Sponsored by Google isn’t the same as its development being driven by Google. The fact that Mozilla is a non-profit foundation is already a huge step up. The problem is that it takes a lot of resources to develop a browser, and Mozilla has been struggling to secure funding for a long time now. However, for all its flaws Firefox is the only serious alternative to Chrome and if Mozilla folds we’ll be living in a world where the web is owned by Google.
It is obviously a problem that the web is mainly shared between MS and Google.
But I think that the underlying problem is not this or only in part.
A company or a developer naturally also has to pay their bills to offer the necessary services, maintain an infrastructure and servers, among many other things.
If he want to offer a free service or product, it is legitimate that he do so through sponsored links, generic advertisements, merchandising, offering premium content, donations or other similar measures, with which it is very well possible to get enough income.
But what these companies do is not this, but they traffic with the search histories and other data of the users, selling them to third parties, which makes it impossible to control what they do with this data, apart from displaying ads’ tailored 'and how they protect this datas.
This, apart from a violation of fundamental privacy rights, is also a big security risk. It is not the first time that hundreds of thousands of sensitive user data from Google, Facebook and others have been leaked, including banking and medical details.
If Mozilla uses these Google surveillance advertising techniques to earn money, it is no better than Google itself, which also offers much better services, which, apart from the other, is undoubtedly many of the services that do not even have an alternative to height of these (YouTube, Google Streetview, research, quantum techniques, satellites and much more).
The problem is, what von Tetzchner says, they must go back to their ‘Don’t be evil’ motto that they have long forgotten.
A free network cannot be achieved by avoiding one and fostering another that also monitors and sells user data, but rather by ending this surveillance and censorship practiced by all large American companies.
I guess my question is what specifically Mozilla does that’s questionable. As far as I know, Firefox doesn’t force any surveillance or advertising on the users. Stuff like Pocket integration is questionable, but that’s easily disabled.
Right, but if you want to log out from the surveillance of Alphabet and Nest, you have to do this directly contacting with this companies, not in Mozilla itself. Meanwhile they have your data and it’s questionable if they really delete them, Google don’t do this inmediadly, include if you delete your history in their dashboard.
It’s a very bad policy, yes or yes. Is sad that out there some closed source soft more private and respectfull to the user than some FOSS.
FOSS is a great system for developers, which allows free exchange and / or modification of products, but regarding privacy, security and continuity, in many cases they do not offer any special guarantee for a normal user.
Personally I prefer FOSS as much as possible, but for me the quality is more important and above all the TOS and PP conditions of the product. For me, as someone whose programming knowledge does not exceed the ‘Hello World’ in much, it is irrelevant that I can read the source code or not.
I still think that a free internet is not based only on FOSS, despising on principle the software of developers who do not use this system, but on ending censorship and surveillance on the net for mere commercial interests, this is what destroys freedom, by turning the network into a simple shopping center and FOSS as system of promotion for products, using the user as merchandise.
Alphabet
Blacklight detected this website sending user data to Alphabet, the technology conglomerate that encompasses Google and associated companies like Nest. The Silicon Valley giant collects data from twice the number of websites as its closest competitor, Facebook. An Alphabet spokesperson told The Markup that internet users can go here if they want to opt out of the company showing them targeted ads based on their browsing history.
As you see, don’t trust none of the companies or soft, not even FOSS, when they using surveillance advertising to earn money. Nothing to do with a free internet.
We’re not talking about Mozilla site, but about Firefox browser. Nobody is arguing that it would be better if Mozilla found a better source of funding than Google, but so far you haven’t demonstrated any problems with the actual browser no provided any viable alternatives to Firefox.
I use Vivaldi, no tracking, no ads, no tricks. It’s Chromium based, yes, but with the difference that you can desactivate all Google APIs in the settings, if you want. They made money with search engines and links from sponsores, which are include by default, but you are free to delete them. The only browser company (a small coop in Norway) active in the anti-surveillance campaign and user rights. Apart a great and friendly community.
Also 2 Linux distros currently include Vivaldi as default browser (Manjaro and FerenOS), other also will do so, because of their ethical and user centred policy.
Beside is the most advanced Browser out there, nothing to do with other Chromium or Chrome or other browsers.
Chromium based is precisely the problem there. Chromium is a Google project and they exercise tight control over it. Ads are the primary source of revenue for Google and it continues to push features and behaviors in the engine that are conducive towards ads and tracking.
If Chromium ends up being the only browser engine implementation on the market than it becomes the de facto standard. There won’t even be any real open standards anymore, it’s just going to be whatever Chromium is doing. This is how things worked back in the days of IE.
Firefox helps protect web standards by the mere fact of existing. Having at least two independent implementations of these standards ensures they’re followed and aren’t just whatever Google decided to do in Chromium.
If Google decided to take Chromium in a direction that’s actively harmful to the public then browsers like Vivaldi will be in serious trouble. The resources necessary to fork and maintain the engine independently are quite significant, and a small coop in Norway is not likely to muster them.
Sponsored by Google isn’t the same as its development being driven by Google. The fact that Mozilla is a non-profit foundation is already a huge step up. The problem is that it takes a lot of resources to develop a browser, and Mozilla has been struggling to secure funding for a long time now. However, for all its flaws Firefox is the only serious alternative to Chrome and if Mozilla folds we’ll be living in a world where the web is owned by Google.
It is obviously a problem that the web is mainly shared between MS and Google. But I think that the underlying problem is not this or only in part. A company or a developer naturally also has to pay their bills to offer the necessary services, maintain an infrastructure and servers, among many other things. If he want to offer a free service or product, it is legitimate that he do so through sponsored links, generic advertisements, merchandising, offering premium content, donations or other similar measures, with which it is very well possible to get enough income.
But what these companies do is not this, but they traffic with the search histories and other data of the users, selling them to third parties, which makes it impossible to control what they do with this data, apart from displaying ads’ tailored 'and how they protect this datas.
This, apart from a violation of fundamental privacy rights, is also a big security risk. It is not the first time that hundreds of thousands of sensitive user data from Google, Facebook and others have been leaked, including banking and medical details.
If Mozilla uses these Google surveillance advertising techniques to earn money, it is no better than Google itself, which also offers much better services, which, apart from the other, is undoubtedly many of the services that do not even have an alternative to height of these (YouTube, Google Streetview, research, quantum techniques, satellites and much more). The problem is, what von Tetzchner says, they must go back to their ‘Don’t be evil’ motto that they have long forgotten.
A free network cannot be achieved by avoiding one and fostering another that also monitors and sells user data, but rather by ending this surveillance and censorship practiced by all large American companies.
I guess my question is what specifically Mozilla does that’s questionable. As far as I know, Firefox doesn’t force any surveillance or advertising on the users. Stuff like Pocket integration is questionable, but that’s easily disabled.
Right, but if you want to log out from the surveillance of Alphabet and Nest, you have to do this directly contacting with this companies, not in Mozilla itself. Meanwhile they have your data and it’s questionable if they really delete them, Google don’t do this inmediadly, include if you delete your history in their dashboard. It’s a very bad policy, yes or yes. Is sad that out there some closed source soft more private and respectfull to the user than some FOSS.
FOSS is a great system for developers, which allows free exchange and / or modification of products, but regarding privacy, security and continuity, in many cases they do not offer any special guarantee for a normal user.
Personally I prefer FOSS as much as possible, but for me the quality is more important and above all the TOS and PP conditions of the product. For me, as someone whose programming knowledge does not exceed the ‘Hello World’ in much, it is irrelevant that I can read the source code or not.
I still think that a free internet is not based only on FOSS, despising on principle the software of developers who do not use this system, but on ending censorship and surveillance on the net for mere commercial interests, this is what destroys freedom, by turning the network into a simple shopping center and FOSS as system of promotion for products, using the user as merchandise.
https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ
I’m a bit confused here, are you suggesting that Firefox sends telemetry to Google?
Yes, to Alphabet inc, which is a Google company, among others. At least when you download from Mozilla and sync with their server.
Blacklight analyse of Mozilla .org
As you see, don’t trust none of the companies or soft, not even FOSS, when they using surveillance advertising to earn money. Nothing to do with a free internet.
We’re not talking about Mozilla site, but about Firefox browser. Nobody is arguing that it would be better if Mozilla found a better source of funding than Google, but so far you haven’t demonstrated any problems with the actual browser no provided any viable alternatives to Firefox.
I use Vivaldi, no tracking, no ads, no tricks. It’s Chromium based, yes, but with the difference that you can desactivate all Google APIs in the settings, if you want. They made money with search engines and links from sponsores, which are include by default, but you are free to delete them. The only browser company (a small coop in Norway) active in the anti-surveillance campaign and user rights. Apart a great and friendly community. Also 2 Linux distros currently include Vivaldi as default browser (Manjaro and FerenOS), other also will do so, because of their ethical and user centred policy. Beside is the most advanced Browser out there, nothing to do with other Chromium or Chrome or other browsers.
Last interview with Jon von Tetzcher by the Linux community https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=ivDiL9XeDw0
Chromium based is precisely the problem there. Chromium is a Google project and they exercise tight control over it. Ads are the primary source of revenue for Google and it continues to push features and behaviors in the engine that are conducive towards ads and tracking.
If Chromium ends up being the only browser engine implementation on the market than it becomes the de facto standard. There won’t even be any real open standards anymore, it’s just going to be whatever Chromium is doing. This is how things worked back in the days of IE.
Firefox helps protect web standards by the mere fact of existing. Having at least two independent implementations of these standards ensures they’re followed and aren’t just whatever Google decided to do in Chromium.
If Google decided to take Chromium in a direction that’s actively harmful to the public then browsers like Vivaldi will be in serious trouble. The resources necessary to fork and maintain the engine independently are quite significant, and a small coop in Norway is not likely to muster them.