[winkelmann]

An interesting implication of this is that it would point to Firefox being considered a service from Mozilla (hence why they need a license to facilitate your use of the program).

If we now look at their "Acceptable Use Policy", we can find this:

> 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 or violence, [...]

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/

And to corroborate the applicability of the Acceptable Use Policy to the Firefox browser:

> Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, [...]

("Acceptable Use Policy" is hyperlinked to the aforementioned page)

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

So one could interpret this all to say that you're not allowed to view or download porn via Firefox. Additionally, "graphic depictions of violence" could extend to things like the sort of bodycam footage and reporting from war zones frequently seen in news reports.

[rightbyte]

It is really unfortunate.

My Firefox install lately added links to what could be considered not so nice sites for grandmas like amazon.com and hotels.com to the start screen.

It is quite clear they see it as their program not mine program.

I dunno for how long I will stick to using the least worst alternative. To go for custom builds would be giving up on Mozilla.

edit: Toned down language

[ziddoap]

>scam sites like amazon.com

Since when is Amazon a scam site?

I don't like em' either, but hyperbole doesn't help.

For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds.

[manbart]

Use LibreWolf. It's just firebox rebuilt and released with better defaults (no suggestions/spying)

[winkelmann]

Yeah, it's annoying, but also nothing particularly new I believe. There seem to be two types of garbage links added by default:

1. "Sponsored shortcuts" that can be "easily" turned off in `about:preferences#home`

2. I guess "non-sponsored" shortcuts? I believe they pointed to Facebook, eBay, and something else (Pinterest maybe). Those have to be removed/"blocked" individually. I think they end up in `browser.newtabpage.blocked` after doing so.

I don't like that this is a thing I have to do whenever I set up a new Firefox install. It's not often, to be fair, but it still sucks nonetheless.

[krunck]

> You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to: Do anything illegal or otherwise violate applicable law,

No civil disobedience. Bad Mozilla! Bad, bad Mozilla!

[singlow]

I don't read it the way you say. The more restrictive terms are for use of services. If you use firefox, you have to agree not to use the Mozilla services for the prohibited categories, but there are many uses of the browser that are not using Mozilla services.

If you accessed graphic content using the browser, you are not violating the terms unless you put that content up on a mozilla service somewhere. The obvious issue would be some type of bookmark sync. If you bookmarked a graphic url you might violate the terms when it syncs to mozilla, but even then it would be hard to argue that you are granting access to your future self, so unless you used a bookmark sharing service provided by mozilla, I would say its a gray area. So disable bookmark sync. I typically disable all external services in my browser so this would not be relevant.

But my point is that even though you have to agree to the use policy when downloading the browser, it doesn't mean it governs all use of the browser.

IANAL

[mtzaldo]

Isn't the internet for pr0n?

[unethical_ban]

Firefox has Mozilla facilitated services in it, and the license is saying " we get to use the data we see to help the service".

I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.

[winkelmann]

> I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.

One would think so, right? But why does Mozilla want me to "license" to them everything I "upload or input [...] through Firefox"[1]. Where do the "facilitated services" start and where do they end? It sure would be nice if they could draw that distinction, without it, the cautious interpretation would be that that everything is a facilitated service.

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

[fwn]

> I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.

It is not just about their services! They clarify it by writing: "Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations." Src.: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/