Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users’ personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn’t fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users’ personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:
Does Firefox sell your personal data?
Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise.
That promise is removed from the current version. There’s also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, “Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you, and we don’t buy data about you.”
The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define “sale” in a very broad way:
Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
Mozilla didn’t say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.
Women CEOs are as shit as Male CEOs. Who would have thunk the war of the sexes was a cause dangled in front of the bougies so the elite could parasitise free from fear of popular revolt huh?
Fucking what?
What the fuck are you even talking about? What kind of brain rot pushes a person to bring this shit up out of the blue?
This was essentially my same reaction to that comment. All I can think is that they imagined that this post said something like “Firefox bad because DEI CEO!” and reacted without actually reading the post.
Which … I mean, given the world we currently live in, is probably being said somewhere. But on this post, it’s a HECK of a non-sequitur.
I read somewhere that women CEO are often chosen when the company is declining or about to fail, as a way to take the blame off from themselves. So your comment seems kind of misogynistic and saying women are just as bad, but you are not accounting for the misogyny in the corporate world. In many cases a male dominated BOD often use women as a scapegoat for their failings, musks twitter for example, he hides behind a woman to take criticism off himself. Women also earn significantly less than men in the same position. Another is YouTube’s Late ceo. Theranos had Holmes, but if you look further she was chosen to be the face by a male BOD
Sex, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour are red herrings used to distract the people from the fact they have a boot on their neck. The replies to my comment are yet another evidence people are OK licking the boot as long as the party is “insert preference here”. The problem is not particular to any of the aforementioned classes, the problem is the incentive structure is broken and the fiduciary duty is enshrined in law rather than good governance and long term sustainability. Firefox is just another evidence that cheerleading for a CEO because of intrinsic characteristics is a folly.
These are two separate things. Men and women are all human beings and are OF COURSE capable of being shitty or good on the same level. But it’s important to give the same opportunity to both, there’s no reason one of the sexes should be discriminated against. Women are still not equal in many ways (the exact ways depending on the particular society).
They are often used as scapegoats in the CEO position, when the company gets really bad reputation. Musk being an obvious example of X, chose a woman as a human shield