I didn't have this on my 2025 bingo.
The full TOS TOU is here, https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ and the full AUP is here, https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/

Highlight relevant to e6 and The Furry Community^TM

Firefox's new TOS:
[...] Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations. [...]

Mozilla's Acceptable Use Policy:
[...] You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to: [...] Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence, [...]

For reference unless you blacklist rating:explicit you automatically download (into the browser cache) and display thumbnails of graphic depictions of sexuality any time you view Posts i.e. what is considered the main/default page of e6 (after the welcome banner).
Using e6 is a Firefox TOS violation. Browsing X without content filters is a TOS violation. You watch Game of Thrones? TOS violation.
(The Mozilla AUP is not new, it's from 2019; the TOS explicitly stating the AUP applies to Firefox and not just nebulous "Mozilla Services" such as their VPN, however, is new.)

EDIT: Mozilla has removed the link from Firefox's terms to the Mozilla AUP:

In addition, we’ve removed the reference to the Acceptable Use Policy because it seems to be causing more confusion than clarity.

Also technically it's a Terms of Use not of Service so every time I've called it a TOS I've been wrong.

I love the smell of fearmongering in the afternoon

Uhh, WHAT? Is it bad that I'm commenting this from Firefox for Android?

what'r they gonna do? ban me from Firefox?

all this likely is so that they have a legal shield of anyone tries to implicate them in any cyber crime.

"We're not responsible, that user was breaking ToS and using the product improperly."

I wonder if Firefox is doing this because they want to train their own AI, so they don't want any adult content used on their browser?

Which means any sense of privacy when using Firefox is about to be removed? It sounds like Firefox really wants to know your data so they can sell it but doesn't want to see anything bad.

As I see in https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/

"You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."

dba_afish said:
what'r they gonna do? ban me from Firefox?

all this likely is so that they have a legal shield of anyone tries to implicate them in any cyber crime.

"We're not responsible, that user was breaking ToS and using the product improperly."

Well, with their new terms if you upload an image when using Firefox you are essentially giving Firefox all license rights to that image and they are allowed to do whatever they want with it. They do not claim ownership of the image, but have the license to do whatever they want to use the data for. Such as, training an AI.

casmin7~ said:
Well, with their new terms if you upload an image when using Firefox you are essentially giving Firefox all license rights to that image and they are allowed to do whatever they want with it. They do not claim ownership of the image, but have the license to do whatever they want to use the data for. Such as, training an AI.

Why is everything an ai conspiracy now

Firefox is not obviously 'any of Mozilla's services'. A web server -- such as Mozilla's HTML and CSS reference sites -- is obviously a service. An non-SAAS application is not obviously a service, that's why the term SAAS even exists.
So I would take that combination of clauses to mean that Mozilla has services that you could in theory use Firefox to upload such content to, and such usage would be a violation of Firefox ToS (in addition to a violation of service ToS, which it probably already was)
It's probably a change made in response to somebody actually doing that.

A broader interpretation might be allowed for, for CYA purposes as dba suggests, but as a rule of thumb, narrower interpretations are almost always more defensible (whether in a court of law or outside it). Laypeople will routinely fail to do so, but I imagine the authors of this are overall more concerned with what interpretation a court might take.

donovan_dmc said:
I love the smell of fearmongering in the afternoon

?

I was going for "look how silly this is, this AUP doesn't make sense for a web browser" not "the sky is falling Firefox is going to remotely brick your install for being a furry"

This is just Mozilla fumbling PR as usual, like the "we're going to advertise Mr. Robot by making your browser automatically highlight certain words on web pages" or "we're testing AI integration in Firefox and we default to non-local models."
Or that time they used extremely unhinged language when talking about a process that simply checking to see if Firefox is default (due to all of Microsoft's browser-default-overriding shenanigans).

The Default Browser Agent is a Windows-only scheduled task which runs in the background to collect and submit data about the browser that the user has set as their OS default (that is, the browser that will be invoked by the operating system to open web links that the user clicks on in other programs). Its purpose is to help Mozilla understand user’s default browser choices and, in the future, to engage with users at a time when they may not be actively running Firefox.

I mean who thought this was good wording to use, given Firefox's main audience?

Hell I think even when Mozilla makes good decisions they manage to ruin their PR. Or neutral decisions. Or any decisions, actually.

Regarding the actual TOS I'm genuinely amazed they've managed to word it so badly. The intended reading is probably "if you deliberately engage with our AI chatbot we can keep the prompt you sent it" or "if you send a crash report we're allowed to have that data" but they somehow got people thinking Mozilla is claiming everything you input to any website. Like they even have the storage capacity for that much data, or the EU wouldn't throw GPDR at them so fast it'd make their heads spin.

donovan_dmc said:
Why is everything an ai conspiracy now

Does seem to be the modern talking point this days, good point.

Its just the timing of this being weeks after the President of Mozilla talked about advancing his own AI found here: (soon after their 2024 redefining Mozilla in the AI era Article on their website)

https://www.emergingtechbrew.com/stories/2025/02/07/mozilla-president-mark-surman-open-source-ai

Quote: "we really want a vibrant next era of AI. We think that open-source AI is going to be key to that, and we think Mozilla can be a player in making it possible. So what that’s meant is we’ve had to start to transform Mozilla, which is the browser company and an advocacy organization at its heart, to being an organization that brings in more talent that is focused on AI, starts investing in other responsible tech startups that are focused on AI, and starts to also experiment with responsible AI in the context of Firefox."

It sounds much like a case of "covering their butt", which is usually what said disclaimers end up being used for. While there certainly are resources in place to monitor end user activity (I'm looking at you Google Chrome)...actual enforcement tends to be rare.

From a very quick glance on Reddit, the consensus seems to be that Firefox isn't a "service", so the porn thing doesn't apply. They're more concerned about Mozilla removing mentions of "we don't sell your data", as well as this new clause.

When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Incidentally, with Google possibly being forced to sell Chrome soon due to having a "monopoly", it could result in Mozilla losing over half of its income. If you didn't know, Mozilla's main source of income is literally just Google paying them to keep Google as Firefox's default search engine. I'm just spitballing here, but with regards to removing "we don't sell your data", perhaps they're looking into new ways to make money if Google loses Chrome...

Watch this sort of language be in Netscape's license agreement.

alphamule said:
Watch this sort of language be in Netscape's license agreement.

It's pretty much the same with most software. You buy permission to use a copy, not the actual software itself.

That's just the usual legalese speech that everything online has (probably even e621 itself lol)

It pretty much means that they can display content you upload through Firefox; for example, if you drag and drop something.
It only exists because some people in the US are lawsuit-happy AND really stupid

potentialgoat said:
-fearmongering nonsense-

I would like to point out that these "new policies" aren't actually new, and as Mozilla pointed out, were needed to be put into a separate area for their continued support. Also, the "depictions of sexuality or violence" is referring to the very much illegal forms of it.

In classic Mozilla fashion they realized about two days late that they might have fucked up and released an updated statement that doesn't actually calm anyone down because Mozilla is incapable of good PR.

"We can't legally say 'we don't sell your data' because the definition of 'sell' is too broad, but we don't 'sell' your data the way most people think of as 'selling'. [quotes California's definition which is extremely specific and covers exactly what most people would think of as 'selling']"
"To stay commercially viable we share your data with our partners [Mozilla owns both an ad company and an AI company]"
I guarantee if they were honest instead of trying to weasel out of admitting it people would be less mad.

Also bonus I just realized that they started this fiasco literally the day Google killed Manifest v2, i.e. Firefox had free good press from the privacy-focused community aaaaaaaaaaand they shot themself in the foot.

bird-tm said:

-fearmongering nonsense-

I thought "The Furry Community^TM" was sufficient to get across how unseriously I'm taking this.

That's just dumb legal language for "we need your permission to make the browser work", they should have explained in English, but hey, they chose to shoot themselves in the legs (this time) again and halve their userbase to less than 2% of market share.
Next time, they will effectively commit suicide.

Reminds me of how, every now and then on any given platform, someone would actually bother to read the TOS of the thing they signed up for a zillion years ago and see the scary language about granting non-exclusive license to the platform holders blah blah blah, and have a public freakout about how "They're making us sign over the rights to our art!" And then it gets reposted by a million people and at least a handful immediately delete their accounts and then if you're lucky enough to be following someone who actually knows how this shit works, they'll chime in and point out that this is just the standard boilerplate legalese that they need to have in order to actually run a functioning website where people can actually look at the stuff you drew.

Of course that was before all the websites started actually making us sign away the rights to our work so they could something-something AI ??? profit, but that's another topic.

errorist said:
Reminds me of how, every now and then on any given platform, someone would actually bother to read the TOS of the thing they signed up for a zillion years ago and see the scary language about granting non-exclusive license to the platform holders blah blah blah, and have a public freakout about how "They're making us sign over the rights to our art!" And then it gets reposted by a million people and at least a handful immediately delete their accounts and then if you're lucky enough to be following someone who actually knows how this shit works, they'll chime in and point out that this is just the standard boilerplate legalese that they need to have in order to actually run a functioning website where people can actually look at the stuff you drew.

Of course that was before all the websites started actually making us sign away the rights to our work so they could something-something AI ??? profit, but that's another topic.

To be fair, Blizzard wishes they had their reforged TOS for the original game, as then LOL and other spin offs could and would have never existed as they'd have the monopoly with their own trademarked version of Dota that only they could own.

As well as the other successful original WC3 custom maps before Blizz said "lol no we own it now"