Charlotte 🦝 
charlotte
Show content
if you really think about it, if you misinterpret legal text sufficiently enough you can fearmonger about it saying anything you want
2
1
1
Charlotte 🦝
charlotte
Show content
although it appears that certain words or phrases just turn off all thinking in terminally online folks, like “AI” or “worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license”
1
1
0
Charlotte 🦝
charlotte
Show content
the second part, the part after the big scary words everyone highlights to make you stop thinking and start screaming, specifically limit it to “navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of firefox”
as a practical example, if you upload an image to fedi, you indicate that firefox should upload the image to this fediverse site. you do not indicate that firefox should upload it to an ai training site
my interpretation is “if you instruct firefox to perform an action, you legally permit this action to take place” and nothing more and nothing less. Mozilla doesn’t suddenly “own” your content [and if you already didn’t think this way don’t pick out this specific part and say that you never said that and that my argument is wrong] or have suddenly extra rights to it they wouldn’t already have had beforehand
is it needed? maybe not but i am also not a lawyer.
is it overly broad? absolutely not. these kinds of misunderstandings pop up anything ever has some sort of TOS change because the licensing language is very similar between all of them. the actual part that matters comes after and firefox’ is very different in what mozilla says the scope of said license is.
as for the AUP thing, the mozilla AUP applies to mozilla services, and firefox is a mozilla product. the listed punishment in the ToU for firefox is account deletion which can only make sense when talking about the mozilla services account that you might have. i think it is a poorly worded attempt at saying “you are not allowed to use firefox to violate the mozilla services AUP” but that entire section just seems extraneous because you weren’t allowed to do that anyways with any browser
2
2
2
Gildilinie BLU-RAY(tm) EDITION
gildilinie@beige.partyShow content
@charlotte people are so unhinged about Mozilla it's wild
0
0
0
Charlotte 🦝
charlotte
Show content
people understandably cannot keep track and remember every single tos of every single service but i find it weird how there is only little collective remembrance on how the same two segments of every ToS start becoming a Hot Topic of Debate every single time anything changes their ToS and maybe realize that discord maybe did not re-introduce an arbitration clause for the 23rd time in a row but maybe how it has been in place for several years. or how standard legalese that lets social media sites show your images to your followers and maybe compress it or crop it is almost the same between sites because the laws are the same and what they do with it is the same
1
1
2
Charlotte 🦝
charlotte
Show content
copypastas or chain mails or the like do not touch terms of service or the like, individual contract terms need both sides to agree to it, not just you personally
1
0
0
Show content
@charlotte It also really doesn't help when the same name is used to refer to many distinct things in different contexts. And no, that's not unique to Mozilla and Firefox.
0
0
1
Charlotte 🦝
charlotte
Show content
the situation is evolving further into a nothing burger
they changed it so that “indicate” is replaced with “request”, mentioned why they removed the “we don’t sell your data” promise [surprise, it’s legal nonsense!] and also removed the superfluous mozilla services aup clause
1
0
1
Charlotte 🦝
charlotte
Show content
apparently one of the screenshots i have seen shared around was quoting head homophobe of cryptocurrency scam fraud browser brave fearmongering about this change and honestly it checks out
1
0
3
Charlotte 🦝
charlotte
Show content
look a truly freedom preserving browser like brave lets you do crimes with it, so much that they themselves are an ad service that runs exclusively scams and unregulated securities and that they themselves impersonate celebrities to defraud users into giving them donations
1
0
2