Found this notification this morning on my pixel 6.

  • BetterNotBigger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    220
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Even if this isn’t entirely true, you know Google wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to reduce Firefox market share to scare everyone back to Chrome.

      • pycorax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s not the point they’re trying to make I think. It’s more of an attack on perfection. Like “the alternative is not perfect either so why not just stay with Chrome”. It’s not a very strong argument in general but it might be enough to keep people from switching.

        • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          exactly, when confronted with cognitive dissonance people look for any shitty excuse to avoid changing their minds.

      • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It integrates into the Google ecosystem well, and if that has value to a person it may just be enough to bring them back to chrome.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s no need to reduce Firefox marketshare. Most people don’t even consider using anything else than whatever is default in their device.

      Also, it’s not a Google scare tactic or a flex. Every application on the Play Store must disclose the general outlines of their data policy, including the sharing of data. Lying with those checkbox is not a good idea but they are completely informative and put there by the publishing party, so the people responsible for publishing Firefox on mobile just updated these, and this is what is shown when an app publisher say their app is sharing data with third parties.

      tl;dr: it’s very likely that not a single soul at Google even looked at this, as this is just the regular behavior of the Play Store with apps that changes their data policy or indicate sharing user data with third parties.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          No idea, I’m not that obsessed with it. But do note that “The developers of these apps provided info about their data sharing practices to an app store. They may update it over time.” and “Data sharing practices may vary based on your app version, use, region, and age.”

          The recent changes to Firefox terms of use (well, their introduction really) was supposedly meant to appease some regional lawmakers. Maybe it is a regional thing. Maybe they changed it again. Maybe it’s, as often with store page update, rolled out progressively to people (in either direction, whether it’s adding or removing these terms).

          The point is, that’s neither a “Google” operation to put Firefox in a bad light, nor a Mozilla operation to… do whatever it is they’re doing these days. It’s just a regular message. Which, reading a lot of the replies here, is something that have to be said.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Lol if Google really wanted to kill FF they would just stop paying them half a billion a year.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s a regular notification, which would happen for any application whose data policy is changed on the Play Store page. These policy are as declared by the app publisher. This would be the same for any application that didn’t check that “sharing data with third party” box earlier, then checked it later on.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t get what your comment is getting at. I don’t view this post as saying anything special or unique about the notification. I see it as a warning that Firefox is now doing this.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Have you read all the other replies? “Google mad”, “Google putting Firefox in the dirt”, “False info”, etc.

      • Astra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The legal definition of “sell” has changed in several major markets, and that’s (supposedly) why Firefox has recently changed their terms. The word “sell” is now ostensibly broad enough to include “give to anybody for any reason”, including if you use Firefox for any reason where you would legitimately want and need Firefox to give (“sell”) your data - for example if you use it for: literally any shopping or even just browsing store pages; any interactive (real world) maps where you may want to use your location; any searches where you want local businesses to be listed; any search engine that may want to use your location to aid in results; etc. etc. etc.

        Any legitimate exchange of data can now be construed as “selling” because of the new legal definitions, regardless of if anyone is actually selling anything.

        It’s very possible that nothing has changed - that Firefox hasn’t started selling user data, they’re just updating their terms (and this app listing) to reflect the changes in the legal definitions of “sell”.

        • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The whole “legal definitions are why we changed” is definitely what they’re rolling with, but I don’t think a lot of what you said is correct. Websites selling data is not the same as firefox selling data. If a site sells your data while you’re using firefox, that is in no way shape or form involved with firefox. That’s also not what they are claiming. They are strictly talking about the data that firefox directly collects and distributes. It would include search results if you searched via the address bar, I suppose. They have sold data for a while, but it’s anonymized (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy).

          Firefox is free to use, but it costs a lot of money to develop. They need money, nobody here is denying that. Many users on this platform have tried to avoid any form of data collection as much as possible (myself included) so they would rather pay to fund it (though many don’t). However, most people would rather pay for the service with ads and data collection. Because to them, it’s basically free. Most users would never even consider moving to Firefox if it was paid. They could offer two options, one paid and one “free”, but they haven’t done that yet and it’s not clear if they plan to.

          Most importantly, it’s really about being transparent. If they need money, they shouldn’t try to hide the fact they are selling anonymized data by saying “We never sell you data” or to be like “oh no, we are doing it because of legal definitions” when in reality they are selling data. I get it’s a PR movement, but most of the people intentionally using Firefox are tech savvy people wanting to get away from Google’s big brother approach. I get people defending Firefox, and I also get people hating on Mozilla, but we should also be clear about the reality. Firefox is, and has been selling your data (in some form), but now the laws are changing to make it more clear that what they’re doing is in fact selling data.

          • Astra@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Which parts do you disagree with? I’m not talking about websites selling your data after you access them through Firefox, I’m saying that now - with new definitions of “sale”/“sell” - that Firefox giving anybody any data for almost any reason can be legally construed as “selling”. This isn’t just the case for Firefox, it’s the case for literally any web browser, and anything that can access the internet for any reason.

            Yes, I thought about including the fact that Firefox does engage in ad-based revenue, and I suppose I should’ve, but Firefox is pretty upfront about this and allows users to opt out of targeted advertising - and this has been the case since long before this past week or two. These ads only appear on the “new tab” page, and only if you consent to seeing them. Anybody who’s dropping Firefox for this recent controversy seens to be missing that. It’s very possible (and personally I think it’s likely) that nothing at all has changed from within Firefox.

            • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              This comment reads differently to me than the one of yours I replied to. When you said:

              for example if you use it for: literally any shopping or even just browsing store pages That read to me like you were talking about the store itself, and not firefox.

              Regardless, I agree with what you’ve just said more. My argument is moreso that Firefox has been selling data (so nothing really has changed with them), but now they’re being required to state that they’re selling data. I get that Mozilla doesn’t want to be lumped in with “selling data” groups, because it can be done in very extremely different manners with varying levels of invasion on privacy. But I also think they should have been more up front about where they get some of their revenue, and not tried to be like “We never sell your data” while literally having sponsored suggestions (both on the new tab page, and website suggestions in the address bar).

              As for what the current drama impacts on this? Nothing, really. Other than they are being required to disclose that they sell data, and their getting backlash because they’ve been trying to pretend they don’t. Now that they’re lumped in with the “data selling” corporations in peoples minds (even though they’re very different than google), who knows if that will give them the extra room to be a bit more invasive with their data collection. They’ve already crossed the largest PR hurdle, so the future incremental changes would be much easier. There’s no guarantee, but with traditional enshitification, it wouldn’t surprise me.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    8 months ago

    Google: “Forcing us to divest Chrome could have impacts on our ability to support Mozilla and their high executive salaries as we own the space with Chrome.”

    Also Google:

  • umbraroze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Wait a second. You’re expecting Google to not FUD? Ha ha ha oh wow. I mean I didn’t actually expect them to do so, but yeah.

  • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Pretty easy to disable the location app permission or set it to ask every time. Firefox hasn’t asked me to enable it since turning it off.

  • 𝔻𝔼𝕍𝕀𝕃𝕀𝕊ℍ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Firefox engines have telemetry since old ages. Do you know what even crazier ??? even other firefox browser like fennec has Mozilla telemetry.


    PSA : disable it with Blocker (ROOT) for more privacy

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sending telemetry like crashes and what features you use/don’t use isn’t really in the same category as using location data for marketing purposes. It’s a very important distinction to draw.