Hot off the back of its recent leadership rejig, Mozilla has announced users of Firefox will soon be subject to a ‘Terms of Use’ policy — a first for the iconic open source web browser.

This official Terms of Use will, Mozilla argues, offer users ‘more transparency’ over their ‘rights and permissions’ as they use Firefox to browse the information superhighway — as well well as Mozilla’s “rights” to help them do it, as this excerpt makes clear:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.

When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice (aka privacy policy). This adds a crop of cushy caveats to cover the company’s planned AI chatbot integrations, cloud-based service features, and more ads and sponsored content on Firefox New Tab page.

    • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, I gathered that from the previous comment, but thank you for the additional info.

      I just hope it doesn’t progress further in the future. AI is quite possibly a more catastrophic technological development than nuclear weapons.

        • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          But nuclear weapons have only been used twice in 80 years for military purposes. They have arguably prevented more deaths than they have caused.

          And you’re drastically underselling the potential impact of AI. If anything, your reaction is a defense mechanism because you can’t bear to stomach the potential consequences of AI.

          One could have easily reacted the same way to the invention of the printing press, or the automobile, or the analog computer. They all wasted a lot of energy for limited benefit, at first. But if the technology develops enough, it can destroy everything that we hold dear.

          Human beings engineering their own obsolescence while cavalierly disregarding the potential consequences. A tale as old as time

            • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Nukes only “prevent” deaths by saying they’ll cause drastically large numbers of deaths otherwise. If the nukes didn’t exist, there wouldn’t then be the threat of death from the nukes, which is being prevented by more people having the nukes.

              Okay? But war existed long before nuclear weapons, and it also causes a large number of deaths. If nukes didn’t exist, there would potentially be more wars, and thus more death.

              Heck, if “AI” automated most of the work people did and put us out of a job, that would just accelerate our progress towards pushing for UBI/or an era of superabundance, which I’d welcome with open arms.

              I wouldn’t be so sure about that. We have already automated essentially everything else, and yet people work more than ever. If goods can be produced automatically by machines for free, what’s to stop the owners of the machines from simply eliminating what used to be the working class?

              But sure, seeing matrix multiplication causing statistically probable sentences to be formed really has me unable to stomach the potential consequences. /s

              Your defensiveness speaks volumes.

              And what did the printing press, automobile, and analog computer bring?

              An ever more powerful nucleus of mechanization that has resulted in the most devastating wars and the most widespread suffering in all of human history. Genocides, chattel slavery, famine, biochemical and nuclear weapons; mass extinction and the imminent destruction of the very planet on which we live.

              Make human work obsolete so we can do what we care about and hang out with people we like instead of spending our days doing labor to produce goods we rely on? Sign me up.

              Sweet summer child. Making human work obsolete makes human beings obsolete. I envy your naivety.

                • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Hmm, you seem like a relatively intelligent person, so perhaps you’re not accustomed to being corrected.

                  Your arguments contradict themselves and lack logical consistency. They are flimsy at best, and I lack the energy to explicitly demonstrate their triviality at the current moment. It seems that you start with the assumption that humanity is destined for a post scarcity utopia, and haphazardly arrange your arguments to help justify that conclusion.

                  Or perhaps it’s because you refuse to admit to yourself that your original comment was ill-considered, and thus you are forced to spout this nonsense in order to protect yourself from the emotional ramifications of admitting you may have misjudged the relative harm of nuclear weapons as compared to AI.

                  Regardless, it’s frustrating to watch you spin this web of sophistry instead of simply acknowledging that you were mistaken. I sincerely hope that you did not utilize AI to assist in writing that wall of text.

                  I would recommend that you reflect on my words when you’ve given yourself some time to calm down. It’s not so bad to be wrong sometimes, just think of it as an opportunity to learn and become smarter.

                  • Welt@lazysoci.al
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    calm down

                    sweet summer child

                    I know these tactics, they’re designed to goad me into an emotive response so I lose the argument!

                    They’re not a case in themselves and your smugness is distasteful. Your interlocutor is treating you with more respect than you are showing in return.