To be clear, I’m not particularly interested in defending Mozilla. This confusing mess is at least partly their fault, and I think users are right to hold them accountable. I just want people to be able to make informed decisions and not ones based on the internet blowing things up needlessly.

Rather than repeat myself, here’s my comment to someone who asked basically the same thing.

https://reddthat.com/comment/17046485

To quote this wiki that did a very good job of breaking down this clusterfuck:

The CCPA defines “selling data” as:

“Sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or “sold,” means selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by the business to a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration.

The sticking point is that last “other valuable consideration.” The question that people should be asking is: “valuable to whom and in what capacity?” Value does not need to be for financial gain; knowledge is valuable to a contractor building a building, for example.

But I recommend reading that wiki breakdown or just watch this video. It’s a mess that can’t be untangled in a simple Lemmy comment.

That’s kinda my feeling, too. It doesn’t appear to be any worse than a year ago, but if you were already not impressed, this is not an improvement.

Yes, it should be. From what I can tell, it’s a tweaked Firefox.

I’d rather have something fully cooked than half-baked.

AI: Trump, Musk, and other billionaires are a danger to humanity and must be removed at all costs to save the human race.

Pentagon: Eh, this thing is broken. Keeps telling us we’re the bad guys.

$6M, but if you look at the California law that spurred this change, the Privacy Policy that hasn’t changed since July 2024, and the revised ToS, this looks mostly like a really, really, really stupid communication error.

It’s one of those cases where legally, “sell” includes things that most people wouldn’t consider a sale in normal parlance, but Mozilla has to comply with the overbroad legal definition; meanwhile, they don’t appear to be fundamentally changing anything about how they’re operating.

ETA: I’m still moving to LibreWolf (and maybe Ladybird later on). I’m not a lawyer, and expecting people like me to parse legal definitions of commonly understood words is just asinine.

Sure. I wasn’t implying they were realistic, I was just drawing an analogy between Realism, the classical art style, and modern animation styles (like Pixar’s). Whatever style or genre you aim for, do it well.

That’s nuts (pun intended).

I’m an ex-fundigelical, and while I understand the desire to keep old friendships, the reality is that people can change; even worse, it can be due to getting caught up in weird cults that demand loyalty above reason and sense.

Whether it will end up bad for you isn’t something anybody can predict, but it sounds like she’s not someone who will be supportive of who you are (or at the very least, other queer people like you). Most fundies think you can “pray the gay away,” so I would suspect it’s only a matter of time until she starts treating you like a religious project and not like a respected friend.

Only you can decide if you think it’s worth continuing to invest in the relationship. If it’s something you truly value, and you think she’d listen, it might be worth having a talk with your friend and telling them that the things they say and do are hurtful. If she doesn’t care, then that kind of tells you where her loyalties lie.

It’s a simpler animation style so don’t expect Pixar level stuff

One of the things you learn in art school is that if you aim for something like realism (or Pixar, in this case), but you fail to get there, people will notice and critique you for it. If you aim for a style you can do well, on the other hand, nobody will care that you didn’t do Realism (or Pixar).

Up and coming artists in any genre would do well to remember that it’s okay not to be Pixar or Capcom or whatever. Sometimes working within your limitations can inspire truly creative works.

Is there a market for secondhand toys?

On second thought, I don’t wanna know.

Emacs.

Ohanian just joined alongside Project Liberty (no relation to the weirdo right-wing grift with the same name, from what I can tell) to help buy out TikTok.

His actions seem to be mostly in line with those in favor of consumers. I, too, am cautiously optimistic.

If I was a potential thief, maybe that you have a valuable collection of Pokemon cards or a Switch somewhere.

That you have some Jumbles and cow lamps just waiting to be capered.

Better watch out for Biscuit-dough-hands Man.

“You are a fun person that I should get to know better.”

I disagree, but I understand why you think that.

Not if it ties the fork into specific licenses. The other issue is that the internet should not be dominated by two and a half engines (Safari’s being the half). It creates an environment where they can collude to force the direction of the internet, where they are potential single points of failure, or where they can force users into bad terms of service.

Take this hypothetical: I make Super Browser (SB), but I fork it from Firefox (FF). SB looks and functions completely differently from FF, but it still uses FF’s Gecko engine to render the web. No matter what changes I make, I’m still at the mercy of Mozilla and their priorities.

This leaves few choices for developers and users alike, and it doesn’t encourage the companies at the top to innovate. Because, what are people gonna do? Leave? For what alternative?

I hope they can do it. Mozilla hasn’t fundamentally changed from where they were at least a year ago (re: their inability to clearly communicate policy “changes”), but the fact that they don’t seem to know what concerns their users and how to communicate in a way that doesn’t stoke their fears—it just makes them harder to work with and recommend.

Hopefully Ladybird can inject some much-needed competition into browsers.