Louis Rossmann opines on the Firefox debacle [video]

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Firefox Terms of Use & Data Monetization

  • Debate centers on new Firefox ToS language: does it just formalize local processing (“do as you request”) or quietly expand rights to exploit user data?
  • One side: the new clause merely gives Mozilla a license to handle content you type so the browser can function (history, crash recovery, form filling); similar boilerplate exists in many apps.
  • Other side: combined with the Privacy Notice (“keep Firefox running… improve… sustain our business”), this is broad enough to justify extensive data use, including ads and partner sharing.
  • Mozilla’s own blog acknowledges collecting and sharing some data for ads and sponsored suggestions, which fuels skepticism about “privacy” branding.
  • Some argue a desktop program shouldn’t need ToS at all; others say lawyers now insist on explicit licenses for ordinary behavior.

How Firefox Development Is Funded

  • Firefox is said to depend overwhelmingly on one customer, widely understood as Google via default search deals.
  • Users object that revenue is also spent on executives and adtech acquisitions, not just the browser.
  • Question raised: how much does it truly cost to maintain a modern engine vs the $200M+ in annual “program” salaries and ~700 Firefox employees mentioned.

Proposed Funding and Governance Alternatives

  • Ideas:
    • Directly funding Firefox engineers (or Firefox-only forks) rather than Mozilla as a whole.
    • Paid “Support” or “Patron” editions; others note 10% paid conversion on a free product is wildly optimistic.
  • Critics note money fungibility: earmarked donations can just displace internal budgets.
  • Some argue browsers are made artificially complex; in principle a capable browser could be built cheaply if web standards weren’t so expansive.
  • Suggestions for public/antitrust intervention, e.g., EU funding an independent engine, and concerns that Google’s rapid expansion of web APIs raises the cost floor for non-Chromium engines.

Switching to Firefox Forks and Other Browsers

  • Multiple users report moving to LibreWolf or Zen; step-by-step profile migration from Firefox Dev Edition to LibreWolf is shared.
  • Discussion of resistFingerprinting trade-offs and config-based overrides (e.g., dark mode).
  • Practical issues: macOS Gatekeeper (xattr workaround), Microsoft Store sandbox paths, lack of LibreWolf on Android (Waterfox suggested).
  • Kagi’s Orion on Mac/iOS is recommended but acknowledged as beta-quality.

Views on Louis Rossmann’s Coverage

  • Some find his video a “nothingburger” explanation; others praise him for highlighting Mozilla’s behavior.
  • Several complain he is increasingly negative, whiny, or mixes rumor and fact; others say that’s irrelevant compared to Mozilla’s conduct.
  • He (apparently) replies to deny being rude at meetups, saying he goes out of his way to be welcoming.

Donations, Chargebacks, and Ethics

  • One commenter urges past donors to issue credit-card chargebacks against Mozilla, claiming they were misled on privacy.
  • Strong pushback: chargebacks are meant for non-delivery, misrepresentation, or fraud, not policy disagreements; abusing them risks bank backlash and may be fraudulent if mischaracterized.
  • Long subthread debates how chargebacks actually work (provisional credits, merchant vs issuer liability) and whether “dissatisfaction” is a valid basis, especially for nonprofit donations.

CCPA and Consent UX

  • Critique that the real CCPA problem is Firefox’s fragmented, dark-pattern-like privacy controls vs the law’s expectation of a simple global opt-out.
  • Some think Rossmann mis-frames this by focusing too much on Google search placement instead of the consent design.