I expect that Fakespot already had problems funding themselves, and thus they were a relatively cheap acquisition, and now it turned out they couldn’t cover their own costs as part of Mozilla either. But I’ve never used it so I have no idea.

Again? She just joined like two years ago.

So what I think -but again, not a lawyer- is that the previous version also didn’t grant Mozilla ownership of your data. For example, maybe there was already a legal limit to what rights the ToS can transfer to Mozilla, and the new version just re-iterates the existing law?

Well, it will always be there as long as Firefox is also there.

The post sounds like it the initial terms weren’t thought to be broader than the current ones, but that that apparently wasn’t clear when they were read by regular people. As a non-lawyer, it seems entirely possible to me that the legal ramifications of both versions are the same, as often things that will read one way to me, turn out to actually mean more specific things in a legal context.

Could some savvy code-reader go through it to see if something about the data collection has changed?

Yeah, I think it’s telling that it’s been a while now and nobody has pointed to any suspicious code.

Yep, that’s the one!

Can you delete or edit your own content?

Well, let me know when you’re using either for your regular browsing. If that’s in my lifetime, I’ll happily admit they were a bad example (and be a lot more comforted about the state of the web).

I don’t think there’s anyone on planet earth who can build a browser at a budget of, say, 2 million USD annually. See also: Ladybird and Servo not being anywhere near ready.

Also integration with Firefox (or like this) can be pretty neat. Though I hear Mullvad has its own Firefox fork now, probably with the same idea.

Sorry, you’re saying that if 85 percent of funding disappears (hundreds of millions), and “weird spending” (including the venture fund, which usually make money) to the tune of 0.3 million (let’s make that 2 million, assuming they have several such projects) is cut, then that would be able to sustain Firefox? Because that math doesn’t add up for me.

I’m aware of that sentiment, and I agree that it’s misguided and that there’s no way that that would cover costs.

Feel free to share how much money they spend on random advocacy. I believe the Google deal nets a couple of hundred million - it sounds like you’re saying that if Mozilla scraps the AI and advocacy, that should recoup that money? Because otherwise losing the money is still going to require finding other sources of income to fund Firefox.

Yes, but we’re yelling years and years into the future, if ever, so let’s keep our eyes on the ball in the meantime.

If Mozilla loses the Google revenue, it’ll have to do more other stuff if it’s to have any hope of being able to subsidise Firefox development though.

There shouldn’t be the need to clear a name, because you shouldn’t be smearing someone’s name who’s giving away their work. It’s fine to distrust it, but then just don’t use the software.

Probably not what you’re after, but if it’s really just about PDFs, note that Firefox has an excellent PDF reader built-in. Oh, but I guess a browser extension can’t access that?

https://www.mozilla.org/products/vpn/

And soon: https://thundermail.com/

A comprehensive answer is out of scope and probably best given by a true accessibility specialist, but for example, if you only use <div> tags for everything, a lot of the screen reader’s affordances for navigating are unusable. Images that carry information but not in their alt text are another simple example.

And then there are parts where JS could actively help. For example, if you have a tabbed interface, but clicking a tab results in a full page refresh, the screen reader loses all context.

Also keep in mind that there’s more to assistive technology than just screen readers, e.g. sufficient colour contrast and keyboard navigability are important to many people. Too many websites still get those basics wrong.