Why does Mozilla Corporation exist?

Because Google (and Baidu, etc.) pay it ~ $500,000,000 a year

Why do Google (and Baidu, etc.) pay it so much?

Because it gives them access to track you.

But wait, “Mozilla Corporation?” What’s that? I thought Mozilla was a not-for-profit?

Mozilla *Foundation* is a not-for-profit. Mozilla *Corporation* is a half-billion-dollar for-profit owned by the not-for-profit.


PS. Don’t forget to donate to Mozilla, they need money.

Mozilla is basically a not-for-profit/for-profit that protects/violates your privacy.

I don’t understand why some people are confused. It’s really quite simple.

@sossalemaire @aral yeah, also think this is the actual reason. Google does not care at all whether they get search traffic or tracking from Mozilla's user, they have their own much bigger user base.

They only keep Firefox "alive", so they can point to them in an antitrust lawsuit.

@aral could you please clarify how are they using Firefox to track on you?

@kuba_ @aral you can change it. I am looking for something on Firefox that is tracking on you with no choice.

@emanuele @kuba_ How much do you think that non-private default is worth to Google? (I’ll give you a hint: about half a billion dollars a year.)

@aral @kuba_ yeah, that's for sure, they are paying to get those users. The others anyway, can use it without it, no?

default setup has telemetry enabled (harder to turn off, but possible)

@Shamar @emanuele @kuba_ ohj hahja, thaat "bug" report yay; the whole bug report just says "JavaScript is remote code execution" and proposes to disable JavaScript. 🤣


Not only #Javascript! 😉
Even other "features" like meta refresh, that could be used to hide an attack.

Attack that was actually exploited in the wide from Russian Government few months later.

@emanuele was looking for "something on #Firefox that is tracking on you with no choice" and in fact you do not even have a way to disable #JS and re-enable it with one click on a per #Web site base (like you have even on #GoogleChrome ! ! !).

Also Emanuele, you should consider that if people around you and people like you are tracked and profiled by #Google because of default firefox's settings (like default search engine), the end result is that you can still be manipulated and influenced through them.

That's why defaults should be #privacy friendly by default.

People should explicitly choose to opt-in #Surveillance, not opt-in #security/privacy.


@Shamar @rugk @kuba_ I do strongly agree with your last sentences. Maybe that's the main reason, all the others are technical settings you can setup accordingly to your preferences.

@Shamar @emanuele @kuba_ no commenting all that stuff, but no, you also have no way to disable JS withoutr devtools in Chrome too.

And you can disable JS in Firefox in the devtools e.g.:


Google Chrome is NOT a privacy/security friendly browser.
In no way.

Yet, I'm glad to inform you that if you look in your settings, you will find in

> Privacy and security
> Site Settings
> Javascript

a toggle to disable #Javascript.

Without Developer Tools! 😉

Then in the #Chrome's addressbar you'll find a new button when you browse a page that need javascript (see attached image): click there and you will be able to enable javascript on that single host.

@emanuele @kuba_

@Shamar @emanuele @kuba_ ah well… okay that is convenient. Though installing #noscript is just as easy.


Well, but why a browser "focused on user privacy" should need an addon like #uBlockOrigin or #nuTensor (both way better than #NoScript)?

The answer is simple: they pretend to be privacy-friendly just to fool most people with their #Google-friendly defaults.

Indeed most people won't customize their browser (or at most will install sub-optimal extensions like NoScript).

In practice, #Mozilla became the geek-friendly PR-team of Google, Facebook and friends.

@emanuele @kuba_

@Shamar @rugk @kuba_ I suppose because privacy is a multi-degree concept. Are you avoiding BigCorps? Are you trying to be stealth from your Gov? And so on. I like the addon solution: you can tail your browser to fit your own needs.


That's an individual solution trying to fix a systemic issue.

It's not going to work in the current environment.

It's like wearing a surgical mask in a crowd metro where everybody does not wear one: good luck! 🤣

Now #Mozilla promote itself as a #privacy solution while it's an enabler of the systemic #surveillance problem.

That's why @aral mocks them.

As for me, when I wrote that bug report I thought that they were in good faith.

They were not.

@rugk @kuba_

@Shamar @kuba_ @aral could you please explain? I am missing the point there. Thank you!

@emanuele @kuba_ @aral

Go on about:config and look for "google".

For example, you will see that "safe-browsing" functionality is basically the google's service.

@arofarn @kuba_ @aral You can disable this one, do you think is it forced enabled somehow?

You can but will you ? there is alternative proposed or easy way to configure an alternative.

And it's not even written that it is google behind this service.
If you don't look for it, you can easily believe that is just a function of Firefox or a service of Mozilla.

And there is also the geolocalisation service : if you don' disable it, geolocalisation is made by google services with your IP (if no other sources like GPS on a phone/tablet).

@kuba_ @aral

@arofarn @kuba_ @aral I actually customized my installation so yes, I do it. I do agree anyway the process is not perfect and some functionalities should be opt-in instead of opt-out.

Try librewolf. Its just like firefox, but without all the bad stuff (and a great community too) -

@tristetropical @aral Pick your poison: Apple, Google, or Google-funded Mozilla. Everything else is an alternate UI upon one of those.

Or live with every major website (and Mastodon's web UI, etc) being broken.

I'd probably recommend something some WebKit (Apple, with others)-based browser: GNOME Web, Midori, etc.

@aral As far as browsers go, which one do you prefer, then? (if not Firefox) - I was using Surf for a bit, but it had a lot of glitches.

@aral Rather, so that no one can say that Google has monopolised the browser market

@aral but can't you use plug ins to block or reduce their tracking?


Wrong question.

The right one is "why you must rely on plug-ins to reduce #surveillance in the first place?"

I mean, it's fine: #Mozilla can do whatever they want with the software they code.

But please: promote and advertise yourself as a #Google-friendly browser, not a #privacy-friendly one!


@Shamar @aral fair point you've made. I'd justed wanted to let others know they can customize their browser experience. It's just a habit I picked up

@aral Kusura bakmayın ingilizcem pek iyi değil. Mozilla şirketi gogıla bizi izlemeye izin verdiği için para mı alıyor.

@melcebi Google kendilerini varsayılan arama motoru yaptıkları için onlara yılda yaklaşık yarım milyar dolar veriyor, evet.

Mastodon'da Türkçe konuşan bir kullanıcıya rastalamak sevindirici. Dilim şişecekti.😅

@melcebi Ne yazık ki alanımızla ilgili kelime hazinem pek yeterli değil. Normalde bu konular hakkında hep İngilizce yazıp konuşuyorum :)

@aral Does this also apply to waterfox and firefox esr
Bu waterfox ve firefox esr için de geçerli mi?

@melcebi People seem to be recommending Librefox, which reportedly sets private defaults.

Ben bir ara denemiştim ama hatırlamıyorum. Yine deniyeceğim.

@realcaseyrollins @aral
I am using waterfox. I've just heard of Librefox. I will search
Ben waterfox kullanıyorum. Librefox'u yeni duydum. Araştıracağım

@realcaseyrollins @melcebi Just had a look…

“How does Waterfox make money?
Waterfox has search partnerships. That is, the default search on Waterfox is monetised. If you search with it, Waterfox gets a share of the revenue.”

So exactly the same as Mozilla/Firefox, then.

@aral Öntanımlı arama motorunu değiştirdiğimizde sorun kalkıyor mu?
Örneğin ben waterfoxda ecosia kullanıyorum

@aral For google funding them has a neat sideeffect. They have "competition" in the browser space so don't get called a monopoly all the time or worse regulated because of it. A near monopoly seems to be a good compromise
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

This is my personal Mastodon.