Mozilla flamed by Firefox fans after reneging on promises to not sell their data

Browser Alternatives and Forks

• Many are looking for a replacement but see the ecosystem as effectively three engines: Chrome/Chromium, Firefox, Safari. Most others are “skins.”
• Firefox forks frequently mentioned: LibreWolf, Floorp, Zen, Mullvad Browser, Waterfox, plus mobile forks like Mull/IronFox. Some are considered solid day‑to‑day, but users worry about long‑term trust and governance.
• Ungoogled Chromium is popular as a de‑Google‑d option; manifest v2 ad‑blocking (uBlock Origin) still works in some builds via patches and manual extension installs.
• New engines like Ladybird and Servo are hoped for, but seen as years away.

Brave and Chromium-Based Debate

• Brave is divisive: praised for speed and privacy features; criticized for past crypto-related injections, promoted VPNs, and brand controversies.
• There’s disagreement over Brave’s ad model: one side calls it “selling your data”; defenders say ads are selected locally, opt‑in, and browsing history isn’t stored server‑side.
• Lack of mobile extensions is a dealbreaker for some.

Trust in Forks and Infrastructure

• A challenge for Firefox forks is earning trust: some want real‑name, CV-style transparency for core maintainers; others argue strong process and distro vetting matter more than identities.
• Cloudflare is seen as a practical problem: alternative browsers or custom UAs can trigger endless CAPTCHAs; some forks work around this by masquerading as Firefox.

Terms of Use, Data Sharing, and “Selling”

• Central controversy: Mozilla removed its categorical “we don’t sell your data” promise and added broad ToS language.
• Defenders say this is driven by California’s expansive legal definition of “sale,” covering shared telemetry, experiments, and optional new‑tab/search ads, not a behavioral change; they emphasize features can be disabled or are opt‑in.
• Critics point out Mozilla now openly admits sharing some user data with ad partners “to make Firefox commercially viable,” which they say matches the commonsense meaning of “selling data.”
• There’s meta‑debate on whether a locally installed FOSS app should have ToS at all; some argue most serious software does, others counter that many large FOSS apps only have licenses, not usage terms.

Mozilla’s Strategy, Finances, and Side Bets

• Strong frustration with Mozilla’s management: high executive pay, layoffs of engineers, and years of >$500M annual revenue without a stable path are seen as signs of “bureaucratic capture.”
• Side projects (Pocket, VPN wrapper around Mullvad, Firefox Send, Firefox OS, adtech acquisition, AI initiatives) are criticized as distractions from the core browser and as financial misallocation. Others argue every tech org must place risky bets and there’s no clear evidence these harmed browser quality or market share.
• Debate over whether donations help Firefox: money given to the Mozilla Foundation largely doesn’t fund browser development; users wishing to “pay for Firefox” feel there is no direct channel.

Privacy, Advertising, and Mission Drift

• Many long‑time users feel Mozilla has drifted from a clear, explicit “privacy-first, not Google” stance to becoming “advertising‑adjacent,” with Pocket changes, sponsored tiles, and adtech moves eroding trust.
• Some see “privacy‑preserving advertising” as a legitimate, even important experiment; others argue targeted advertising is inherently unethical or will inevitably be abused (addiction, gambling, political manipulation).
• A visible segment has already migrated to LibreWolf or other forks, canceled paid Mozilla services, and calls for a “hard fork” or independent foundation focused solely on a privacy‑centric Firefox. A minority insists the whole panic is overblown and largely misinformed.