You can shut all that stuff down easily. Google can not find me when I run ‘Where am I’.
6 Likes
If the goal was to run a browser that had no telemetry, I’d propose that it’s far simpler to use an already available version of that browser that by design, does just that.
That process of changing all of those preferences is not easy. Many of us run multiple systems, with multiple user accounts for family members, and those preferences have to each be referenced, searched and set for every user on every system 
As Mozilla as a company are seeking increasing data, it’s within the realm of possibility too, that additional telemetry, requiring additional preference changes in order to be disabled, will be added in the future. That’s a chore.
1 Like
It is simpler. But you end up sacrificing security for privacy. Downstream projects see a delay in getting security updates. The size of the delay varies on the specific project. For a project like Librewolf, it is usually a few days at most. For some browsers, it is months. When a browser is hit with a day 0 vulnerability.(Which is not that uncommon), you may end up unprotected for a period of time.
Like everything else. It ends up being a balancing act. You need to choose what is important for you.
5 Likes
‘Easily’
With an easy 20+ step process 
right. (No I suppose it is easy, and not even complicated, just repetitive)
And you only have to check these 20ish settings once every update to make sure the update didn’t revert your settings. Or add more of them for you to turn off.
1 Like
A lot of those pieces of info are basic hardware related info Mozilla gets because too few people submit good bug reports that can actually provide them insight. The info they gave out is general and vague, not ultra specific. If you have trouble with this, your own opinion and stance. A lot of this is standard for all browsers that don’t try to be full on this niche of privacy browser. Let’s also not forget that LibreWolf and some other privacy browsers are based off Firefox. Without Mozilla’s work and the supporters, we wouldn’t be here, would we?
3 Likes
Firefox is getting some pretty unfair comments here lately.
It is perfect? Definitely not. There is a lot of room for improvement and a lot of things I would like to see them do differently from a privacy perspective.
However, it is similar to what Google is doing with Chrome? Uhh…no, not even close.
Some things to consider:
- Most of the serious privacy-focused browsers are actually Firefox with a relatively small number of modifications. They can’t do what they do without Firefox.
- Firefox is quite literally the only multi-platform independent browser that is a viable to alternative to Chromium/Chrome. Everything else is either based on one of those, locked into an ecosystem or provides only limited functionality.
- The investment that Mozilla puts into Firefox is probably substantially more than all it’s derivatives combined.
11 Likes
However, it is similar to what Google is doing with Chrome? Uhh…no, not even close.
It is though, it is heading in exactly the same direction, and it’s travelled very far down the path already. Mozilla is a corporation, why do you feel the need to defend it in the first place? They are as out to get you as google is, hands down.
It’s public knowledge that mozilla is actually getting most of it’s money from google. As payment for making google the default search engine. In 2021 this accounted for 83% of Mozilla’s revenue. ~80% of Mozilla’s money comes from google.
Mozilla has also been branching out into advertising, it’s an advertising company.
https://www.osnews.com/story/140047/mozilla-acquires-ad-analytics-company-for-some-reason/
And advertising happens to be the #1 excuse for privacy breaches.
1 Like
When people don’t realise that they are part of the problem, it is one of the worst things to see them spout their opinions on topics.
Either you fund the projects you use every day for $12 a year, or you should expect them to seek funding elsewhere. You pay for everything else in your life, but you want to get everything online for free?
Yes, it’s virtual, but it took real work to create it, and takes real work to maintain it.
Mozilla doesn’t take money from Google so that Google Search can be the main search engine. They take money from Google because they need funding to maintain and update the project millions of people use for free every day.
And then some of you will spout nonsense that it’s open source, so why pay for it, or that you can’t afford it, yet you have an internet connection, Netflix, YouTube Music, etc.
6 Likes
Give it a break. People aren’t part of the problem just because they don’t agree with someone else’s view. 
2 Likes
I understand your position but I don’t agree with you. Collecting as much personal information about you, correlating that data and using it to drive revenue is core to Google’s business model.
Mozilla is collecting telemetry information to understand the effectiveness of their own products. While I am opposed to this practice it is not comparable to what Google is doing.
Developing and maintaining a browser is immensely expensive and the funding has to come from somewhere. Donations aren’t getting them anywhere close to where they need to be.
To be clear, they acquired a privacy-focused advertising company who was/is trying to build an advertising platform that doesn’t expose any user-behavioral data. IMO, if they have the management savvy to make this work(A pretty big “if”), it is a great decision for them. They need a viable income source that doesn’t rely on Google. Advertising isn’t going away so trying to make it viable while not sacrificing privacy is a solid goal.
In the end it all comes down to how skeptical you are. Anything, no matter how good or bad, can be shown in a negative or possible way. If you look for the worst in every decision they make, it is easy to find it.
Ultimately, the things you are not stating are not incorrect, they are just taking a very skeptical view of the intent behind those actions.
To be fair, I don’t have a crystal ball either.
7 Likes
I am not sure how you are reading that to come to that conclusion, but that is not what is being implied by @anon93652015 there.
1 Like
What is the name of a mole who is placed in a union to stop them from organizing effectively to get their demands met?
A person placed in a union to disrupt or weaken its organizing efforts is commonly referred to as a “union buster” or a “plant”. These individuals are typically employed by management or anti-union organizations to infiltrate unions and undermine their activities from within. Their tactics may include disrupting meetings, questioning the union’s legitimacy, and reporting on union activities to management. This practice is part of a broader strategy known as “union busting,” which aims to prevent or weaken union formation and effectiveness in the workplace.
Just some random “off-topic” information. 
So far they have been carrying over from each FF update.
3 Likes
I wasn’t really saying that they shouldn’t take money from google, I don’t even use firefox.
But we all know google is evil, and mozilla getting over 80% of it’s money from google gives google a great deal of control over mozilla. If they want something from mozilla, like, say, access to their telemetry, all they’d have to do is threaten to stop paying them 80% of their revenue Which would completely sink mozilla.
Google is evil
Google has near absolute control over Mozilla, all they have to do is exert that control.
Mozilla should therefore be assumed to be evil as well.
If you can’t trust google, then you can’t trust mozilla, mozilla is owned by google in all but name.
Is it possible that google is not exerting this power over mozilla for nefarious purposes? Yes.
Is it likely? No, they’re probably doing something with this power over their only real competition in the browser space, you cannot convince me otherwise.
If you’re using a derivative of either browser, and you’re not funding either the main project or at least the derivative… 
The same is true for distros, DEs, etc. but that’s another topic, kinda.
And obviously, funding Google would be the dumbest thing, if it’s even possible.
This is… and I’m trying very hard to be polite… utter drivel. Google (and everyone else) is currently waiting for the remedies following the judgement in the District Court for the District of Columbia, which found that: "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
That idea that Google would try a stunt with Mozilla like you describe is utterly delusional.
5 Likes
Eh you know what i’m not gonna get into this or this thread will probably be closed because we’re veering off topic.
Suffice to say, you are assuming the best of these corporations.
I am assuming the worst.I feel like
I have extremely good reasons for assuming the worst, and I’m sure you feel like you have what you feel is a good reason to assume everything is above board for all corporations too.
1 Like
Assuming that a corporation will try not to make things worse when facing remedies in a monopoly judgement is an extremely long way from assuming the best of that corporation.
You clearly know nothing about me 
3 Likes
Which browser(s) do you use?
Also, like @r0ckhopper said, just because you trust one company more than another doesn’t mean you trust that company completely. Lesser of two evils, basically.
1 Like