Unfck the Internet
firefox.com
firefox.com
Like yeah its default browser is Google because that's the way they can pay developers to work on it. For now they are only viable alternative in browser space.
Yeah it collects data(only after asking for appropriate permission) which too is anonymous(i might be wrong here). But they are not collecting it to make profit out of it like google. Its only to make firefox better.
And people suggesting to use forks of firefox keep in mind if there is no firefox there are no forks. I am not qualified to comment on Mozilla's way of handling their funds. But it is what it is for now.
But atleast if you use firefox daily show some love!
Not many people complain about this btw. It's a foolish argument. If Yahoo or DDG is the default, most people will just switch back to Google.
>only after asking for appropriate permission
No. it's opt out.
> which too is anonymous
No
>There is no firefox there are no forks
That's one of the most important points. Without Firefox, TOR browser will not exist either.
>But atleast if you use firefox daily show some love!
Yep! It's my default browser. Has killer features no other browser has.
That was in reply to a comment which was deleted by the commenter.
>only after asking for appropriate permission
>No. it's opt out.
Oh never noticed that. But I think that's because its just annoyance for the people who don't care about privacy. And those who does can just opt out.
> which too is anonymous
> No
Whatever it maybe I trust Mozilla more than Google. I am not being a fanboy too. Mozilla is not some giant tech company selling your data to advertisers.
Opt-out is still a dark pattern. For those who don't care about privacy, it should default to no data collection, with simple language detailing what will be collected, and what it's used for.
I'm still in your camp though in that I'd trust Mozilla to not sell my data and instead use it to only improve their products.
Which is all a bit baffling since we already have a privacy absolutist's dream version of Firefox called the Tor Browser.
Could Mozilla reidentify people with raw telemetry - sure. Is it easy or done in practice - no. Shut the hell up unless you know better than someone who has handled that data.
Seriously folks - Mozilla has problems - but proper handling of your private data is not one of them.
Not for everything but the disgusting management, and the trow out of real Devs. Mozilla management, shut up and make a good browser and leave the rest to the EFF.
BTW: Don't link youtube videos if you want to unfuck (yes if you mean it write it..you know WITH the U). And please make the Firefox Logo in Rainbow-color, not because you stand behind it, but because it gives you that cozy feeling that your are the good ones.
So much for unfcking the internet. Hypocrisy everywhere.
It is not linked directly to the play store. it is run through a tracking company first, which then assigns a unique ID to your installation for knowing what caused users to install firefox. The ID is present in the URL.
Click the link once more to get another ID assigned to you.
Then when you open the app, The ID is sent back to the company along with a list of specific apps installed on your Android.
Anonymous tracking is already part of the URL. The ?utm_source=unfck part of the URL helps Mozilla know how many people installed Firefox from that link.
This tracking is happens continuously. You have to go to the settings and toggle the data collection off.
In case it wasn't clear, I am not complaining. Analytics has its place, but the Unique ID's are a bit much, especially when they want to unfk the internet.
Is this just speculation, or is this visible in the code?
https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/
Scroll down to Firefox.
that seems to be a reasonable and consistent stance, but it's also reasonable for users to be skeptical of their anonymity claims as well as the implicit claim of being undeanonymizeable (what a mouthful) or having strict safeguards on potentially fingerprintable info.
i think branding around privacy (and secondarily security) is a good strategy for them (apple is effective with it), but mozilla really has to nail the messaging, not only for the public but for more-discerning technologists as well. so far, the compromising stance they've taken doesn't seem to be hitting the right chords all around.
my take is that they're messaging is too broad and diluted right now. for example, diversity and inclusion are great, but not for the mozila/firefox brand at its current (smaller) size. it just distracts from a core brand that should be laser-focused on privacy and security to set it in stark contrast with google & chrome (and to a lesser extent, apple & safari). that creates real market segmentation and shifts user choice-making to dimensions that favor mozilla/firefox. other (potential) brand values just don't do that for them.
and, they don't have the resources and reach (and reserve brand equity) of companies like google & apple to effectively deploy broad brand ideals. instead, they really need to focus narrowly on just privacy and security if they want to survive their mindshare/marketshare drought.
If you want to "unf*ck the internet", perhaps start doing exactly that with your own links. I cannot understand why "adjust dot com" needs to insert itself between this page and the app store. If it's for installation tracking, why not host whatever tracking service on your own domain? AFAIK "adjust dot com" couldn't possibly offer any magic installation tracking that the first party domain couldn't offer.
What we should be doing is pointing fingers at Google, who have no business running the world's top browser, search engine, and ad network. That's a monopoly.
If so, who is the target demographic? The art and style look like they belong on Nickelodian.
It's giving me a "Hello, fellow kids" vibe.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200817145700/https://fckdrm.co...
I guess it wouldn't be down if it was wildly successful. Also, to their credit GOG was promoting DRM-free in general and it wasn't just an ad for GOG but linked to other DRM-free stores, including direct competitors. I see there are a few other links on Mozilla's page if you follow a link but mostly it looks like an ad for Firefox.
Weirdly, Steam doesn't get enough credit for being DRM-free for many of its games; games that don't ship their own DRM or use Steam CEG are effectively as DRM-free as GoG games are. You can't transfer them out of your account, but you could zip up the folder they reside in and copy it to another machine without problems.
The App is just a cdn api wrapper.
Yeah, and Firefox is a corporation that gets hundreds of millions of dollars a year from Google, whose CEO gets paid about $2 million a year.
I won't get into their politics, because frankly they shouldn't matter, but please actually start working on your browser, Mozilla. Ungoogled Chromium is eating your lunch.
Edit: The Unfck the Internet project proclaims to be all about user privacy, but it promotes an extension to report political ads and an extension to report recommended YouTube videos (with the goal of not exposing people certain content). That is why I see this as social advocacy because it's clearly got political motives.
Tangentially related: ungoogled Chromium has some impact on Google's monetisation, but zero impact on their browser monopoly, because in the end you're still using their browser engine. So if you're talking about counteracting browser monopoly, ungoogled Chromium is not a good choice.
Here's why I consider this Unfck the Internet project to be social advocacy - the extension to track political ads via a public database. The extension to report problematic YouTube recommendations also serves the same purpose.
Apple's front as a privacy company is little more than PR. I understand this isn't really the point of your comment, but I think the privacy policies of Apple and Mozilla make for a misleading comparison.
Mozilla cannot have anything other than a huge positional advantage over Apple where privacy is concerned, mainly because the amount and type of personal data the two companies ingest are so vastly different. Were Mozilla to adopt Apple's stance on privacy, results would be disastrous.
[0] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
They are required by law to do the latter. They are not required to to do the former (or at least are willing to go to court to defend that belief).
> They also don't allow users to encrypt data stored in iCloud
The article you linked does not back up this assertion. It says they chose not to automatically encrypt user backups to the cloud, at the FBI's request. I'm sure if you encrypt data and upload it to iCloud, they will not delete your encrypted data.
It would be the responsibility of the iCloud service to encrypt data (if Apple had chosen to do so, and a user opts in). Simply choosing not to delete encrypted blobs is not the same thing. The salient point is that Apple was _going_ to offer encryption as a part of the iCloud service, but dropped the feature at the FBI's request.
><a id="js-fb" class="mzp-c-cta-link" href="http://facebook.com/sharer.php...
Yup...
> Links to a facebook owned company (giphy) in the next image.
Here, you dropped this. Omitting the 'u' doesn't suddenly change the weight of the word.
demographic target lean and whatever aside, deep in the giphy of promotional gifs ...Unfck this and that........there's one that says Un Zuck It
hm, on the nose
You could frame this the other way. I don't necessarily understand why people are so bothered by the word, but I also don't understand why avoiding it would bother you.
Personally, I think it just makes the page accessible in more contexts. I'd feel ever-so-slightly embarrassed bringing up a page filled with course words while in the office. Removing the vowels makes me less embarrassed. We can have a discussion about if that makes any sense, but culture and traditions frequently don't make sense, and I don't think this is harming anyone.
Add anti-fingerprinting tech to the core browser or at least verify one of the existing add-ons that do it.
Add PGP/GPG to the core browser.
Look into sandboxing. Maybe pick up maintenance of Sanboxie.
privacy.resistFingerprinting to 'true' in about:config
It is not perfect, of course, but helps a lot. Expect some sites to break.
Examples of breakage - while enabling 2FA on any site, or using sites that offer the ability to edit photos, canvas picker, etc.
Please, no. 1990s ball-of-mud insecure crypto with unusable UX?
Pass. We don’t need the browser to be the client for everything. We just got FTP and Gopher removed!
Firefox OS $15000
Persona $8000
CEO $3600
Firefox $150
someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. my browser is dying
Please stick to making a better browser, like you did back when the add-on ecosystem didn't suck and was vibrant and alive.
All these semi-political initiatives just look childish virtue signalling, bankrolled by Google search money and don't do your history any justice.
On Linux I use Firefox. On Windows I would use Firefox.
Also in my experience, while Safari is very efficient in terms of battery, Firefox has made great improvements in that department and also ... Safari chokes on more than 10 open tabs, whereas Firefox runs just fine with at least 10 times more tabs.
It looks like we're out of ideas if the solution is to just use the internet less..
But that could take another decade to materialize, or more, so what do we do until then?
On an individual level, yes, the solution right now is to avoid some services.
I use Firefox every single day. Focus on your browser, and let your product do the talking.