[dspillett]

That paragraph says some things that they can do. It in no way says they won't use your content for AI training and any number of other things.

Mozilla's point is that the whole document is sufficiently vague that they could use it to defend pretty much whatever use of your content that conceive of now or in the near future.

[grabeh]

Why would they single out those specific uses then, if you consider express prohibitions are necessary?

[dspillett]

To make it look, on cursory reading, like the policy is something you are comfortable to agree to. Legal theatre.

Also because those specific uses are mentioned in existing law and/or have been otherwise successfully defended. It gives their lawyers as many explicit tools as possible, before they need to argue around the implicit ones enabled by their policies & agreements being deliberately more vague elsewhere.

The point is that if they don't say that they won't, then they pretty much can if they choose to.

[grabeh]

Interesting! A rather cynical approach. Although preferable to naivety on my part - I'd expect a court to hold the list exhaustive if challenged.