A Comment on Mozilla's Policy Changes

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Waterfox, LibreWolf, and Alternative Browsers

  • Waterfox is described as closer to stock Firefox, with conveniences like opening normal/private/Tor tabs in one window. Some had avoided it over its past ownership by an adtech/search aggregation company, but note it is independent again since 2023; others feel the “stink” of that association may linger.
  • LibreWolf is seen as a stricter, more “hardened” Firefox: privacy‑sensible but initially annoying defaults (clear cookies on exit, no dark mode by default, etc.). Users mention a now‑present UI option: “always store cookies/data for this site,” making strict cookie‑clearing more usable. Cookie Autodelete is mentioned as a similar solution.
  • Other suggested browsers: hardened Firefox, Ungoogled Chromium with uBlock, Vivaldi, Brave, and Falkon; opinions differ on how much Manifest V3 weakens adblocking in Chromium‑based browsers.

Reactions to Mozilla’s New Terms and Privacy Practices

  • Many see the “there’s been some confusion” messaging as patronizing; they argue the language is vague by design and conflates Firefox, services, AI, and ad products.
  • The explanation that Mozilla now needs a license to “use information typed into Firefox” for basic functionality is viewed as disingenuous, since such functionality existed for decades without such terms.
  • A detailed reading of the Privacy Notice lists many purposes (search, new‑tab ads, AI chatbots, sponsored content, marketing, etc.); several commenters object to these uses of user input and feel betrayed given Firefox’s privacy branding.
  • Some conclude they can no longer trust Mozilla and have already migrated to forks or other browsers.

Acceptable Use, Porn, and FOSS Status

  • The Acceptable Use Policy for services bans “graphic depictions of sexuality or violence.” Historically this applied to “services and products”; now it’s explicitly referenced from the Firefox ToS, creating confusion over whether it covers general browsing.
  • A termination clause allowing Mozilla to “suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox” when tied to Mozilla accounts is seen as ominous and poorly worded.
  • Commenters question how such use restrictions reconcile with Free/Open Source principles (freedom to use for any purpose). Others point out Mozilla’s ToS apply only to official binaries; the MPL allows unrestricted use of self‑built versions, subject to trademark rules.

Trust, Governance, and Strategy Debates

  • Some argue Mozilla now behaves like a typical corporation, not a mission‑driven nonprofit, and is “toxic” on privacy.
  • Others counter that many complaints are based on vibes and scattered incidents rather than a clear causal story, while acknowledging recent ToS/Privacy changes as genuinely worrying.
  • There is extended debate over:
    • Leadership history (including the former CEO, Firefox OS, and Brave’s later design choices).
    • Whether side projects (VPN, Pocket, etc.) meaningfully detracted from browser development.
    • How much Firefox’s decline stems from Mozilla’s missteps versus Google’s structural advantages (bundling, branding, Android dominance).

Free Speech, Law, and Nonprofit Structure

  • One thread frames the new terms as censorship and a violation of free‑speech norms; others reply that constitutional free‑speech protections constrain governments, not private companies.
  • Separate discussion focuses on US nonprofit law: whether a 501(c)(3) can directly fund browser development, and if a free browser could be argued as a “public work” or rights‑protecting activity. There is no consensus; some say Mozilla is simply following conservative legal advice.