• BentiGorlich@gehirneimer.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    As far as I understand it, yes possibly… But if their definition is very weird to me… I now watched 2 30 minute long videos about it and still don’t understand what the problem is exactly…

    What I did get though is that they majorly screwed up their PR

    • Baggins [he/him]@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Basically California thinks that if you receive something of value in return for sharing data that that is considered selling data

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes exactly. And that is entirely right and proper.

        Nothing of what Mozilla should be doing meets that definition. Even if they share data with 3rd parties to process it, and even if they pay the 3rd party for that service, they’re not supposed to get something in return for providing the data. But also, providing data in such a manner does not mean they are selling it.

        If they are getting something in return for providing the data, be it payment, other services or even simply a discount, then they’re doing something wrong.

        • Baggins [he/him]@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Mozilla thinks they are getting something in return( I believe it’s services). I only watched the rossmann video but the Mozilla document he showed lays it out

      • Vincent@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Could it be e.g. the sponsored tiles on the new tab? If you click those, the sponsor inevitably gets your IP address and thus your approximate location, and Mozilla gets paid.