Firefox’s free VPN will offer 50 gigabytes of monthly data, which is pretty generous for a browser-based VPN. A Mozilla account is required to make use of it, which isn’t a hardship (they’re free), but is a point of friction some may wish to know upfront.
Firefox 149 adds built-in free VPN with 50GB monthly data
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/03/firefox-adding-a-free-vpn
130 Comments
XLE@piefed.social · 149 pts · 147d
...oh.
PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 106 pts · 147d
How long before that data gets sold?
vane@lemmy.world · 74 pts · 147d
-1 year
santa@sh.itjust.works · -23 pts · 146d
Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz · 57 pts · 146d
The data is indeed encrypted, but both you and the VPN provider have the keys - that's why they advertise no-logs policies, because they have access to the data you send, such as which website you're attempting to visit.
victorz@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 146d
Can a VPN provider do man in the middle attacks if they wanted to? Like sniff my /api/login calls and get my password? My gut tells me yes but I don't know enough to be sure, I feel.
RaisinCrazyFool@kopitalk.net · 39 pts · 146d
Generally not. Anything with authentication would be using HTTPS encryption. So there will be two layers of encryption: the VPN encryption and the web site's HTTPS encryption. The VPN provider can't replace the HTTPS encryption because your browser would identify it as being encrypted with the wrong certificate and it would block the connection.
Although...given that they control the browser, too, I suppose they could code it to remove those safeguards, but that would not go unnoticed for long.
When you use a VPN, it basically replaces your ISP as the intermediary who can snoop all your traffic, so the real question is who do you trust more: your ISP or Mozilla?
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 4 pts · 146d
assume the VPN provider is adversarial
now re-run your analysis
XLE@piefed.social · 14 pts · 146d
This is true regardless. HTTPS encryption keeps a man in the middle from seeing your URL. They just get the domain name, which is a lot, but it isn't your credentials.
victorz@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 146d
What I was thinking was that the VPN would be able to sniff the key exchange hand shake thing that HTTPS does in order to setup the connection, and use the data during the handshake to basically recreate the cryptographic key used for the connection later. So then it'd be able to just decrypt all traffic and reencrypt it again after passing through. Seamlessly to both ends.
Is that a thing in theory?
RaisinCrazyFool@kopitalk.net · 11 pts · 146d
The SSL/TLS encryption used on the web is designed to prevent that type of attack. It's called "asymmetric encryption", because a different key is used to encrypt and decrypt data. So each side has both a private and public key. You can broadcast your public key, and then anyone can use it to encrypt a message that only YOU can decrypt, with your private key. The private key never goes over the network, so the VPN provider can't intercept messages meant for you.
It's possible to spoof the server's certificate and make your browser think it's talking to a real server when it's not. However, this is difficult, because certificates follow a chain of trust, so they'd either need to compromise one of the certificate authorities (plausible for state-level actors), or compromise your web browser/OS so that it trusts a fake authority (definitely possible for a browser/OS vendor, but again, it would be noticed, especially in an open-source product like Firefox).
There are lot of enterprise products out there that perform this kind of "attack" so that businesses can monitor their network traffic. They do this by requiring adding their certificate authority to the list of trusted certs in the OS. This is often called "deep packet inspection". If you try to use these products without adding their certs, your browser will throw a fit every time you load a site because it will see that the certificate doesn't match.
GenosseFlosse@feddit.org · 10 pts · 146d
We had a proxy server at work that would route all internet traffic and scan for viruses, blocked urls or other traffic patterns, depending on your network rules. It did work on https and SSL traffic, because you had to accept the cert from the proxy server in your browser. So your traffic was encrypted between proxy and webserver, and proxy and your computer, but unencrypted on the proxy server itself. It would be similar with a VPN. Plus, if you control the browser you could just ship the required certs with the update...
victorz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 146d
So a VPN could basically sniff the Diffie-Hellman keys used during the exchange, recreate the key that browser and server use for HTTPS, and then decrypt all traffic sent through the VPN? Is that correct? And basically the same goes for any ISP or whatever else that's acting as a node?
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 146d
So if they were going to do an attack like this, they wouldn't do anything like the DH attack you're talking about, they'd have a custom CA in the browser's SSL root store. That root cert means they can generate a certificate for any website you visit, and that custom root cert would be how they decrypt your traffic.
Afaik there isn't a current attack on proper DH key pairings, but you can't block the custom certificate path at the browser level without some serious server side work/client side JS to validate
GenosseFlosse@feddit.org · 2 pts · 146d
No, not at all. You have 2 encrypted connections A to B and B to C, where B is the proxy server. The proxy server decrypts AB, sees the plaintext traffic to check against rules, then reencrypts the traffic with his own key and forwards it to B to C. Your browser on C sees the proxy servers cert for BC, and the website and proxy handle out a different cert AB. No encryption or cert is broken during the process.
Kissaki@feddit.org · 9 pts · 146d
When you connect to a secure https site, then no. When you connect to unsecured http, then yes.
Firefox has its own cert store for https, and could theoretically impersonste other websites by adding their own and then sniff your traffic. But thats not how vpn providers typically work, and thered be huge backlash if they were to do that unprompted.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 5 pts · 146d
If you have to install any closed-source software to use the VPN, the answer is oh hell yes, they can install a root cert. If they are clever they can remove it when you disconnect, so it will not be noticed by most people.
Even if they require no proprietary install, by definition the VPN knows every IP address you connect to. Even if you use DoH. Even if you use Quad9 DNS. The VPN knows you visited midwestsluts.com
If you want privacy, either spin up your own selfhost OpenVPN, or use the Tor nodes myself and other volunteers pay for, to make free for you to use.
Tor node operators can't tell what site you are visiting (if they run an exit node they can see the site -- but don't know your IP; if they run a Guard/proxy node they can see your IP, but can't tell anything about what sites you visit or what data you get)
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 146d
Joke's on them, because half the web is behind CloudFlare now.
zeca@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 146d
What if the gov has access to both tor nodes, cloudfare infrastructure and mozilla servers?
madsen@lemmy.world · 130 pts · 146d
Please stop adding bloat to my browser. I have nothing against VPN, but it's not a fucking core feature of a web browser. Put that stuff in an extension that I can install if I want.
NateNate60@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 146d
They should make a "Firefox Core" which contains only the browser with basic features, and then make another version which contains all the "fun" stuff.
pHr34kY@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 146d
They need to separate gecko properly so we can build things using just the renderer.
FG_3479@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 146d
Install LibreWolf then disable the cookie clearing and resistFingerprinting.
newaccountwhodis@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 146d
Isn't that what extensions are for? This basically already exists. It's a shame Mozilla doesn't utilize it for this
filister@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 146d
It depends on the country you are living in. There are plenty of people with restricted and surveilled internet.
madsen@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 146d
Sure, but do you think they're going to allow Firefox if it comes with a built-in VPN?
AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 146d
Texas and Florida haven't banned it yet.
chunes@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 146d
How exactly are you going to 'disallow' a piece of software?
madsen@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 144d
The comment I replied to said: "There are plenty of people with restricted and surveilled internet", so: through restrictions and surveillance, which is how North Korea, China and Russia mostly goes about it. Prohibiting certain pieces of software (or even algorithms) isn't exactly something new — morally wrong, absolutely, but nothing new.
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 145d
Soon to be all countries in short order, with age controls, the trojan horse.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 146d
Arguable
schwim@piefed.zip · 107 pts · 147d
If anyone missed them removing the "we will never sell your data" from their promise to their users, this is clearly their next step in monetizing their users.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-promise-to-never-sell-personal-data-asks-users-not-to-panic/
KiloGex@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 146d
This is exactly my worry. Usually the reason a VPN is free is because they're selling your data on the backend. No thank you.
3x3@lemy.lol · 101 pts · 147d
“Free” as you pay with your data?
VerPoilu@sopuli.xyz · 68 pts · 147d
~~ No, Mozilla uses Mullvad as a partner, they're a serious and nolog VPN provider.
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/mullvad-vpn-was-subject-to-a-search-warrant-customer-data-not-compromised ~~ EDIT: Didn't read the article, the free VPN won't be using Mullvad apparently.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 147d
It doesn't seem like it, or at least there's zero evidence I've seen that this is the case. As the linked OMG Ubuntu article speculates, probably the main benefit financially is making users more likely to sign up to their paid VPN.
Aside: Based on their blog post, the service seems like a proxy rather than a VPN.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 147d
with a 50GB quota, I actually believe it's free. I use 15-20x that much on an average month.
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 3 pts · 147d
I'm sure that's the condition, to use your data (that they protect of course) to better improve the browser. And I'm sure they are in a country where they don't have to show logs (that I'm sure they don't keep, yet somehow use your data).
They need to stick with just the browser, period. Stop trying to drift into other areas. Firefox has unfortunately gotten too heavy for what it should be, and adding even more features (good or bad) doesn't help the core performance.
The other options out there have their pluses and minuses, but if Firefox keeps pushing people will live with the negatives of the browsers that seem to care about the browsing experience of their users.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 145d
I generally agree but
they are trying to find better ways to finance themselves than google search contracts. that's why they are coming up with all their paid services
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 146d
in which they hand it over to thier cash cow, google.
yaroto98@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 147d
Yep!
blackbeans@lemmy.zip · 65 pts · 146d
Usable addition, and the fact that it is only in-browser is actually a merit in some cases. Firefox gets a lot of hate but is way more privacy centric out of the box compared to Chrome. AI is only opt-in and you can literally customize the entire browser using about:config. Mozilla also maintains the only real competing web engine (not considering Apple's locked in ecosystem) and they are the reason browsers are open source these days.
timroerstroem@feddit.dk · 46 pts · 146d
Not to take anything away from your overall point, which I completely agree with, but this may be a bit of a stretch. All of the "AI" buttons and features are - to my knowledge - on by default. They have made it a lot easier to change that to "off by default now and in the future", which is very welcome, but "only opt-in" is, again, a bit of a stretch.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 146d
Well, yes. In so far as they’ve added a new opt in button, and it would be silly to assume every user wants it off now. Instead, users that previously installed get a “turn off AI here” button when the update happens.
I’d say that’s a good trade off.
Nalivai@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 145d
They added dangerous bullshit that nobody wanted with no good ability to turn it off, and then, year or so later, added a switch to turn it off.
Most of the Firefox users don't want for llm to read web pages for them and group their tabs based on whatever bullshit rules it hallucinated this day. People go to Google and Microslop for this treatment.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 145d
I definitely wouldn’t call “local llm features” dangerous.
Edit: I suppose the tab grouping may not be local? Their docs don’t really specify one way or another. So I could be wrong in that one. The rest is definitely local, minus the “you have to sign in with an llm account” sidebar chat thing.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · -2 pts · 145d
It's not on by default.
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 145d
It was on my computer, on, until well after they implemented it, they allowed an opt out.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 145d
Weird. I was just setting up three Linux laptops and was asked if I wanted to turn these features on every time.
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 145d
I am still on windows, I want to make the switch but my main computer broke, the cursor and the keyboard stopped working despite not being connected to the internet for years. And my backup computer the C drive is almost completely full which I have no fucking idea how that happened as I have barely done anything on this piece of shit. So I'm afraid if I try to download Linux I will end up with no computer that works. I am not a tech guy obviously.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 145d
You could try connecting an external keyboard/mouse to your main computer.
As for the backup one - how much space do you have left? You'd need between 4 and 6 GB to download a Linux ISO and around 2 MB for Rufus with which you'd build a bootable "live USB".
If you don't have even that much, grab WinDirStat to check what exactly is taking up so much space - maybe you can remove some of it.
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 145d
Thanks for the help, I did buy an external keyboard and mouse despite not knowing if that works without authorizing it. Someone else told me I could take apart the back and sometimes the wire comes loose. The old one should have a lot of memory the thing is a beast.
The backup one however the c Drive is like 90 some percent full and keeps sending me messages about clearing up space but I've already done everything I can. I have no idea what is even on the C drive. I barely saved anything, 95% of my music is that my old one, and documents and whatever that's all I save.
Nalivai@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 145d
It absolutely, positively is on by default. Moreover, it's actually quite hard to completely turn off. Even their new fancy switches are sus, but for the longest time you needed to go to about:config and switch like ten different weirdly named parameters to turn everything off.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 145d
Weird. I was just setting up three Linux laptops and was asked if I wanted to turn these features on every time.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 34 pts · 146d
So they know it's you all the traffic comes from?
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca · 17 pts · 146d
Exactly. No thanks. Nothing is ever "free".
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 146d
If something is free then you are the product
qarbone@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 146d
How does that sqaure away with FOSS?
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 145d
You are [building] the product?
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 145d
You are either going to donate, or spread word to others, who will pick it up and donate themselves.
Money still gets made, its just less opportunistic and predatory, and more a reward from those who can afford, to fund for those who cant.
dev_null@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 145d
They also know it's you when you don't use it. I'm not sure how is it worse? Seems like a handy way to go around geoblocks.
Nalivai@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 145d
People's conception of what VPN actually does is skewed by shady ads. Now they hear VPN and assume it's suppose to be this unbreakable anonymizer that somehow also secures you from some unspecified dangers.
sakuraba@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 145d
every fucking youtuber is sponsored with those ads i hate this timeline
its better than betterhelp i guess
dev_null@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 144d
A VPN to me is a way to prevent my ISP from seeing I torrent and to go around geoblocks. It's not a privacy tool at all. So yeah, I'm evaluating them from that angle.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 144d
Uhm, what? Maybe my ISP knows, but they are regulated (at least here). But VPN is a virtual direct-line to another server.
Nalivai@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 144d
Another server that belongs to the same company as your browser, so they have an access to both ends of the direct line. If you don't trust Mozilla to be thrustworthy vpn server (which is good, shouldn't trust anyone), bad news, they already have an access to your whole traffic because they own your browser
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 143d
But unlike the VPN server, the browser is on my end and i can make sure it doesn't rat me out. Coincidentally, my policies.json over the years was almost the same as Waterfox'.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 31 pts · 146d
And how exactly do we know for certain that all that juicy web access data complete linked to whatever identifying information associated with a Mozilla account isn't going to be sold?!
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 146d
The same could be said about any VPN out there. Read the ToS and privacy policy, and either believe it or don’t.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 146d
True, but Mozilla being what it had been the past few years I trust them no further than I can throw them
Edit: pay the few dollars for mullvad
kungfuratte@feddit.org · 14 pts · 145d
Yeah, sadly Mozilla lost most of the trust one would have given to them in advance a few years ago.
imjustmsk@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 145d
Of course, my mozilla account will have the name John Smith and I was born in 1996.
Evotech@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 146d
Same as every other vpn???
Nalivai@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 145d
Other vpns aren't integrated into your browser that you're globally logged in into.
Evotech@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 145d
Nah just integrated in your machine
Nalivai@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 142d
I mean, depending on the word integrated. Everything is integrated in a sense. But it's harder to be more integrated than being literally the same app.
AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social · 29 pts · 147d
For everyone who thinks this is just gonna be a way for them to somehow sell your data, I don't think so.
Think about it like this. You can buy a VPN plan for as little as $2 a month or less depending on the provider if you have a long-term commitment (e.g. 1-2 years). That pricing includes margin.
Firefox can essentially operate at lower prices than that, because they:
I would bet this would probably cost Mozilla less than a dollar per user per month, and that's also assuming all those users are continuing to use the VPN service over time, maxing out their data limit, but refusing to pay for anything else after.
Meanwhile, Mozilla conveniently sells their own VPN service provided through Mullvad, which they make a profit on.
If a user cares enough to continue using the VPN because they want a VPN, they'll blow through the data limit and be more inclined than the average user to pay for Mozilla's option. (rather than going "I guess I'll only care about my privacy for 5 days out of the month")
If a user doesn't care enough to continue using the VPN because they were just trying it out, but they chose to use Firefox because it had a free VPN bundled in, which sold them on it over another browser, Mozilla just paid less than an ad would cost for a conversion.
And at the end of the day, it also just helps keep up their reputation as a browser that respects your privacy, which makes it easier to promote the browser elsewhere, in ads or otherwise.
This feels more like a marketing ploy that's likely to just save money on ad conversions for new Firefox users, and increase Mozilla VPN conversions, rather than something they're gonna use to super secretly siphon off your data and sell it to advertisers.
XLE@piefed.social · 12 pts · 147d
I think it would be better to compare this offer to well-known VPN providers instead of all VPN providers, since the sketchiest ones tend to have the lowest prices. The two reputable ones I can think of, Proton and Mullvad, both cost over $5/month. But cost is only half of the picture: They've also earned their reputation through a lot of time, effort, audits, even government raids.
Regardless, you have some good points. Let's take for granted that Mozilla will not attempt to share or sell user data with this free service, that it's all above-board (a fair assumption): They still have to build their reputation from zero.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 4 pts · 146d
Then why are they not offering at least a low cost subscription? Why are they spending money on infrastructure and support but getting no revenue in return?
Either they are okay with losing even more money, OR they plan to enshittify.
For this and many many other reasons, it's time to switch to a privacy fork like LibreWolf or WaterFox
AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social · 6 pts · 146d
I already addressed this in my comment. If you want me to expand on how they most definitely can make money from something like this, Mozilla:
If this feature brings in new users, they can get revenue from any of these 3 sources, especially the sponsored listings. If this feature is just a benefit for existing users that might have already changed all their defaults and disabled sponsored content, it increases the chance of VPN conversions and donations, and increases the likelihood someone will recommend Firefox to a friend.
Or they're trying to get and retain users, which helps them make money from existing revenue options without having to make anything worse, while also providing a beneficial feature. I'm not saying there's no chance they'll enshittify, but I don't think unconditional pessimism is the right move here.
I can't speak to Waterfox myself, but I would agree with saying LibreWolf is a good idea if you care.
I just personally haven't bothered switching since Firefox currently works fine for me, and anything they've done I dislike is fairly easy to just disable in settings and never see again.
Orygin@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 147d
Get out of here with your level headed take. The pitchforks already have been distributed and it has been decided Mozilla will sell the data asap! /s
Routhinator@startrek.website · 27 pts · 146d
Processed by LLMs no doubt.
I loved Mozilla for years but trust nothing from them these days.
Reygle@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 145d
Looking forward to seeing people complain that they got caught torrenting while the "Firefox vpn" was turned on because nobody understands how anything fucking works any more.
Thaurin@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 145d
Right, this is just a proxy, isn’t it?
Reygle@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 145d
If it's running inside Firefox, it can only encrypt/modify Firefox's traffic.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 14 pts · 146d
Yeah, but they also added an AI feature that's enabled by default that I never asked for.
And I normally advocate for Firefox. It's been a good solid privacy focused browser for a while but now I'm starting to think maybe not as much.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 146d
Still better than the Chrome-alikes, but all the same I've switched to Librewolf. Problem is, foss mozilla teams like Librewolf are small and underfunded, and their ability to continue sanitizing and debloating the app forever is not garaunteed. A new vanguard FOSS browser project is needed, ideally one that continues the Netscape lineage of open and non-coercive web standards with a more durable and democratic organizational structure.
RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 146d
Ladybird alpha is schedueled for 2026. Hopefully that has a beneficial impact.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 146d
Absolutely
Photonic@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 146d
How is it better than something like Vivaldi
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 146d
Vivaldi is Chromium, which I avoid because I consider it an advertising corporation's attempt to erode open web standards.
Tattorack@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 147d
This announcement comes suspiciously close to the announcement of them including a lot more AI bullshit.
How far Firefox has fallen. This is really sad to see.
sexy_peach@feddit.org · 7 pts · 145d
Aha so that's why they have been sabotaging themselves in the last few years. To allow for higher bandwidth per user on their vpn!!
Eternal192@anarchist.nexus · 7 pts · 147d
Just use Mullvad then instead of this roundabout way of using Mullvad.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 147d
ofc, this is a free alternative, not a mullvad competitor
XLE@piefed.social · 2 pts · 147d
"Just use Mullvad instead" is good advice compared to almost any other option.
Unfortunate that to get this experience in Firefox, we will have to disable a built-in feature and download some extension.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 146d
idk about you, but when I use a VPN I want all the device's traffic to go through it, not just the browser. So I'd always disable the built-in feature in that case.
victorz@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 146d
This isn't using Mullvad.
pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 145d
Bloefz@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 146d
Interesting. I'd actually pay for an in browser VPN, it's handy to be able to switch countries on the fly. Ideally even per browser tab.
I would not however pay for Mozilla's mullvad thing. I don't like mullvad since they dropped port forwarding and OpenVPN. I use proton now for that. But in the browser is a different usecase for me.
It's just weird that it's not possible to pay for this but only for the thing I don't want.
AlecSadler@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 146d
I keep hearing about people dropping Mullvad for port forwarding...why do y'all need port forwarding while trying to stay anonymous?
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 146d
AFAIK torrent. But I've been torrenting all my life without port forward and I have all the seasons from my favorite Linux distros,.
anon_8675309@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 146d
If I can’t download it without jumping through yet more hoops, I’m sure I don’t really need that particular Linux distribution.
vl1t0@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 146d
It is basically a requirement in most private trackers. Either because it literally is, or to be able to hit seeding limits quickly.
Bloefz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 146d
Torrents, you can't peer with other people behind NAT.
blackbeans@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 146d
The free option is limited to a certain amount of GB. Mozilla can upsell an unlimited version in the future. Likely the reason they don't do that right from the start, is that their VPN network is completely new and it's hard to judge the network capacity needed.
Bullerfar@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 146d
I don't trust mozilla though.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 146d
And an ai watchdog to keep you clean
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · -2 pts · 145d
Holy shit, people really lose any rationality when it comes to AI, don't they?
Mozilla mentioned integrating AI, got flak for it, reversed gears. Everything is optional and opt-in now.
And yet, a third of comments here are crying about Big Bad Firefox AI coming to eat them at night.
bagbrugsen@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 146d
Firefox ftw. Thanks firefox for making my surfing great.
adespoton@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 147d
Great… so now workplaces will have to default-block Firefox to lock down their networks.
Atherel@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 146d
Company managed settings
ozoned@piefed.social · 1 pts · 146d
imjustmsk@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 145d
Why do you need a free vpn, it's gonna be slow anyway and in that case I guess tor is completely free and like the best anonymity you'd ever get just by downloading a browser.
Jollyllama@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 145d
You don't live in a state that blocks porn and it shows.
imjustmsk@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 144d
Well ye that's true.
rmrf@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 145d
How much does your VPN cost?
Also, whatever Firefox puts out there is not gonna be slower than TOR which has 3x the encryption and routing overhead of a typical VPN and also has no SLA guarantees at all. There's a reason a middle-ground exists between no tunnel and mega 3x tunnel, and there's nothing wrong with saving a few bucks if all you want to do is not be as profitable to data aggregators
TL:DR; stop making shit up
imjustmsk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 144d
oopsy I don't know not a big fan of browser bloating up, Ig I am wrong though my past experience with free vons weren't that good, and I always ended up using tor.
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 147d
Yeah... #doubt
Satomune@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 146d
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 146d
Make a crypto wallet add on. Make a VPN with crypto payment channel settled once a week. Charge fair price of 2-5 cents per GB.
Alternarively use probabilistic payments but that's bit of inconsistent for the end user
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 146d
Go use brave if you want to use a crypto trash browser
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 146d
*crapto
XLE@piefed.social · 1 pts · 146d
Remember when people said "go to Brave if you want a built-in VPN trash browser"?
Just give it a few months