Mozilla has updated its Terms of Use and Privacy Notice for Firefox to improve clarity and transparency. The updated terms are written in simpler language, making them easier for users to understand their rights and Mozilla's responsibilities. The revised Privacy Notice clarifies data collection practices, emphasizing that Mozilla collects only necessary data for product improvement and personalized experiences, while respecting user privacy. These changes reflect Mozilla's ongoing commitment to user privacy and data protection.
Twitch is implementing a 100-hour upload limit per rolling 30-day period for most partners and affiliates, starting April 19, 2024. Content exceeding this limit will be progressively deleted, oldest first. This change aims to improve discoverability and performance, with VODs, Highlights, and Clips still permanently downloadable before deletion. Twitch promises more storage options in the future but offers no concrete details. Partners who require more than 100 hours can appeal for increased capacity.
HN commenters largely criticized Twitch's decision to limit past broadcast storage to 100 hours and delete excess content. Many saw this as a cost-cutting measure detrimental to creators, particularly smaller streamers who rely on VODs for growth and highlight reels. Some suggested alternative solutions like tiered storage options or allowing creators to download their content. The lack of prior notice and the short timeframe for downloading archives were also major points of concern, with users expressing frustration at the difficulty of downloading large amounts of data quickly. The potential loss of valuable content, including unique moments and historical records of streams, was lamented. Several commenters speculated on technical reasons behind the decision but ultimately viewed it negatively, impacting trust in the platform.
Summary of Comments ( 1027 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909
HN commenters largely express skepticism and frustration with Mozilla's updated terms of service and privacy notice. Several point out the irony of a privacy-focused organization using broad language around data collection, especially concerning "legitimate interests" and unspecified "service providers." The lack of clarity regarding what data is collected and how it's used is a recurring concern. Some users question the necessity of these changes and express disappointment with Mozilla seemingly following the trend of other tech companies towards less transparent data practices. A few commenters offer more supportive perspectives, suggesting the changes might be necessary for legal compliance or to improve personalized services, but these views are in the minority. Several users also call for more specific examples of what constitutes "legitimate interests" and more details on the involved "service providers."
The Hacker News post "Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox," linking to a Mozilla blog post, generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on skepticism and mild criticism of the changes. There wasn't overwhelming engagement, but several commenters expressed concerns and observations worth noting.
A significant thread discussed the seemingly redundant nature of having both a Privacy Notice and Terms of Use, with some arguing that the core principles of privacy should be enshrined within the Terms of Use themselves rather than separated into a distinct document. Users questioned the practical implications of this separation and whether it diluted the commitment to privacy.
Some commenters expressed frustration with the length and complexity of legal documents like these, suggesting that they are rarely read thoroughly by average users and serve primarily to protect the company rather than inform the user. The perceived opacity of such documents was a recurring theme.
Specific points of contention arose regarding the language used in the documents. For example, the inclusion of clauses related to account suspension and content removal raised concerns about potential censorship and the arbitrary application of these rules. Commenters also debated the implications for browser extensions and add-ons, questioning whether the new terms might limit functionality or impose restrictions on developers.
A few users questioned the timing of these changes, speculating about possible external pressures or internal shifts within Mozilla that might have prompted the update. However, these comments remained speculative and lacked concrete evidence.
Several commenters pointed out the lack of significant changes in the actual substance of the policies, suggesting that the update was primarily a restructuring and clarification rather than a substantial shift in Mozilla's approach to privacy or user data. This observation led to further discussion on the value and purpose of such updates.
Finally, some users expressed a general distrust of all companies regarding data privacy, regardless of their stated policies. This sentiment reflected a broader skepticism about the efficacy of online privacy protections in the current digital landscape.