What happened to telling governments to go fuck themselves? I remember when it was on the governments to police their citizens and if software violated their laws it was on the government to stop citizens accessing it. Why can they just not comply?
I mean obviously we can do both right? We can both fight stupid laws so they never get passed in the first place and then refuse to comply with them if they do.
Browser based blocking seems very out of touch and anything short of GFW as in China won’t be very effective at actually achieving any blocking. Also enforcement client side will be impossible to control.
So not only is the law bad, but it will only make life more difficult for legitimate persons and organizations building browsers.
well weave was 1 effin thing you needed to install and can selfhost. 10 years later nobody hosts it self. because moz made it like shit. again. you’ll need a ton of installations for fxa and syncing and where to store bookmarks. just crap. the worst are the people at moz because their decisions render the word open and community a joke. remember the way they forced all plugin devs to follow their new implementation? well, that is exactly the behavior these moz morons complain about themselves when chrome adds drm or whatever shit alphabet comes up with.
Add your name to our petition to help stop this part of the bill from becoming law.
Where can I find the text of the petition that they will be submitting to the French government? How do I know what I am signing if they don’t actually display the petition text?
On ISP level? Only with DNS blocking. Which is pointless since you can simply change the DNS server to some non-ISP one. That’s probably why they want to force this stupidity onto browsers. Which is even more stupid and pointless.
□ I’m okay with Mozilla handling my info as explained in this Privacy Notice.
the privacy notice doesn’t relate to the poll, is as fuzzy as it can be and doesn’t even come close to mentioning there is mandatory e-mail field (not talking about explaining how it is handled). i am afraid that checkbox is not going to be checked from me.
there is a section in the privacy policy explanations specifically dedicated to campaigns and petitions. i'm confused why it would need to mention any specifics like that they ask for an email address when their definition of personal information is defined as information they ask you for. it says they'll only use it for things you give them permission to use it for. is the privacy policy great to read? no. is it a little confusing being broken up into parts to make it "easy" to read? a little bit. the point is, they're not going to use the email address for anything else. and honestly, who doesn't have email aliases if you're protecting your email address so much that even Mozilla is a red flag? how did you even sign up for lemm.ee when it has almost regulations for your information ("we only share it with third parties that help us and that we like their privacy policy")? Mozilla does the same.
how did you even sign up for lemm.ee when it has almost regulations for your information (“we only share it with third parties that help us and that we like their privacy policy”)? Mozilla does the same.
i expect better job from company of the size of mozilla, than i expect from lemm.ee, as i somehow expect them having few more layers ;)
You clearly didn't read past where you highlighted because they make the same claim that lemmee does right after that. And Mozilla has a reputation. What's lemmee have? Because it's unknown, you trust it more? Are you serious? I'm not trusting some rando with my email address simply because I shouldn't expect much from them. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If anything, you should trust an unknown variable less. Who knows how easily lemm.ee can be hacked. It's protected by third party organizations that they trust with your information.
Mozilla has a track record. Lemm.ee has nothing.
You "care" about privacy but don't know anything about it.
You clearly didn’t read past where you highlighted
i clearly didn’t, do you know why?
because they make the same claim that lemmee does right after that. And
because they don’t make ANY claim after that.
that highlighted part is end of section “product & policy campaigns”. what follows is information about cookies, 3rd party analytics and purchases on mozilla websites.
look, i understand your longing to deliver some sick burn, fanboy, but before you start lecturing other to learn to read, you should really master that craft yourself.
I’m not trusting some rando with my email address simply because I shouldn’t expect much from them.
well i shouldn’t expect the need for blind trust from mozilla.
For processing or providing products and services to you, but only if those entities receiving your information are contractually obligated to handle the data in ways that are approved by Mozilla.
This is their policy on sharing with third parties. I suggest reading everything. Like I said, the same qualifications you trusted a random person with no reputation and no track record and not even a commitment to privacy that Mozilla has. You literally trusted a stranger simply due to convenience. You like to pretend you care about privacy, but you understand nothing about it.
I'm guessing you didn't actually read the privacy policy. I refer you back to the slight confusion about breaking up easy parts to read. I guess that did confuse you and you stopped reading.
Honestly I am mildly curious about this, but I am feeling a little too drunk and lazy at this point in my day to look it up and the linked article was not helpful. Can someone eli5 what has the French government so salty? Thanks in advance, -Cas
Like a lot of lawmakers they have no concept of how the internet works. They think it’s like regulating cars (i.e. of course this handful of browser manufacturers will obey the law, so passing the law will control the behavior of the browsers).
They may think that even a ham-fisted law that doesn’t match reality will give them some ability to control what non-tech-savvy citizens are able to see, and there may be some validity to that (although much less than they’d probably hope).
I don’t think this is France’s government right now, but certain governments can get a lot of mileage out of laws that are obviously impossible. In Russia, it’s illegal to criticize the war, which is obviously impossible to enforce – and yet, there are a bunch of people in prison, because they criticized the war and the government decided to single them out to be punished. It can be a ridiculous and impossible law; they’re still in prison.
for-profit places will do that. i hardly expect mozilla to abandon the people of an entire country. though i'm sure they'll make sure everyone knows what VPNs and Tor are if it comes to it.
i hardly expect mozilla to abandon the people of an entire country
that’s not what i meant. i meant that the notice will be only thing that happens to formally comply with the law and everyone will be able to download the firefox “on their own responsibility”
like when eu banned the classic lightbulbs, there was a discussion in my country because some idiots felt that “the dictatorship of eu is upon them again”
now these lightbulbs are being sold with the notice “for industrial use only, unsuitable for use in personal homes”. every normal person buys led-bulbs and few thousand idiots are happy thinking how they showed them! 😆
Its in the first paragraph. So no, a warning wouldn't suffice. Jfc. Read
And yes, I know it's open source and someone can remove the block, but Mozilla and other companies can still be forced to put it there and leave it up to users to figure out. They probably can give vague instructions, but they probably have to avoid too much detail to stay out of legal trouble. What level of understanding do you have of the world outside your parents' house?
block websites in the browsers themselves. Its in the first paragraph. So no, a warning wouldn’t suffice. Jfc. Read
so that’s… what they are not worried about? that is like whole purpose of the petition. for person sending other to reading class, you really have a problem with that. you don’t have to reply to that, welcome to my block list.
Oh my goodness. Blocking websites in a browser is a lot different than saying "not recommended". I'm telling you what they are worried about versus your dumbass interpretation. Context clues may help you. I had already told you what they're not worried about. I can only assume you're not this dumb and see just trolling in bad faith now.
In the US, appliance bulbs are exempt from the new law. Which by the way mandates a lumens per watt threshold, it doesn’t explicitly ban incandescent bulbs. If someone could come up with an incandescent that meets the requirement they are free to sell as many as they can make.
Add comment