Firefox now includes safeguards to prevent sites from abusing the history API by generating excessive history entries, which can make navigating with the back and forward buttons difficult by cluttering the history. This intervention ensures that such entries, unless interacted with by the user, are skipped when using the back and forward buttons.

Nice

15 is the percent of the tip, not the percent increase in tip income over the last decade. If the tip percentage stays constant, then the tip amount rises in direct proportion to the food cost. The fair comparison is rent increase vs. restaurant food price increase. The data I found indicates rent’s gone up at an average of 4% per year in the last decade, and that restaurant food prices have risen by a similar amount - anywhere from 3-7% depending on the industry.

Everyone is struggling. It is not unique to servers. And I do tip - just a reasonable 15%. If a server is struggling to get by on 15% tips, they should harass their boss and their senator, not their customers who are likely struggling as well.

I’m punishing them by giving them what was until 10 years ago considered an excellent and standard tip?

Not to mention that servers are, as a general group, extremely opposed to dismantling the tip system as a whole. My complaint wasn’t about raised food prices, which the owner would be in control of - it was about raised tipping percentage expectations. I refuse to contribute to the steadily rising expectation of how much a tip should be, and regret my past contributions to that trend.

Back when 15% was considered standard I liked tipping closer to 30%, but as a direct result of the push to try to make 15% seem low I no longer tip more than 15%.

Not really, if something is inspiring rage then it’s too hardcore for this community. The sidebar even explicitly says “not enraging”!

God, you’re exhausting. They don’t sell the data. Get over it. The email left no room for ambiguity. You’re reaching so far it’s embarrassing. Are you really that jaded?

Reviving a long-dead thread for a relevant update, in a top-level post because you deleted all of your replies in the thread where it was relevant.

Mozilla did reply to my email asking for clarification on their Fakespot privacy policy, and whether they collect or sell user data, as we were discussing - though that reply took them four weeks. Their response in full:

“”" Hello,

Thank you for contacting Mozilla and for your question. At this time, Fakespot does not sell or share any user data pursuant to any applicable privacy laws. The only data we share outside of Mozilla are generalized aggregated metrics with service providers who make Faksepot run to help us with logging and debugging issues to provide an uninterrupted experience for our customers, and we do not share this data for monetary gain. We are in the process of updating our privacy policy for additional clarity on all the points referenced in your email.

We trust this answers your questions and thank you again for reaching out.

Kind regards, Mozilla “”"

I dunno about the iOS version, but on the desktop and Android versions both you can also disable them directly from the new tab page itself.

Thatâ™s⠀rea​lly cool. � Ꭰо уо𝗎 𝗍һі𝗇𝗄 уо𝗎’ӏӏ со𝗇𝗍і𝗇𝗎е ᖯ𝗋о𝗐ѕі𝗇𝗀 ӏі𝗄е 𝗍һа𝗍?

I hope that if Mozilla does fail someone takes over Firefox from them

I’m of course rooting for Mozilla, but if things do go sideways…

Please be Proton, please be Proton

And surely you know better than to assume Firefox’s own privacy policy is null and void because the privacy policy for a different, distinct product offered by the same company has some different terms in it? Regardless of what FakeSpot’s actual policy ends up being (I’m withholding judgement until they reply to my email), I can’t see it as anything other than disingenuous to imply that their policy in some way affects Firefox’s policy. Firefox does not sell user data, period.

I’m going with Mozilla on this one.

From the same privacy policy you linked:

I don’t personally understand the disconnect between the parts we each posted, but there is a clear disconnect regardless.

And, regardless, this applies to fakespot.com. Not Firefox. Not even slightly Firefox. Firefox unambiguously has nothing to do with selling user data.

Edit: I’ve also gone ahead and sent an email to the address at the bottom of the policy asking for clarification on the issue.

Four weeks later edit: They replied to my email. Here is their response:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Mozilla and for your question. At this time, Fakespot does not sell or share any user data pursuant to any applicable privacy laws. The only data we share outside of Mozilla are generalized aggregated metrics with service providers who make Faksepot run to help us with logging and debugging issues to provide an uninterrupted experience for our customers, and we do not share this data for monetary gain. We are in the process of updating our privacy policy for additional clarity on all the points referenced in your email.

We trust this answers your questions and thank you again for reaching out.

Kind regards,
Mozilla

I think it’s probably a combination of both. There’s an astroturfing campaign going on somewhere, just not on Lemmy, which is overall too small and insignificant to target. But astroturfing works - it creates the echo chambers you’re talking about, it creates apathy. Most people just read headlines, not even the comments. You read a bad story about Mozilla once a week and you’ll start to internalize it - eventually your opinion of Mozilla will drop, justified or not, to the point where you’re willing to believe even the more heinous theories about it.

So you end up with a lot of people who’ve been fed a lot of misleading half-truths and even some outright lies, who are now getting angry enough about the situation they think is going on to start actively posting anti-Mozilla posts and comments on their own.

Your own 2023 article doesn’t say anything about policies allowing Mozilla to sell private data, and Mozilla’s own website openly and proudly claims they neither buy nor sell their users’ data.

And Anonym is a company purpose-created to try to transform the advertising industry into a more privacy-respecting industry. Its mission could not align more with Mozilla’s. They in particular developed PPA, the feature Firefox was getting so much bad press about last week - and which ended up being none of the things the dozens of articles posted about it claimed. It is, in fact, a complete non-factor when it comes to privacy risks, and its explicit purpose is to pivot the internet toward a significantly more private ecosystem.

There are lots of people claiming Mozilla is becoming an advertising company and is selling their users out. There’s some misleading evidence that even makes that superficially appear true. But it’s false.

The fact that Mozilla hasn’t talked much about ad blockers since then is, I think, significant.

When have they talked about ad blockers in the past, period? This is just a meaningless scare tactic. I don’t see them talking about arctic drilling either - should I be concerned?

From the same page you got your image from:

That’s not really what the issue is when people mention LibreWolf depends on Firefox. Its code will always be there, sure - but an abandoned browser is a soon-to-be-dead browser. Something as complex as Firefox needs constant updates to its security and engine, at a minimum, to keep it safe and functional. That’s all work that Mozilla does for LibreWolf, and it’s a significant enough burden that arguably no current fork of Firefox would be able to bear it. It’s apparently a burden even Microsoft wasn’t willing to bear anymore.

Who knows? The file that got incorrectly marked as collecting or transmitting data was named “googlesyndication_adsbygoogle.js”. I’m sure that’s a very reasonable guess for what a file with that name would do… in most add-ons. But like, obviously not in this one. My best guess is the reviewers have some type of tool that’s intended to help them find issues, it flagged the referenced files, and the reviewer either couldn’t or didn’t properly verify the files were actually issues.

For what it’s worth, Firefox is absolutely still the browser that doesn’t treat you like a piggy bank and has options to eliminate ads.

I agree that they should have replied, and that replying probably would have even fixed the mistake, but I also can’t find it in me to fault them in this situation. Getting those emails would have been both frustrating and insulting, and one of their messages on the linked GitHub page goes into the various stresses the situation puts them through.

I don’t agree that there’s enough evidence here to decide Mozilla’s actions were hostile/malicious - maybe if they were given a chance to fix things and still didn’t, but everyone makes mistakes. Incompetent, sure, malicious, not enough evidence.

My own reading of the situation on the developer’s GitHub is unfortunately that the review by Mozilla is indeed completely inaccurate in every way. No way to even read it as a “Each side has their own story” type of thing since they reproduce Mozilla’s emails verbatim. They seem just materially incorrect. The source files referenced by the emails are visible on the same GitHub account, along with their complete histories showing no changes at all - the issues referenced don’t and never did exist.

The only redeeming thing I can find is that the dev (ambiguously) seems to have never replied to the email from Mozilla about the issues, and so Mozilla was never made aware that there was an issue with the review that needed fixing. They seem to have done this because they perceived the process as hostile and not worth engaging with, which… fair, I guess.

It used to be even more annoying. Until a couple of months ago, after you tapped the No option, it would bring you to a full-screen screen where it asked you to select specific photos you’d like to backup anyways.