• fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Clarity is needed here. The California language that sparked all this is qualified with “about FakeSpot’s products and services”. Meaning it could simply be third-party services that they send their own emails through.

    After reading their privacy policy, nothing jumps out at me that contradicts this.

    To be clear, I’m not a fan of the extension’s collection practices, but the down votes could be because this may be unwarranted fear.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Unwarranted fear or healthy skepticism? This is the perfect time to “just ask questions.” Firefox is selling itself as a privacy respecting platform and therefore should be held to a higher standard than the garbage that is chrome. If it can pass the test it will be proven again and earn more trust which should result in more users, if it fails then it deserves to be criticised and lose users. Point is if you are selling yourself as privacy respecting you are selling yourself by default as ethical.

      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        100% agree. I wasn’t trying to say the collection practice isn’t bad, just that the other linked threads may be taking things a bit farther than what the policy actually says.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I love the wholesome and fact-focused discussions here on Lemmy. Good show, Mr. SuckMyWang. 🤝

      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because they are now owned by Mozilla. As stated above, I, like others, don’t like the practice, and I hope Mozilla adjusts acordingly.

          • steakmeout@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            11 months ago

            You understand why they changed those terms, right? Because Mozilla isn’t reselling the data and the data can’t go elsewhere.

          • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure, but this doesn’t mean much. If they didn’t transfer ownership, FakeSpot could do whatever they wanted with that data. By forcing the transfer, Mozilla can choose to keep it private.