I’m sorry but I can’t help but read between the lines and the detailed explanation linked on this page, and interpret this as “We want to collect data, but only to serve you ads better”.
I’ve been a staunch FF defender for years but this one… I just don’t know anymore.
If I understand these Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy correctly, then the only way that they could possibly apply to me would be if I downloaded and used Mozilla’s own binary build of Firefox, which I don’t.
For example, on PureOS Byzantium, the way you get your Firefox binary is via the firefox-esr package, which is built by Debian from Firefox’s source code. I don’t see how Mozilla’s Terms of Use could possibly apply to Debian’s Firefox build.
On my desktop, I obtain my Firefox in the form of dedicated builds made by reputable distributions, too. For example, Arch Linux’s build.
I can only encourage everyone, whenever possible, to obtain their web browsers (and other privacy-sensitive software packages) from reputable repositories with no extra terms nor other strings attached.
I read it as, in very general terms: The web is now so complex, and interacting with the web is now so complex, that it is very difficult to give a thorough accounting of all the privacy implications. It’s bad and getting worse.
One of my daily reads ae the Axios headlines, (just the headlines, I don’t read the articles often).
Way back when they used to have inline ads, Anyways, I sent an email back to thier editor, saying: “I don’t mind inline ads, you need your revenue but does it have to be the same ad over and over?”
I got an email response, and the variety of ads increased within a week. Years later I don’t see their inline ads anymore. (Maybe it is my ad-blocker?)
Anyway, maybe Mozilla should reword it, from “serve you ads better” to “serve you better ads” ?
(Maybe the CLIO awards will have a category for internet ads?)
That makes sense. Because otherwise I would have asked whether PureOS would potentiall add LibreWolf to their repository.
Otherwise I assume even Ephinany (GNOME Web) might see more traction from this.
@Lliure, I am sorry to be dense, but can you explain the assertion that the new terms apply only if one uses the Mozilla-generated binary? I cannot find this implication, though I may have missed it. (Your statement is true of the unique ID Mozilla stuck in Firefox’s installation a while back.)
Debian does modfiy the Firefox build that is in PureOS–it is renamed–but, unless it is removing all communications with Mozilla servers (like LibreWolf claims to do), I am not sure how these new terms would not also apply to Debian’s version.
Thanks.
My reading of the updates does not agree with Mozilla’s and its apologists’ (in other forums) explanations. I liked Firefox and even recommended it, but this looks very much like “We will now use your data to train our LLM.”
Probably this quote:
It is not clear what an “authorized source” is.
OK. Thanks. I did not read those words that way, but I will accept that. It seems to me, however, that if whatever Firefox browser I use “phones home,” it can provide any input data.
They can say that if you do not agree to the terms then you can not use the binary supplied by them. Their binary might not work if you block their hosts.
Since it is open source, other providers do not have to get authorized, so there is no mechanism to enforce those terms. If you block their hosts they have no means of enforcement.
What bothers me is they seem to claim the right to make all first party cookies effectively third party cookies (on steroids).
Saw this all coming as soon as Branden Eich was forced to step down. Honestly, if you have to ramrod your ideas down people’s throat, they aren’t good ideas to begin with. Staking your existence on that leads you to destroying your organization.
I wouldn’t touch a Mozilla product with a ten foot pole.
So, what do we do now? Browsers are programs that make HTTP requests, and render text and rectangles. It turns out, both of those functions can be accomplished with GCC and most any user interface library in probably a few hours.
Are we all resigned to not being software developers in this case because big technology companies won and convinced everyone that the big Google monolith for rendering text and rectangles - and the sponsored opposition - are the only two ways on Earth that we will ever render the text?
Or will one of us take the initiative and make something that works without having 1000 dependencies with 100 unique software licenses among them which must be agreed to prior to running the code to render the text, or to send the sacred words GET /index.html HTTP/1.1?
These are the most holy words, so if you prefer to believe only Google and his sponsored opposition with 1000 dependencies may utter these words, I apologize for anyone I may have inadvertently offended.
But then there was OpenSSL.
Mozilla made a post to clarify their position, though it’s not really a backpedal: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
I think Brodie Robertson’s video “Mozilla Firefox Backpedals On The Terms Of Use” and Nicco’s video “Mozilla is NOT SELLING your DATA! (But they did mess up…)” are pretty good analyses on the subject. Brodie calls out Mozilla for their gaslighting and broad word choice; he mentions a potential loophole where Mozilla using the data themselves isn’t technically selling the data to a third party.
I clicked on the first of your three links and read through it, and Mozilla was still talking as if the suggested crap on new tabs, and the sponsored crap in the search bar, are good things.
Why do we give people the time of day who can’t see why either of those two things are bad, again? 
Edit:
Thank goodness my Librem 5 keyboard had a third emoji option on top of Terminal and English so that I could finish my post with an emoji when writing here on a Librem 5 on Epiphany. That keyboard is almost as great a feature as Mozilla’s recommended links on a New Tab
If you’re referring to the videos I linked, they do not like Mozilla’s TOU. I recommend to anyone reading my post to at least read/watch what I linked first before coming to a conclusion. The video titles are not well-thought imo but they are what they are.
Appreciate this, sorry. I’m on my phone in a public place and video watching in such case for me is not presently convenient.
I think I finally switch to LibreWolf. I do not trust Mozilla anymore for some time, but things are going even further in the wrong direction. Even if they do not act in a bad way now, it seems it’s just a matter of time and I do not want to wait until it happens.
Most Privacy Policies I’ve read say they use cookies
and other things 
to make our browsing better.
IMO, they are not lying, they just are not willing to tell it all,
When I get a page that says ‘close your ad blocker’, and access is grayed out and the only thing we’re allowed to do is click “OK” or close that tab or when we can’t say no, or we must chose between "Required, or ‘Necessary’, I blacklist them and move on. But often times, I will take the time to register so I can send a email telling them that:
BUT I DO BLOCK STALKERS WRAPPED AROUND ADS AND ADS WRAPPED AROUND STALKERS.
Too many use the …‘we use cookies and other tools…’ are hiding what ‘other tools’ is. They are not lying, they just aren’t telling the truth.
The goal of too many web sites is Stalk the visitor, Monitor visitor’s travels, Inject “tools” to Record visitor’s history, in order to Control the visitor victim.
The choice of browser may offer some semblance of privacy, but IMO, FF fails when it comes to protecting rights to privacy.
Just say’n s’all
~s
Firefox just reduces the amount of tracking, but does not prevent them entirely. I’m using the NoScript addon and block any script by default and just unblock those that are important to visit those pages. Sometimes I also deactivate my adblocker, but still block the advertising via NoScript and so I have access to some of the “please deactivate adblocker” pages.
Cookie banner often just lie. They ask for permission, but load dozens of tracker even if you dismiss permissions. NoScript blocks them all (except first party - otherwise those pages can often not be used - but better and more secure than 20 third party scripts).