Firefox now has Terms of Use! This'll go over like a lead balloon.

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/

@mttaggart brb, gonna go install LibreWolf

So if they decide ads based on my artwork/writing help me "navigate, experience, and interact with online content," they have the right to steal it from me and use it in their "privacy-respecting" ads?

This clause explicitly separates the information they claim license over from the data collected in the Privacy Notice. This clause is more expansive—"information uploaded through Firefox" is basically anything in a HTTP request or a websocket.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/

@mttaggart I'm sure they will, in fact, protect the privacy of those forcing ads.

@mttaggart Based on that guess it's time to say goodbye and thanks for all the fish to Firefox.

@mttaggart not seeing what’s objectionable about the quoted section

@copiesofcopies If I upload my artwork to anywhere via Firefox, have I just granted a royalty-free license to that intellectual property to Firefox, if they deem use of it is in my best interest in "interacting with online content?"

@mttaggart as I read it, you give them a limited license to use that content as needed to do what you’re using Firefox to do. I.e. if you’re uploading an image to a website, you authorize them to do so as you directed.

@copiesofcopies @mttaggart The idea of passwords is to limit the amount of people knowing them.

Firefox noting user credentials down and sending them to the US government via NSLs is not going to garner much fans in the current climate.

@copiesofcopies @mttaggart Good point. That interpretation is more comforting...

@WebCoder49 the problem with things that can be interpreted differently is that if your interpretation doesn't match Mozilla's, and they do a snatch and grab of all your stuff, your only recourse is an expensive lawsuit, which no matter which way it is finally decided, the only parties that win are the lawyers.

@copiesofcopies @mttaggart

@womble @WebCoder49 @copiesofcopies Part of what Firefox is doing is now advertising. You are at the mercy of their definitions here.

@mttaggart yes, I've been watching Mozilla's various thrashing movements with slack-jawed horror for some time now.

@copiesofcopies @mttaggart since when and in what timeline is it necessary to GRANT MOZILLA A WHATEVER LICENCE to send a fucking web request to a random site that does not belong to mozilla?

@WebCoder49 @copiesofcopies @mttaggart Does not matter. Mozilla is not in a position to deserve the benefit of the doubt. They are not trustable.

@mttaggart oh for fucks sake... I am done with mozilla and their bullshit. sorry firefox, you'll have to go.

@infosecdj @mttaggart Actually, my VPM told me there was some compromising with firefox a couple of years ago?

@infosecdj @mttaggart and for what replacement? chromium?

@TamsynUlthara @mttaggart And what do I use on Android? Which is not Chrome based....

Damn, Europe really needs a European browser and engine.

@si2mev @TamsynUlthara @mttaggart Fennec (on fdroid)

@si2mev @TamsynUlthara @mttaggart Waterfox?

@si2mev @TamsynUlthara @mttaggart

duckduckgo has an android browser

@si2mev
Mull,if you can stomach the forced 60Hz and other quality of life things that are disabled because of privacy.

@kirenida @si2mev Mull isn't maintained anymore.

@Natanox @kirenida @si2mev

Maybe Fennec?

@kirenida @si2mev Mull's maintainer has stopped after 10 years of development and their website has been pulled. Did other people pick it up already or forked it ? https://forum.f-droid.org/t/divest-os-apps-discontinued/29792 #android

@mttaggart Are they TRYING to drive away users? WTF, man.

@scottwilson Sometimes this language gets written without sufficient scrutiny. And sometimes it gets written with all the scrutiny it needs to ensure you, the user, are screwed.

@mttaggart What makes me chuckle (more like ) is the tone deafness -- they dropped this lil update the week after reminding everyone that their priorities are #AI and ("privacy preserving" LOL) #advertisements...

Terrible.

@scottwilson I think they're being very clear about what they want. In fact, I'd go so far as to speculate that somewhere, around some boardroom table, there was a conversation that Firefox is an albatross around Mozilla's neck. The sooner they can kill it and become the AI/privacy ads org, the better.

@mttaggart BRUH

@mttaggart @scottwilson
They spent too much money on CEOs to have any sense left

@scottwilson @mttaggart its not like there are a lot of alternatives for default people, soooo.

@scottwilson @mttaggart Firefox as a service now, huh?

@cR0w @mttaggart Jesus Harold Christ. I guess everything I've ever touched is just gonna be an "-as-a-Service" or AI-powered piece of dog shit.

@mttaggart @scottwilson My heuristic is that Mozilla, while somewhat aimless, isn’t daft.

So the only possible conclusion is that they’re screwing over their users, and want to cash out selling user data to AI companies.

@scottwilson @mttaggart Sure feels that way.

@scottwilson @cR0w We're all gonna be keying in messages via Meshtastic via Morse on @Sempf 's BBS. That'll be it.

@mttaggart @scottwilson @cR0w I'm ready to answer the call.

@slothrop @mttaggart @scottwilson That's m'y guess too. They will train an AI or several with data we let go through Firefox. That's a no go for me. Is that as serious as it sounds? Is it time to live a 20+ year-old web partner?

@Sempf @mttaggart @scottwilson

@mttaggart Are they aware of what people use browsers for? Case in point:

Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, […]
In the “Acceptable Use Policy”:
You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to:
[…]

• Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality […]
  

@f4grx @mttaggart I am open to suggestions. chromium is not an option either.

@infosecdj @mttaggart thats completely depressing. the web was bad enough now the last standing browser is pissing on its users.

people in the thread talk about librewolf. never tried yet.

@f4grx @mttaggart well it is probably a rebuild of firefox, like a thousand of others. I'd rather have something properly security-supported.

@infosecdj @mttaggart Sure. I hope we find something.

From this toot it looks like they embed some additional crap in their binaries. Maybe we're safe with a rebuild from source.

https://infosec.exchange/@mttaggart/114072086184051373

@mttaggart Does this apply to software that uses the Firefox's engine like Zen Browser?

@wtrmt No. From the Terms:

These Terms only apply to the Executable Code version of Firefox, not the Firefox source code.

@mttaggart @wtrmt What about Firefox in debian and other Linux distros?

@prsfalken @mttaggart @wtrmt no idea, a clarification would be welcome.

@mttaggart so... express lane into the dumpster fire. Awesome.

any browsers out there that still support manifest V2 so I can use ublock in peace, or am I just going to roast with firefox here.

@da_667 Vivaldi has committed to MV2 support for as long as possible!

@mttaggart @da_667 Their blog says they expect it to end in June 2025 though, and possibly sooner if it's disabled in Chromium sooner.

@da_667 @mttaggart Chromium (that is, non-official google chrome) browsers still support it for now. Eg, debian's chromium package.

@mttaggart @da_667 https://vivaldi.com/blog/manifest-v3-update-vivaldi-is-future-proofed-with-its-built-in-functionality/

We will keep Manifest v2 for as long as it’s still available in Chromium. We expect to drop support in June 2025, but we may maintain it longer or be forced to drop support for it sooner, depending on the precise nature of the changes to the code.

@mttaggart I suppose that brings me to another question. What browser do you use?

@mttaggart @da_667 Thanks for this! I’ve now moved over to Vivaldi. Love the blocklist integration!

@cR0w @mttaggart @da_667 in a summary, it's on the launchpad waiting to be yeeted.

@da_667 The very same. Viv has been my standard since I ditched Brave, and I've been very happy with it.

@mttaggart @ptrc i assume we have disabled any functionality relating to this in alpine's vendor prefs file, right?

@ariadne @mttaggart not yet - to be fair, i'm not even sure how they could get such data... but i'll make sure to disable anything that phones home and isn't an actual user-facing feature like Sync or Addons

This is the press release. I do not believe there is concord between this language and the actual policy: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/

Hey FWIW, Vivaldi does not have anything like this language: https://vivaldi.com/privacy/vivaldi-end-user-license-agreement/

This is your hojillionth reminder that non-profits are corpos that figured out how to avoid taxes. When the chips are down, most will readjust the "mission" toward revenue.

@mttaggart
I would say you are being too cynical, except it keeps happening.

@cR0w @da_667 True, however their built-in blocker works quite well. I'm unsure how that will be affected, since I believe it is technically an extension.

@mttaggart @da_667 Hopefully it'll keep working well. I've kept it as a backup when FF doesn't work right but might need to rotate that now. :-/

@mttaggart @cR0w @da_667
The built in ad blocker was created as a response to MV2 being deprecated, so I'd expect them to have built it in a way that doesn't depend on MV2.

@cR0w @mttaggart @da_667 What do the 3 of ya'll think about Brave?

I keep trying to like it, and I admire Yan Zhu, but I'm really turned off by Brendan Eich and his shenannigans. I'm trying to use software that aligns with my values... I just don't know.

@scottwilson @cR0w @mttaggart I've avoided it like the plague because fuck anything even tangentially related to cryptocurrency. Even if they ripped it out, unless it was the VERY LAST BASTION with ublock/manifest V2 support, I wouldn't touch it.

@scottwilson @mttaggart @da_667 I bailed on it a while back both because of Eich and the whole cryptoscam push. Vivaldi feels more like what Brave originally promised, at least to me.

@scottwilson @cR0w @mttaggart youtubers were promoting it, like they promoted operaGX, like they promoted NordVPN, like they promoted ---

RAID SHADOW LEGENDS!

assume anything that's a paid bit is probably awful.

@da_667 @scottwilson @mttaggart I never saw all that, but when I saw the Super Bowl ad for it, it was very clear that I had made the right decision.

@da_667 @scottwilson @cR0w I used it. Hell, it's in the old PWST videos. I'm ashamed of that. But yeah, if you're looking for a browser that has a sustainable business model but doesn't screw users, you have a clear option. If you require FOSS, you have a thousand, but I don't trust a single one to be around for > 5 years

@scottwilson @cR0w @mttaggart @da_667 I ran with it awhile disabling all the garbage they stick it it, including the daily usage ping. It kept bugging me that it was made by company headed by a homophobic, transphobic, likely racist CEO. Not to mention that their employees/maintainers have also posted questionably phobic stuff on Reddit and elsewhere. I had to swap back over to LibreWolf with Ungoogled Chromium as a backup on desktop and Cromite on my phone. It's less convenient but I don't have that nag in the back of my mind.

Servo is the only other option but from what I remember it is more a proof of concept not even alpha engine.

@mttaggart @da_667 @scottwilson @cR0w Hashtag librewolf :)

@mttaggart @scottwilson @cR0w I guess that's a fair point, even if I don't like the implications.

@da_667 @mttaggart @cR0w Maybe Ladybird (https://ladybird.org/) will get things moving more quickly and have something before 2026...

@scottwilson @da_667 @mttaggart I have to admit that while the idea of starting over and getting rid of all that debt is intriguing, I am very skeptical of one coming into such a complex web environment and being reasonably secure, reliable, functional, and trustworthy for the long-haul.

@mttaggart

#TranslatedFromTheRepublican

https://www.newsweek.com/gops-war-abortion-now-war-privacy-rights-opinion-1690230

"Your rights don't exist" is Firefox's new Terms of Use.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/09/inside-the-house-gops-surveillance-law-nightmare-00151024

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/25/republicans-against-womens-rights

https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/25/china_hacked_gop_emails/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-republicans-lost-privacy

https://www.hipaajournal.com/republicans-form-working-group-to-develop-federal-data-privacy-law/

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2024/04/08/gop-privacy-hawks-vs-gop-security-hawks-00150996

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/opinion/how-the-republicans-sold-your-privacy-to-internet-providers.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/lament-end-internet-privacy-read

https://www.freepress.net/blog/gop-lawmakers-privacy-hypocrisies

https://therecord.media/data-privacy-legislation-house-republicans-working-group

Tech authoritarianism relies on voyeuristic invasions of voter's privacy for profit & control.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/election-social-media-misinformation-republicans/index.html

@pavel @mttaggart I agree completely, this is just so utterly absurd… I don’t take it seriously legally, but it might be good to take it seriously as a “whoever is in charge at Mozilla has no clue” message.

@airtower @mttaggart what the fuck lmAo??? i mean this is afaik unenforcable in the context of firefox due to the MPL but sure
(not legal advice im not a lawyer)

@airtower @mttaggart do they have a new search deal with yahoo?

@31113 @mttaggart I don’t know, but “what kind of data-shuffling thing do they plan to add where they need licenses and stuff” is exactly what I’m concerned about there.

@airtower @mttaggart it was supposed to be a reference to the tumblr porn ban. But I messed it up because that was verizon, not yahoo.

@mttaggart how is this possible? anything i write, upload, input...is basically everything i do in a browser. this includes passwords, media, etc.

fuck ALL the way off, mozilla. now to find some browser that has decent extensions and isnt a right assbag.

@eldersea @mttaggart If you send a message to your doctor, they have "oyalty-free, worldwide license to use that information"

@mttaggart And this is why I'm quite happy with Fedora's build of Firefox. A counterweight against ISVs for stuff like this.

I have spent my night reading browser Terms and Privacy Policies. Why? Because I love you and hate myself, apparently.

So here's the deal: that "non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" you're granting to Firefox/Moz when you upload data through it? It is boilerplate language. Pretty common actually!

But not in browsers. In fact, not a single browser ToS has anything resembling this provision.

Know what does?

Facebook
X
Instagram

I wonder why Mozilla would want to use the same language those platforms do.

Mozilla has updated their press release with the following clarification:

UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information type into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/

That is good to hear, but their reasoning makes no sense given that no other browser uses that language.

Ope! Got one browser that does.

Thanks to @Schouten_B for uncovering the license language in the extended Google Terms of Service for Chrome.

@mttaggart ... yeah, we don't want Mozilla to use information that we type into Firefox? that's our entire objection

@mttaggart Hey, tnx for updating your original post to include this piece of vital info! 😃

@mttaggart

That clarification doesn't help. To me it doubles down.

I've already deleted Firefox.

Real shame as I've been using it as my primary or second browser for 20 years, since it first came out.

@mttaggart
There's nothing wrong with Mozilla not using data typed in to or travelling through Firefox, they could just not.

@mttaggart is mozilla actively trying to kill firefox? The switching cost to move to another browser is so low. Those of us who care about privacy have already moved to another browser. #firefox #enshitification

@mttaggart

relevant thing is "Without it, we couldn’t use information type into Firefox"

means: "What you type into FF, we grab it. but we dont own it"

have I understood that correctly?

@mttaggart The issue is that "anything described in the Privacy Notice" is incredibly broad.
IMO it would be easy to argue that "training an AI model on it" is "helping you yadayada". Like… yeah, they can't sell it to data brokers. But almost anything else they *might* want to do with it can be justified with that clause. And most of it I don't want.

@mttaggart What I find troubling is the vagueness about 'upload' - to me, an upload is anything at all sent in the upstream, including personal logins and private identity data you may be sharing with a secure system. If this is what they mean, then they need to break down exactly what data is being collected. Is it everything you send to a site via the browser?

Or is this whole thing just about basic telemetry that you can disable in privacy settings?

@mttaggart Aaah the ole' not legally binding or material in anyway blog post 'clarification'.

@rootsnase Based on this, the charitable reading seems to be what they are claiming: they need this license to literally transmit your data via HTTP. But uh, no other browser uses this language, so it's still weird.

Thank you ..that is really strange and in my a opinion kind of cover-up attempt.

@mttaggart

@f4grx @mttaggart with rebuilds, the question is how well they port security fixes to their fork. well, that and when will they get themselved pwned of course, with a backdoored update getting pushed to users...

@infosecdj @f4grx @mttaggart Firefox forks don't have the resources to maintain an entire browser. If Mozilla completely goes off the deep end or ceases to exist, LibreWolf and other forks are going with it.

@egerlach @f4grx @mttaggart yes, this is a risk but I would not say the likelihood is high--at this moment.

@infosecdj @f4grx @mttaggart It's not out yet, but #LadyBirdBrowser is perhaps the only real alternative that we have when it's released. It's open source of course. I'm begrudgingly sticking with Brave until then

https://ladybird.org

@playleft @infosecdj @mttaggart and do they support manifest v2 plugins? The web is unsufferable without at least ublock origin, blocktube, and a few more.

@mttaggart For all the shit that Brave gets, not even Brave has this in there TOS

@ireneista Many have suggested that the intended meaning here is something like "We literally need to license your data to transmit it via HTTP," but this feels off to me, given that no other browser's Terms contain this language. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

@mttaggart we're not a lawyer but we have for sure worked on this sort of thing, and that would be quite a radical interpretation compared to any we've seen before... it's conceivable that something in the digital markets act or digital services act creates a new requirement we're not personally aware of, but our best guesses are >

@mttaggart @ireneista I think it makes sense for specific services that need to transit through Mozilla’s servers first, but for anything else it doesn’t. Examples of such services would be account synchronization, online translation (although Firefox has offline models, but maybe they also have online?), search suggestions (pretty sure those go through a Moz server that also serves “recommended” sites)… Essentially all optional features that aren’t the core of what a browser does, but some may be enabled by default so it’s easier for them to just ask for the rights to use the necessary information instead of having the users specifically activate them and get an extra clause to look at. Although having them opt-in by default would be more privacy friendly…

@Varpie @mttaggart it's always easier for a company to reserve every possible right to itself, but that doesn't mean the public should stand for it

@ireneista @mttaggart But it also doesn’t mean we should shout “they became evil!!” when they choose the easy option, I saw your responses basically saying that now they are using all our data for AI training but nothing in their privacy policy suggests that they do…

@Varpie @mttaggart we didn't say anything about "now". we've been involved in this sort of change from the other side, the update to the legal documents always comes before the feature rollout.

@mttaggart @ireneista That is bullshit.

I mean, no, I am not a lawyer, either. But the *language* clearly states that you grant Mozilla license, and if in doubt, the legal language counts.

It would also be the first time in decades of Internet and copyright that this language was necessary.

You know what makes this necessary? AI training.

If the feature they're referring to is a machine learning system, they need license to train it on your data. But that has little to do with the base...

@mttaggart @ireneista ... functionality of a browser, so should terms you may have to agree to to use such a feature.

But it's opt-out, isn't it?

And that's where the GDPR and DSA matter; the former require e.g. "informed consent", and you cannot by definition be informed enough of the consent they assume in an opt-out scenario. And the latter prohibits the use of deceptive patterns like e.g. cookie banners to convince users to grant consent against their best interests.

I'm seriously...

@mttaggart @ireneista ... thinking a lawsuit due to both should be made against them. It's stuff that makes sense in the US legal system, but is going to be painful for them here.

@mttaggart @neil Seems like there been an update? https://socel.net/@9x0rg@mamot.fr/114074347639524428

@f4grx @copiesofcopies @mttaggart
Today you send your reqest to the website. Perhaps they plan for the comm to go through their servers?

(Like emails in outlook)

@dtelder @copiesofcopies @mttaggart please dont give them ideas X_X

@mttaggart We might need a description of said "basic functionalities". For instance, is spying on us to display targeted ads a basic functionality?

I'm not convinced one bit.

@mttaggart No, if you upload your artwork they can outright steal it and you can't sue them because you agreed to ToS. That's what it says. This better turn into such massive shitshow Mozilla is going to feel it for a decade. I bet they want to use this bullshit to train their Ai garbage.

@rejzor @mttaggart

Does it? The fact that the bolding ends before the end of the statement does not delete the "to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate" part.

@deirdrebeth @rejzor @mttaggart There's no way they *won't* be interpreting "navigate, experience, and interact with online content" in the same hoover-everything-for-advertising-or-AI-purposes sense that all other tech companies do these days.

@deirdrebeth @rejzor @mttaggart And suppose people say no thanks, I can navigate on my own? I somehow doubt Firefox will have that as a selectable option.

The advertising industry corrupts everything it touches.

@deirdrebeth @mttaggart "As you indicate" in what way? Via checkbox or via simply using the Firefox you automatically agree to it? It's so vague and broad it's ridiculous.

@deirdrebeth @rejzor @mttaggart

Who decides what helps?

@jztusk @rejzor @mttaggart

"You indicate"?

@mttaggart > that it's one of two things:

1. Mozilla's lawyers overthought it and came up with something weird and unnecessary and are now regretting they didn't loop in the PR team

2. the company needs this permission because it intends to use this permission, because it intends to use browsing data in all the ways everyone is concerned about

@mttaggart

> We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible.

Which basic functionality, exactly?
How, exactly, would it be impossible without the license?

> Without it, we couldn’t use information type into Firefox, for example.

Use *how*, exactly?
Can we please be more specific here, @mozillaofficial ?

@f4grx @infosecdj @mttaggart I couldn't say without being directly involved with development. However, the devs have said they plan to support popular extensions, but are currently focused on building the engine. It is being built from the ground up afterall, and Alpha (to early adopters) is only scheduled for Summer 2026 at this stage.

@playleft @infosecdj @mttaggart ah, ok. Yes, i can imagine the huge size of the task.

@jens @mttaggart yes. we said something to that effect earlier today, and we still think it's the most likely explanation.

@Varpie @mttaggart we've really tried pretty hard to avoid taking extremist positions such as "evil", and instead to speak only to what's in evidence. of course, social media being what it is, people will choose to hear things we don't say. we try our best, but people are very determined about that.

@Varpie @mttaggart if you read almost any privacy policy carefully you will find that it promises exactly nothing. we have a whole gallows-humor piece about that from a while back. https://irenes.space/leaves/2024-09-29-privacy-joke

@ireneista @mttaggart It might be that they feel they need this license in order to process your browsing history for advertising (so-called "privacy-preserving" advertising unfortunately increases discrimination and fraud risks over the regular kind... https://blog.zgp.org/why-turn-off-firefox-ad-tracking/ )

@neil @mttaggart Agreed but I think they are just really really bad when it comes to communication and PR.

@copiesofcopies @mttaggart But they are not doing it. Your computer, directed by you, running free and open source software that just happens to be published by them, is what's uploading. They are not party to that transaction. And their incompetent and/or malicious legal department doesn't understand that, or wants to pretend they are for nefarious purposes.

@dalias @mttaggart GDPR Art. 4: “‘controller’ means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data….” App publishers are (imo reasonably) interpreting this to apply to apps that deal with personal info, because the app developer arguably “determines the purposes and means of the processing.”

@copiesofcopies @mttaggart I don't think this is reasonable unless you're publishing an "app" not an application - that is, something that's giving you access to the user's device rather than operating entirely at the direction of the user.

@dalias @mttaggart that’s really not relevant to the text of the regulation.

@copiesofcopies @mttaggart Are you trying to claim that authors of FOSS are data controllers for any data the user enters with the software they made? In the absence of any channel of control? Or only that something particular Mozilla has done makes that so?

@dalias @mttaggart I’m saying the text of the GDPR is intentionally broad and could be read that way by regulators. Mozilla has more potential exposure than an average FOSS developer, which may be why they’re taking a conservative approach to that risk.

@copiesofcopies @mttaggart I guess that's plausible, but I see it as incompetence: rather than reducing exposure, it's made them a more likely target for regulators by claiming entitlement to access something they clearly have no right to, and without the necessary GDPR means to opt out.

@dalias @copiesofcopies @mttaggart

Whatever legal language may or may not give cover, the *spirit* of GDPR is to say precisely what information you collect and for what reason, and if you do not have a good reason, do not collect. Not "use everything everywhere for anything" just in case.

@mttaggart I can switch browsers easily enough. However, I have decades’ worth of email in #Thunderbird. I’m more worried about that. Have they added terms of (dis)service to that app yet?

@colin @mttaggart getting emails out of Thunderbird is very easy. Thunderbird's archive format is very open. But I don't know to what extent other open email clients support imports. When I chose Thunderbird, I did so specifically because of its good and open archiving functionality.

@colin @mttaggart Thunderbird is, under the hood, a re-skin of Firefox. If Firefox goes, so too does Thunderbird unfortunately :(

@aspensmonster @colin @mttaggart The Firefox Terms of Use do not apply to Thunderbird or any other products, e.g. Appointment or K-9 Mail.

Found another! Arc has worldwide license language.

But its language is clearly-scoped and explains the purpose.

https://start.arc.net/terms-of-use

@mttaggart
Oof, mutual arb, too.

@freny @mttaggart that could be.

But on this page https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#bookmark-how-we-use-data Mozilla is claiming "legitimate interest" (LI) as the basis for processing "To serve relevant content and advertising" ...and LI is not a valid basis for processing for ad personalization. (Yes, #privacy laws are hard to keep up with but the conventional #adtech firms have already picked up on that one)