Reading the “In Crime and Politics” section of the Calibri Wikipedia page, I can’t help but think the motivation here is so the State Department can release falsified documents predating 2006 without being found out.

This except I convinced my parents they didn’t actually need a computer in their lives anymore. It is win-win.

Pebble: 30 days of battery life

Also Pebble: 30 days manufacturer warranty

So the warranty expires when the battery does. Lol.

Edit: still loving my Time Round even though it hasn’t been updated in nearly a decade.

Yeah, I can totally empathise. I used to work in QA for a couple different software companies, including around CVEs and security bug bounty programs. One company scaled back their QA department to near nothing, the other eliminated QA altogether, instead relying on devs to QA their own stuff or automation. It’s not going well for either of them.

Not going to downvote this because the source article is useful, but OP’s take is ludicrous. Have we really reached the point where ALL media is propaganda?

It might be time to unplug society and plug it back in again.

It reminds me of when climate hoaxers claim the hole in the ozone layer shrinking proves those campaigning to fix it were just fearmongering.

I see the vegans are escalating their tactics.

I’d agree that it’s overblown and I suspect this reaction comes from users not understanding the complex legal framework Mozilla operates in globally and regionally, and Mozilla doing what it does best, miscommunication.

IANAL but my interpretation of the situation is that in certain jurisdictions, California for example (where Mozilla is headquartered and where they have a legally binding contract in place with Google), they are and always have been “selling” your data from a LEGAL standpoint. It is a difference between how we users define selling (a literal exchange of data for money) versus how the law defines selling which can be much more broad and include things we wouldn’t define as selling.

As far as the law is concerned, again, in some but not all jurisdictions, a) all data has monetary value to tech companies, and b) with Mozilla & Google in particular there is a monetary exchange (ie. a contract worth millions of dollars) for Google Search being integrated into Firefox as the default.

Therefore, as far as the law is concerned, when you type into the Awesomebar or search box in Firefox, Firefox sends (sells) the data you entered (your data) to Google (because of course it does, that’s how the internet works) and this is a “sale of your data” under the legal definition. This is just one example from one jurisdiction Mozilla operates within, albeit a majorly influential and litigious jurisdiction.

My understanding is they had to make that their terms of use because if they didn’t they’d be liable to get sued into oblivion in jurisdictions where using a web browser to browse the internet constituted a legal sale.

Does this open the door to abuse and the literal sale of our data in the future, absolutely. But it’s on us to trust but verify, and do what we, the community, do best and hold Mozilla to account when they inevitably screw up.

Anyway, this was a much longer comment than I intended to write, but that’s my take as a someone who has not just used Mozilla products for decades but also contributed labour as well.