and sucks
That’s an idiotic statement. Realism or understanding what realpolitik is in a political situation is far more likely to allow you find and develop change in an organization, as well keep you from wasting your time on useless leverage points. In this case knowing both frames of reference is valuable so that action can be taken, as opposed to just writing five words.
Privacy and defending it is a worthy thing to have an ideological stance on.
Reductionism is lazy and sucks. You didn’t even read the comment you responded to, you’re just mad that not everyone is upset enough for you.
No, not particularly. I’m not that upset myself, I recently switched to Librewolf. I just get annoyed at what I perceive as statements that ride the fence. Privacy is not a place to give ground on.
Did it ever occur to you that people can have a mix of views that don’t fully conform to one ideology or another? It’s a spectrum, not riding the fence. Like politics, not everything is a team sport.