Found this notification this morning on my pixel 6.

  • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 day ago

    Okay, turned it off. If a site needs my location it can ask me and I can politely tell it to fuck off unless it has a warrant.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 day 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:

  • Psythik@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    The DDG app shows no 3rd party tracking attempts made by Firefox at all… So far…

    • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah. People can avoid all this nonsense by installing one simple app… Duck duck go browser.

      You don’t have to use the browser. It just sits in the background quietly blocking tracking requests from other apps.

      It’s absolutely horrifying on first use to see how egregious tracking is.

  • BetterNotBigger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    449
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 days 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.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 days 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
          ·
          1 day 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.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Firefox? You mean the company they give several hundred million dollars/year? Yeah I don’t think they’re too worried. They need some number of users on Firefox to prevent anti-trust issues. Which they’re on the brink of right now.

    • Engywook@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      There isn’t to much to reduce. I don’t think Google is scared or afraid by Firefox, like at all.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

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

      • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        terrible choice of link. There was a stack of reporting from various tech-news sites and blogs; but you’ve given as the nazi site.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The story I heard was that by of California’s definition of selling data, doing anything with user data that could benefit the company was considered selling data. So they updated their FAQ to be in line with that definition. But I could be wrong, if someone could point me to a good article I’d appreciate it.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Thanks! Sounds like limiting risk from the California bill is a plausible reason, but it isn’t confirmed.

            Legal Definitions of “Selling Data” Under the CCPA Are Broad: As noted above, the CCPA’s definition encompasses many data-sharing practices that may not align with common understanding of “selling data”.[16] Even if Mozilla was not directly selling user data, its search partnerships, telemetry data sharing, & sponsored content could have been interpreted as data sales if Mozilla received any financial benefit from them, all of which were actions that Mozilla has already been transparent & upfront about.

            Mozilla’s Search Engine Deals Could Be Considered Data Sales: As mentioned earlier, these partnerships could legally qualify as data sales under the CCPA definition, despite being an existing part of Mozilla’s business model that consumers are already aware of.[1]

            Sponsored Content in Firefox’s New Tab Page Involves Data Exchange: Mozilla dReferencesisplays sponsored content and ads on the Firefox New Tab page, which may involve user interaction data being shared with advertisers.[11] Even if the data is anonymized, the CCPA considers certain types of aggregated data as personal information if it can be linked back to users.[16]

            • bearboiblake@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              2 days ago

              It sounds like a bullshit excuse, to me.

              If they wanted to cover their ass, they could have changed their ToS any number of different ways than what they went with.

              Let’s not be naïve. All corporations are the enemy, including Mozilla.

              • devedeset@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                To be fair they are a company with bills to pay and they have to shield themselves from being fined or sued. At this point I assume almost everything has been backdoored to hell and I’d rather use the product from the company with better overall terms and principles.

                • bearboiblake@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  i’m a person with bills to pay, but if i paid those bills by endangering people, i’d be a bad person.

                  corporations exist to protect people from the financial and legal repercussions of their business activity.

                  they should not exist, and so, I will celebrate if Mozilla goes into bankruptcy.

                  we do not need them. control of firefox should be in the hands of a not-for-profit group, not a company.

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re saying “exploiting” user data might have been more precise than “selling”. Either way I don’t want them doing it.

      • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days 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.

      • pycorax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        92
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days 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
          ·
          2 days ago

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

        • JayGray91@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          2 days ago

          the alternative is not perfect either so why not just stay

          It does work for a lot of people. Seeing they need to change and adapt if they do change, and it seemingly seems to be as bad as what they’re using now, why change and face headaches and hassle.

    • Xanza@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      So you’re advocating that Google shouldn’t broadcast that firefox is broadcasting your current location? Even though they do this for every other app available on Android, you’re saying they shouldn’t do this for firefox?

      Why?

      • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        This notice is effectively added by the Firefox developers when they select the ability to enable location services and also tick a box thay they collect data.

      • devedeset@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        They want to scare people to stay on Chrome now that they discontinued support of uBlock (not that it was ever supported on Chrome for Android anyway)

        • Xanza@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          So they do this for all apps. Every single app that is in the Android ecosystem. But in your mind they’re specifically targeting firefox with this to make people “scared” huh?

          Must be nice to live in denial.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is not at all a pot kettle situation, there is no reason to warn about Firefox.

      • Renohren@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        There is: default search results on FF have always legally been sold to Google, the public didn’t know since there were no terms of service or mention by FF whenever they uploaded the android version on the playstore that their users data would be collected and some be sold. Position is one of the data that may be sold as it could be used by Google to dermine which localised version of the search result is the best one to serve

        And it’s not going to be Google in the future: it could be Bing, startpage, ecosia, qwant etc… As long as someone pays, then the results are sold and there needs to be a warning to users.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          the public didn’t know

          That’s not true, for many years Firefox was basically financed by Google for being the default search engine, because Google didn’t want Microsoft to monopolize Internet Browsers. Everybody who had the slightest interest knew that.

          But that’s completely irrelevant, it’s a very marginal source of revenue today, and Firefox does not sell user info to Google. So it’s on Google to warn about using Google search.
          The only reason for the change in Firefox privacy terms was for clarification. For instance any information given to Firefox, does not grant Firefox ownership of it. (opposite of for instance Facebook)
          That’s a guarantee of user protection, not the opposite. Firefox has a very limited scope of “using” user data, like for instance storing links with Firefox, so they work across multiple devices.
          There is no “harvesting” of user behavior or information.

          https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/03/mozilla-rewrites-firefoxs-terms-of-use-after-user-backlash/

  • devedeset@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    As of the latest Chrome update on PC, they have dropped support for uBlock. You can still technically enable it, but they disabled it by default once you update.

    That got me back to Firefox with breakneck speed.

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Hopefully soon Librewolf, Fennec F-droid and other forks will become mainstream.

      I haven’t switched to Librewolf on pc yet; hoping that turning off the telemetry/etc options in ff is enough, but I’m starting to think it might not be long.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I was that same way with Firefox for a while, but after I gave Librewolf a long-term test drive I stuck with it.

        If you’re used to Firefox with the privacy stuff cranked up, from a user perspective Librewolf is basically just that. But I like knowing that some of the Mozilla stuff is actually removed.

        They also roll out updates quickly. I’m pretty sure I updated Firefox and Librewolf to 136.0.1 today just hours apart.

      • devedeset@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I want to switch over further but so far I’ve had so much else going on that data privacy hasn’t taken a priority. Things are getting weird now so it is time for a priority change.

      • FrChazzz@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I switched over to LibreWolf recently. I discovered Vivaldi just a few hours before I learned about the Manifest v3 stuff for Chromium (which is a shame because I actually LOVED Vivaldi). I really want to try Zen Browser, but I’m using old, 2011-era Macs (running Ubuntu 24.04 on one) and it won’t install. LibreWolf is great because of its clean, minimal design and absolute privacy-forward thinking. I’ve enjoyed it so far (and I’m only running it on the Ubuntu machine).

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Frankly speaking, calling out Google and Chrome, then moving to Firefox while Mozilla have been doing it’s best Google impression for years now is not that great of a plan.

      I wonder how long Firefox will be ok with all that, since Mozilla bought that advertisement business a while ago.

      • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 days ago

        The main problem is that building a web browser is extremely difficult and everyone else uses Google’s version of WebKit. So there’s no alternatives: it’s either Google or Mozilla. Forks don’t count because if some functionality that end users need is deprecated, nobody will maintain it and it will just disappear once it’s removed from the main codebase

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          building a web browser is extremely difficult and everyone else uses Google’s version of WebKit

          To be fair it is based on KHTML. One of projects KDE can spend that extra money on and resurrect.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Bring back Konqueror too while at it!

            Edit: Apparently it still exists, it just isn’t the default on any mainstream distros anymore

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Saying KHTML = WebKit is like saying a sponge is a killer whale.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes, I agree. That’s why I’m weirded out by people saying “Firefox bad, use Librewolf” and the like.

          I still think a solution that relies on donation (maybe with some corporate support) would be very good for everyone involved. Unfortunately, Mozilla is not a player in this, so we’re stuck with basically three engines, one that can’t be used, one that’s openly hostile, and one that’s becoming hostile.

          Not great.

          • 3laws@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            You just described Servo. It will happen. The Linux Foundation is backing it up now… after Mozilla dropped it.

  • hungprocess@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    FWIW I’m not seeing this on the Play Store for Firefox 136.0.1 on my Pixel 8a, and I’m not seeing any warnings on Beta or Nightly either: