ArchRecord

I’d say the same. Google dorks work much better than DDG’s filters for site-specific stuff, and generally for things like "search term" but for general searches DDG seems pretty similar.

The only things I’ve also had worse performance from DDG on compared to Google (in very minimal ways) has been:

• Highly specific searches (e.g. searching for a diagram of the dimensions of common connector types, DDG shows side-by-sides of connectors, Google does that but also with more diagrams that have dimensions in them)
• Context but not keyword based searches (e.g. “thing that has x y and z characteristics” returns more relevant results in Google than DDG, very marginally)

And of course, there’s always the !s bang to run a search through Startpage (which uses Google) if I’m not getting enough detail.

I assume you’re specifically talking about Mullvad Browser, not just Mullvad in terms of, say, their VPN standalone.

I’d recommend you check out Privacy Tests for the specific details on things like tracking prevention, but to summarize, it’s nearly identical to Librewolf in most common categories. However, since it’s a fork of the Tor Browser, keep in mind that:

• There will be weird borders/spacing around sites, making them smaller than your browser, since that makes most Mullvad Browser users all appear to have an identical aspect ratio, which further prevents tracking, but can make sites a bit less usable.
• There’s no built-in password manager, so you need to use your own.
• They don’t support Firefox sync. (although unofficial bookmark syncing services do exist, such as Floccus)
• Some sites can look blurry because of some fingerprinting protection features
• Some third party extensions may fail to work properly, because they rely on the non-available Sync services.
• There’s no mobile app.
• Your time zone is always spoofed to UTC so the way a site that depends on your current time could cause issues for you.
• Many fonts and hardware APIs are removed, so some sites that interact with peripherals may fail, and some sites may display incorrectly.
• All cookies are cleared between sessions. If you want to stay signed into sites without signing in every time you re-open your browser, you’re out of luck.
• Some default extension functionality that normally comes bundled with Firefox is removed. (e.g. the screenshot tool)

If you’re cool with getting a little extra protection in exchange for those sacrifices, go with Mullvad. If you just don’t want to use Firefox, but want a more private variant you can still use relatively easily in everyday life, go with Librewolf.

And remember, it’s always okay to have more than one browser, where you use the more privacy-preserving one for sensitive tasks when needed, then drop to the less privacy-preserving one for more everyday work. You can always have both.

You’re not including the full relevant text. For context, let me just put the full clause here:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Notice the “including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice” part, which means that part just clarifies their existing ability to, for instance, collect telemetry to understand how people are using the browser, and what features are used most.

Then going forward, “as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.” This would be any feature that relies on a Mozilla product to provide you with the ability to interact with any content on the internet. Think their Relay VPN product, any default DNS servers they apply, etc.

However, the key part was this:

you hereby grant us a […] license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

This clause effectively restricts any use of the data, to that which you explicitly indicate with your use, specifically only in the context of navigating, experiencing, and interacting with online content.

In other words, the rights you grant are only granted:

1. When necessary…
2. …to make the browser function…
3. …and specifically solely for the purpose of passing on that data to let you interact with online content, only as you personally indicate you want that data used.

This clause does not state that Mozilla gets a license to use your data whenever, for any purpose, it states they get a license to use it only when necessary, to make the browser function, specifically only as you choose to use that data when browsing. These are completely different things.

Fair enough, I get the caution honestly. Nobody wants Firefox to enshittify like everything else.

I understand that, but I’ve seen that language commonly used in nearly identical clauses before, and as far as I’m aware, the courts seem to interpret that as “to do the thing that’s required, or to make it more possible than otherwise,” rather than “anything they deem to be ‘helpful’”

Most of what I put in my comment was there beforehand. (most of it was the Privacy Notice, not the brand-new Terms of Use)

I simply wanted to cover as much as possible since I figured most people hadn’t read the whole document. Apologies if it seemed like everything I was covering was brand new.

To be fair though, not all of it is necessary, but it does provide a benefit such that most companies will use it because it keeps things from getting too ambiguous, legally speaking. Most of the changes Mozilla made seem to just be clarifying existing things that should generally be obvious, to ensure that any frivolous legal argument against them is very clearly able to be dismissed.

You’re correct that this isn’t exactly common practice, but it does generally make sense from the stance of legal protectionism. Mozilla just wants to make sure that no maliciously inclined user can try and argue that Mozilla didn’t have a right to use the content they put in the browser, when the browser could only do what that user wanted by putting that data in.

It’s not exactly necessary based on existing precedent, but to me at least, it seems like they’re preparing for situations where cases are brought and try to argue based on things that don’t have existing precedent. For instance, if you look at how new a lot of the arguments and defenses of AI are in court, if a user tried to argue that Mozilla didn’t have permission to send their data to an AI company if they highlighted some text and sent it to the AI sidebar, there’s a chance the court wouldn’t go based on existing precedent, and instead try to argue based on if Mozilla had a right to send that data, which this clause would then clearly, very objectively cover.

TLDR; I personally don’t think they really needed to do it, but it doesn’t functionally change anything about what they’re capable of doing compared to before.

Before everyone freaks out over “terms of use = Firefox bad now” (I’m citing the actual Terms of Use and Privacy Notice)

I’ll add emphasis as needed.

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

This doesn’t mean you’re giving them a license to do whatever they want with your data, it means you’re giving them the ability to use that data explicitly as you choose to navigate the web. (e.g. you use Firefox to make a post, they have to process those keystrokes through Firefox to send it to the server, and thus could require permission to do that in the form of having a license)

They explicitly have the license only to use the information in line “with your use of Firefox,” and to “navigate, experience, and interact with online content.” not to do whatever they want. They should have worded this better, but this isn’t one of those “we own everything you ever put in your browser” kind of clauses.

If you give Mozilla any ideas, suggestions, or feedback about the Services, you give Mozilla permission to use them for free and without any additional obligations.

This is standard on basically every site, and kind of obvious. You shouldn’t be able to say “you should do this thing,” have them do it, and then say “actually I own the license to this and you have to pay me”

These Terms apply until either you or Mozilla decide to end them. You can choose to end them at any time for any reason by stopping your use of Firefox. Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. If we decide to suspend or end your access, we will try to notify you at the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account.

Nothing requires you to stay in this contract after you stop using the services, and this is just reaffirming the fact that, yes, they can stop offering Firefox in the future if they simply can’t sustain it, without somehow breaking contract. More legalese just to protect them from frivolous lawsuits.

Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations.

You agree to indemnify and hold Mozilla and its affiliates harmless for any liability or claim from your use of Firefox, to the extent permitted by applicable law.

This basically just means “don’t do crimes using our browser.” Again, standard clause that basically everything has to make sure that nobody can claim in court that Firefox/Mozilla is liable for something a user did with their software.

To the extent permitted by applicable law, you agree that Mozilla will not be liable in any way for any inability to use Firefox or for any limitations of Firefox. Mozilla specifically disclaims the following: Indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or exemplary damages, direct or indirect damages for loss of goodwill, business interruption, lost profits, loss of data, or computer malfunction. Any liability for Mozilla under this agreement is limited to $500.

Standard liability clause, basically everything also has this.

And that’s it. That’s the terms of use. Nothing here is out of the ordinary, uncalled for, or unreasonable for them to have.

Now let’s move on to the new Privacy Notice.

You have the option to use a third-party AI chatbot of your choice to help you with things like summarizing what you’re reading, writing and brainstorming ideas, subject to that provider’s terms of use and privacy notice.

If you choose to enable a chatbot in the sidebar and/or through a shortcut, Mozilla does not have access to your conversations or the underlying content you input into the selected chatbot. We do collect technical and interaction data on how this feature is used to help improve Firefox, such as how often each third-party chatbot provider is chosen, how often suggested prompts are used, and the length of selected text.

This just states that if you use the chatbots, you’re subject to their policies, and also Mozilla will collect very light amounts of data to understand how often and to what degree the feature is used. The first part is functionally no different from saying “If you go to OpenAI’s website and use ChatGPT, you’ll be bound by their ToS.” Yeah, of course you will, that’s obvious.

Review Checker is a Firefox feature that helps you determine whether reviews are reliable when you shop online with sites like Amazon.com, BestBuy.com and Walmart.com. If you opt in to using Review Checker, Mozilla will process information about the website and the product identifier of the products you view using our privacy preserving technology called OHTTP. OHTTP combines encryption and a third party intermediary server, helping prevent Mozilla from linking you or your device to the products you have viewed. We also collect technical and interaction data on how this feature is used to help improve Firefox.

By opting in to using Review Checker you also agree to be shown product recommendations and sponsored content. If you do not want to receive product recommendations and sponsored content, you can opt out of this feature under Review Checker settings at any time.

Another optional feature that, if you choose to turn on and use yourself, will obviously have to collect data that is required for such a thing to work. It can’t check reviews if it can’t see the reviews on the website. As for the product recommendations and sponsored content, that’s not desirable, but they do very clearly mention that you can just turn it off in settings.

You can install add-ons from addons.mozilla.org (“AMO”) or from the Firefox Add-ons Manager, which is accessible from the Firefox menu button in the toolbar. We process your search queries in the Add-ons Manager to be able to provide you with suggested add-ons. If you choose to install any add-ons, Firefox will process technical, location and settings data, and periodically connect with Mozilla’s servers to install and apply the correct updates to your add-ons. We also collect technical and interaction data on usage of add-ons, to help improve Firefox.

If you search on their site for extensions, they have to process your search, and if you need to install addons, they’ll have to connect to Mozilla’s servers and collect the relevant data to make sure the extensions are available where you are. Shocking. /s

Mozilla runs studies within Firefox and makes certain experimental features available through Firefox Labs to test different features and ideas before they’re made available to all Firefox users or become part of the core Firefox offering — this allows us to make more informed decisions about what our users want and need. This research uses technical, system performance, location, settings and interaction data.

We also need to process data to keep Firefox operational, improve features and performance, and identify, troubleshoot and diagnose issues. For this we use technical, location and settings data, as well as interaction and system performance data (such as number of tabs open, memory usage or the outcome of automated processes like updates). In the rare situations where the information needed also includes limited browsing data (e.g., Top Level Domain annotations for page-load performance monitoring), it will be transmitted using OHTTP; this helps prevent Mozilla from linking you or your device to the data collected for this purpose.

This has been around for a while already. If you choose to use beta features, then yeah, they’ll collect some diagnostics. That’s why it’s in beta: to get data on if it’s working properly.

Because maintaining the latest version of Firefox helps keep you safe against vulnerabilities, desktop versions of Firefox regularly connect to Mozilla’s servers (or another service that you used to install Firefox) to check for software updates; updates for Android and iOS versions of Firefox are managed by Google’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store, respectively.

We also process technical data and settings data to protect against malicious add-ons. In addition to these standard processes, we use Google’s Safe Browsing Service to protect you from malicious downloads and phishing attacks, and validate web page and technical data with Certificate Authorities. As part of our work to improve privacy and security for all internet users, we collect technical data via OHTTP, to better understand, prevent and defend against fingerprinting.

Checking for updates and providing malicious site blocking requires connecting to servers to download the updates and having a list to block bad sites. Again, very shocking. /s

And that’s basically it for that.

I seriously don’t understand the reactionary attitude so many people have towards things like this. Read the policies yourself, and you’ll see that their explicit purpose is either:

1. Legally clarifying things to protect Mozilla from legal liability they shouldn’t have, and frivolous lawsuits.
2. Making sure it’s clear that to do certain things, they have to, y’know, process the data for that thing.
3. Explaining where different features might rely on parties outside Mozilla.

None of this is abnormal.

Seconded. I’m not terribly happy it’s closed-source, but the team seems quite ethical in their approach to software development and user privacy, and for anyone not in the know about Obsidian, the big highlights that still make it worth it for me are:

• Markdown formatted notes (standard format you can port across many different kinds of apps, especially useful as an exit strategy if Obsidian ever enshittifies)
• Plugins & Themes (Add basically any arbitrary functionality or looks you need, from structured query languages to analyze your notes, to automatic image format converters)
• Note Linking (being able to link your notes like so: [[Name of Note]] (shows as Name of Note in reading mode) so you can easily structure your knowledge, and build relationships between notes

Because when the norm to these people is media that exclusively panders to them, even one single piece of media that doesn’t represent them is a zero-to-100 change. Going from even 0 to 1 piece of inclusive media is startling, new, and scary to them, because they’re simply not used to it.

It’s the root of the entire conservative mentality (which is why you’ll primarily see conservative men talking about this) since all conservatism is based in a desire for things to remain the same. Change is just scary to these people, no matter how benign the change may be.

Of course there are, but as has already been shown through many attempts at creating welfare programs that directly test the means of the recipients, the administrative cost to provide funds to people based on highly specific factors about themselves (e.g. total net worth, rate of income, spending, cost to employ farm employees, profit margins, etc etc etc) can cost significantly more than blanket assistance.

It’s one of the reasons why UBI works so well compared to traditional welfare in administrative costs, since it doesn’t need to be means tested.

Now obviously this isn’t a one-to-one comparison, but let’s say we create an index just like the one at question here, but it’s specifically the “poor farmer’s index.” To do so, we need to:

1. Request extensive documentation from all farmers applying
2. Somebody then has to verify the net assets, income, expenses, etc of all farmers who apply to be listed in the index via that paperwork…
3. …and continue to verify that data over time, as it obviously changes year-to-year. The eligibility of every participant would have to be re-verified regularly, otherwise someone could become not poor, but stay in the index. This is a perpetual expense that grows linearly over time as more people are added to the index.

Who will do that work? Now somebody needs to be paid to do this, or spend many hours doing volunteer work just to verify eligibility. Now, in the end yes, that kind of system would be ideal for determining who needs the most help, and I would pick that system every time over a “black farmers index” if it existed in a functional form.

The problem is that it has significantly higher costs and requires consistent administration over time, something that is obviously hard to expect from a random volunteer project that, based on their staff information, only has 2 “Data Entry and Logistics” roles that are currently filled. Imagine two people handling the ingesting, data entry, and administrative tasks for all the farmers applying to this index across the entire United States, having to verify every single individual’s financial situation. It’s difficult, and costly.

So yes, as I stated just earlier in this comment, and in my original post, of course I’d prefer an index that directly assesses the economic viability of every individual. However, because doing so is costly, and we know that race is a good proxy for the estimation of general wealth, it makes sense to use that for a small, relatively inexpensive, independently run online site, that now only needs to verify one factor, that doesn’t change over time, to get a good enough approximation of lack of wealth.

This entire discussion revolves not around the ideals of what we should have, but what is feasible. If it is not feasible at the current point in time for such an organization to directly assess the needs of individuals, it makes sense to use a substantially cheaper to assess proxy, instead of not being able to have any index at all.

Group A is historically not discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $100,000.

Group B is historically discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $80,000.

In both groups, some will own more or less than the average, but the largest number of poorer individuals reside in Group B, because the average is lower.

On a per person basis, everyone has $20,000 to spend. Should they give it:

1. Exclusively to Group A? (and “discriminate” against Group B, but raise their average net worth to $120,000)
2. Exclusively to Group B? (and “discriminate” against Group A, but raise their average net worth to $100,000)
3. Split evenly between the two? (bringing Group A’s average to $110,000, and Group B’s average to $90,000)

Which option is most likely to uplift the most poor people to a less poor status?

This is why your argument of “discrimination” doesn’t hold up. The choice to make a purchase from Group A while ignoring Group B only entrenches existing wealth disparities. The choice to make a purchase from both evenly keeps the wealth disparity where it is. The choice to buy exclusively from Group B eliminates the disparity.

This decision is not being made because of race on its own, it is being made because of the common socioeconomic context within which people of color often reside. If white people were the ones who had a history of economic discrimination, even if all other actions regarding past and current racism remained equal, then economically supporting the white farmers specifically would make the most sense, because they would be most economically disadvantaged.

You cannot have a meritocracy when people start on uneven ground, and there is a very demonstrable difference in existing generational wealth between the races, as a direct consequence of past injustices. The way we fix that as individuals, and as a society, is by doing what we can to elevate groups experiencing a disparity until they no longer do.

Should we just stop using statistics then? Numbers don’t matter if they are about people? (I genuinely want an answer here. Should we?)

Statistically, one societal class of people needs more support than the other to have the exact same quality of life, generational wealth, and opportunities. Thus, when deciding who to buy, in this case, produce from, it simply makes sense to purchase from the group most disadvantaged, until their disadvantage is no bigger than the other group, and we can then switch from buying from “small black farmers directly” to “all small farmers directly,” because all of them would then need a near identical level of support, financially speaking, to get the same outcomes.

Because, on average, black people are more economically disadvantaged than white people.

Choosing to explicitly buy from black farmers will, on average, tend to support those with the least financial means out of the general population of farmers, whereas choosing to explicitly buy from white farmers will, on average, tend to support those who are already more financially advantaged.

One side is directly choosing to help those most likely to be economically disadvantaged, the other would be explicitly ignoring those with the least means in order to help those who already have the most, thus the situations are not quite comparable.

I personally would prefer an index that directly assessed farmers based on overall wealth to determine who you should buy from, but because that’s extraordinarily difficult to constantly update & maintain, verify, etc, it can just be easier to divide among racial lines since that still tends to produce a grouping that is relatively similar.

What other proprietary software is necessary to use model weights?

I’ve been checking my password manager for over a year now, and I’m still finding more old accounts I have to delete!

My 120 deleted or pending deletion accounts only make up about 1/2 of the ones I need to delete overall. 😶

TLDR;

• Check your Password Manager/Stored Browser Credentials
• If on Apple devices, check your Keychain
• If on Android or using/used Chrome, check your Google Password Manager (enabled if you chose to save passwords to your Google account)
• Search old email inboxes
• Search for your email in data breaches
• Search for old usernames you re-used across sites

I personally would also add searching your browser cookies, since some browsers will keep around old cookies for years if you don’t clear them.

• For Mail, I’d recommend Tuta (which comes with 15-30 aliases depending on the plan) and a third-party aliasing service like Addy if you need more than that. If you want a different aliasing service and are searching around, and trying to avoid giving money to Proton, avoid SimpleLogin, since they are owned by Proton. I don’t believe Tuta has email scheduling, though.
• For Drive, either use Tresorit, or use Cryptomator if you’re okay with paying for OneDrive/Dropbox/Google Drive. (Cryptomator encrypts uploaded files & names so the cloud provider itself can’t view the contents)
• For Pass, I personally would recommend Bitwarden or Keepass simply depending on whichever one you prefer more. Both are good options.
• For VPN, definitely use Mullvad. Simple, unchanging monthly price, you can pay via numerous different ways if you want to keep your identity more private from them (e.g. paying with cash by mail, XMR, etc) and you’ll get an account number rather than needing to actually give them any information like an email to create an account. Do be aware it has much less locations than Proton, and most other VPN providers, although it’s still quite fast and usable for most cases.
• For Calendar, Tuta also has a calendar feature built-in.

I’d highly recommend checking out Privacy Guides by the way, since they tend to have good lists of alternatives for any other services you may want to switch from also.

Possibly, but in my view, this will simply accelerate our progress towards the “bust” part of the existing boom-bust cycle that we’ve come to expect with new technologies.

They show up, get overhyped, loads of money is invested, eventually the cost craters and the availability becomes widespread, suddenly it doesn’t look new and shiny to investors since everyone can use it for extremely cheap, so the overvalued companies lose that valuation, the companies using it solely for pleasing investors drop it since it’s no longer useful, and primarily just the implementations that actually improved the products stick around due to user pressure rather than investor pressure.

Obviously this isn’t a perfect description of how everything in the work will always play out in every circumstance every time, but I hope it gets the general point across.

Local AI Tagging (Optional)

Finally a good use of AI that doesn’t overpromise functionality it can’t actually provide. Just a system for rewriting page text as tags. This is a feature I’ll legitimately use.