[lolinder]

Yeah, I'm pretty uncomfortable with Waterfox because of that episode. In the HN thread the creator responded to complaints about this privacy-unfriendly turn by saying that they "tried to stay away from branding Waterfox as" being about privacy or user control. That's fine, but an immediate turnoff for me even now that the advertising company is apparently out of the picture.

If Waterfox isn't about privacy or user control, who knows where it gets sold next or what the dev adds to it next?

Edit: I just realized that the dev is the one who wrote the grandparent comment. Maybe you have an explanation that would help?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22343476

[MrAlex94]

Well the issue I’ve always found is that privacy is a sliding scale. At the time especially, everyone was after “absolute” privacy - i.e. everything Tor offers. But people were coming in to use Waterfox with that expectation and it wasn’t meeting it - but communicating how “much” privacy you’re being offered is difficult. I did settle on the current terminology and when people ask in user forums I try and make it clear that it’s a balance of usability and privacy - as much as possible without breaking websites.

Not sure I agree with your understanding wrt Waterfox not being about user control? Always has been and the feature set matches that and that hasn’t changed.

[lolinder]

Well, this is the opening line from that comment:

> > Those needs are privacy related and having control over the software you use.

> That’s fair enough, but I’ve tried to stay away from branding Waterfox as such to try and avoid issues like this.

I guess maybe you were only talking about privacy and not about "having control over the software"?