That's kinda my feeling, too. It doesn't appear to be any worse than a year ago, but if you were already not impressed, this is not an improvement.

To quote this wiki that did a very good job of breaking down this clusterfuck:

The CCPA defines "selling data" as:

“Sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or “sold,” means selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by the business to a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration.

The sticking point is that last "other valuable consideration." The question that people should be asking is: "valuable to whom and in what capacity?" Value does not need to be for financial gain; knowledge is valuable to a contractor building a building, for example.

But I recommend reading that wiki breakdown or just watch this video. It's a mess that can't be untangled in a simple Lemmy comment.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

If they give anybody any information for any reason, they open themselves to litigation - however frivolous and unwarranted - because the laws are written to be intentionally vague, to capture a wide variety of scenarios, including those that the law does not explicitly state. There are tons of valuable exchanges that could occur other than strictly data for money, and those exchanges are therefore captured within this new legal definition. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and to remain consistent within the new definitions of these laws, Firefox/Mozilla has changed their Terms of Use. Their uses of data are outlined within their Privacy Policy (linked within the above post).

I suppose this information is only valuable if one trusts Mozilla - one of the most stalwart, dedicated, and outspoken advocates for consumer rights in the digital age.

I'm not saying Mozilla is infallible or above reproach - nobody/nothing is or should be considered so - but if I'm gonna trust any group that says "I'm not fucking you over" it's gonna be the group that has a consistent and very clear history of championing the idea of not fucking people over

They could tell us precisely what they're selling, and to whom, and give us a button to say "hell no", and it'd be largely fine. Instead, it's a bunch of "oh, you wouldn't understand"

To be clear, I'm not particularly interested in defending Mozilla. This confusing mess is at least partly their fault, and I think users are right to hold them accountable. I just want people to be able to make informed decisions and not ones based on the internet blowing things up needlessly.

Rather than repeat myself, here's my comment to someone who asked basically the same thing.

https://reddthat.com/comment/17046485

If third parties means AWS, then every website you've accessed this year shares your data with third parties. This is why the GDPR exists.