chownie

Mozilla legal apparently think otherwise. They have been spooked by the recent California legal movements which can apply the label "sell" to behaviours we wouldn't normally consider selling user data, like setting the default search engine.

> they want to change that by feeding a processor to create an AI creator based on wetware creations...for free.

This is actually more of what I was talking about, making stuff up to make yourself angrier.

Where are they doing anything AI related with your data? Where's the proof?

There's none, because they're not, it's something you've come up with just now out of literal thin air.

Let's examine the actual wording in excruciating detail because apparently that's needed

> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox.

Non-exclusive: The right they claim doesn't stop you or anyone else from claiming the same or similar rights.

Royalty free: They won't pay you for it.

Worldwide: It doesn't matter which jurisdiction you're in.

"Doing as you request in Firefox": Carrying out operations which might mean moving your data from your local machine to a remote one, such as making web requests with requests bodies formed from data you've input.

In total: This means they have the non-exclusive right, without need for payment from you and no matter where you are in the world, for Firefox to do what you've asked it to do with your data. When you posted this comment, that was you telling Firefox to move some data to the internet for you. That is what this legal text and the right they claim provides to you.

In the old internet they didn't need to write any legalese for this, their legal team think they might need to now because the landscape has changed. That's it.

> Imagine a Mill, Lathe or 3D-Printer would do that.

If your mill, lathe or 3d printer could publish your data to the internet I guarantee you with 100% certainty they would include licensing text accomplishing roughly the same thing.

> So now we can use your photo of your birthday party that you sent via webmail

Please read the second half of the text you quoted, where it says "for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox."

I cannot find a nicer way to say this, but a lot of people in these threads are essentially winding themselves up and then producing rubbish like this to fuel their own anger.

Mozilla have been clumsy sure, but this collective tantrum as a response makes zero sense especially now with given context it's clear they're not doing anything they haven't been doing for years.

> Mozilla is violating user privacy.

They have changed literally nothing except the FAQ. The "selling" is describing behaviour they already do and have been doing for years. They set the default search engine to Google, this is now considered selling user data.

> There are already multiple forks for Firefox and destroying Mozilla as an organization would greatly help one or more of them take off and carry the banner of true enabling privacy for the user, which Mozilla is not doing.

You do realize that if Mozilla dies then every single one of these forks dies with it? Surely?

None of the teams working on these forks actually do any core browser engine work. Without Mozilla you are an ECMAScript update or a new web standard away from your fork of choice becoming a brick.

Neither of these represent the cost and support footprint to maintain and develop a fully featured browser because as it stands neither of them are fully featured, complete browsers.

This leaves out the important part, nothing has actually changed. This is entirely a rewording for what they're currently doing and have been doing for years.

If it's such an outrage worthy subject why did no one explode about this when they added the sponsored links years ago?

You're forking the FAQ? Because that's the only thing that's actually changed here.

The definition of the word "sell" has a different meaning in a post-AI world and in specific California have a new bill adding some other contexts to it, so despite not actually doing anything differently (go and look at the Firefox source tree if you don't believe me) they have to change their wording.

ETA: Setting Google as their default search engine in exchange for funding from Google has been cited as an example of "selling user data to Google", if you'd like a concrete example of what I'm talking about.

Sure, no one can see it due to the censorship but you can say it into the void unseen which is of course what you meant.

You have to search that word specifically to find those posts, they're otherwise algorithmically censored from timelines.

You have to search that word specifically to find those posts, they're otherwise algorithmically censored from timelines.

> You can still say anything you like on X

You cannot even say the word "cisgender" on X.

I suppose the extra context is that this entire situation was solved in less than a day, can (and does) happen on any other platform including X, and from what the author has shared this scam doesn't actually seem to have worked on anyone yet -- or that information would have been in the article.

I mean, there kind of is a special Mormon healthcare system in that they are traditionally forbidden to take part in drug use or to drink alcohol. I would not be super shocked if alcoholism made up some of that seven year gap between non-LDS and LDS males.

Some of us don't grow beards, so you just end up looking like a tall child struggling on hard times.

> As an industry, why haven't we figured out how to make drop downs that consistently open for all users? Is accessibility just that hard? Are there web frameworks/web components BBC should be using that already handle this?

I don't know the answers to all the questions, but "is accessibility just that hard" is a firm, concrete, YES.

Here's some real world examples, modals. If you are not a vision impaired user, you can see what's going on when you're presented with a white box containing ui components swimming in a sea of "don't touch this bit" grey.

If you're using a screen reader there's no guarantee that you'll receive any of that information. When your screen reader controls tab through the UI elements and you land back at the top of the box, will your particular screen reader report that to you? Will it list the available interactable elements? Will it list them in the same order as the other screen readers? How about on phone? How about on Mac? Will your screen reader and browser report the inputs right, or will it silently allow the user to fall out of the modal and back into the rest of the site?

When it comes to accessibility you can't trust that the OS, browser and the screen reader are cooperative, or even that they'll do something sane in the right situation.

In 2019 I had to log a bug with VoiceOver + Safari because a negative CSS margin could cause screen readers to read RTL text blocks out of order. Users with unimpaired vision would see "9/10/2019" and on the screen reader you would hear "ten slash nine slash two-thousand-and-nineteen", as a stopgap measure we had to set the text aria-hidden and put in an invisible p tag there with the correctly ordered text so screen readers wouldn't choke on it.

All this to say, sometimes when you see some jank code relating to accessibility there really isn't a better way to do it. Even if you dumped everything, turned the codebase upside down and focused on accessibility first you'd see stuff inexplicably break the moment JAWS or VoiceOver updates.

Equally if we didn't distance ourselves from people who make harmful mistakes and those who believe dangerous, bigoted things we would all live miserably.

Jewish communities are more tightly knit, and the families in these communities more interwoven with one another than the average Protestant would be to their own.

My intuition would be that nepotism would be more rife with this kind of community makeup, if you know your distant family and your family friends very well they're much more likely to try to help you out.

No one is looking at Digimon and saying it looks like Pokemon now, but in the 90s they sure as heck were. People's mothers (ie the key demographic for "the uninitiated") commonly confused one for the other, even the TV show. This is no longer the case purely because Digimon is far less popular.

Bearing in mind pretty much all Pokemon designs follow the rule of "what if a mythical animal existed in our art style", it is in fact shockingly easy to accidentally ape a Pokemon design just by cartoonifying mythos.

This is incidentally also true of Pokemon, who were accused of ripping off Dragon Quest when the first games started coming out. Does anyone remember that at this point?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=...

The entire lawfare approach thus far has been via patent dispute from what I understand, so the gameplay is actually what's being argued.

From what I understand their lawfare approach is using japanese software patent law, they have notably not tried to do the same using trademark or copyright infringement.

If they could get away with what you're suggesting, I imagine they would have tried it on digimon decades ago: https://digi-battle.com/Content/CardScans/CP-22.png vs https://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/e/ed/0098Krabb...

There's a laundry list of these comparisons actually https://preview.redd.it/what-if-digimon-adventure-was-pokemo...

It's not absurd, once you remember that autistic people are human beings with feelings.

Edit: Sort of shocked that I am having to spell this out to all the "but embryos..." posters, but the backlash is coming from autistic human people with feelings. I was not insinuating some anti abortion sentiment.

Ah I realize my first comment is maybe not written so well. I meant to convey, it looks to me that some irrationally high dummy testing values (put there because we're seeing historically high winds and they wish to test that behaviour) were accidentally put into the production data source.

Given the chronological proximity to the real hurricane force winds in the US right now, seems fair to me to assume someone at the weather data source was testing how these values might propagate/display and the test values escaped containment?

Why is it a good thing?

Was the legality the question? If so it seems we care about data "theft" in a very one sided manner.

Fair enough! You seem to be the expert.

I didn't look at your comment history at all, I just have showdead on so I could see all the your flagged, dead replies in this thread.

I think HN has become biased against people who default to weird angry outbursts more than anything.

I went looking for the outright rage you're talking about and I don't see any signs of it, given your small collection of replies with a decent number of them flagged are you sure that this isn't projection on your behalf?

The article has no teeth when you actually read the quote?

What's written: categorical condemnation of AI has ableist and classist undertones

How does this equate to that headline at all? I've not seen such obvious dishonesty since the "fake news" clickbait sites circa 2010-14, where the headline and article could only tenuously at most be said to connect to reality.

Edit: It's worse than that, this entire website seems to exist to post outrage bait specifically about AI? Tons of really short articles which don't say much but are chock full of pithy jabs.