They have many gains from the data they shared. This also includes witnessed data by internal employees to even discover what had to be trimmed down or censored before public release. And then some of those employees moved to other companies and copied the strategy into something profitable. Their ethos was not appropriately measurable and auditable to the degree necessary going forward; it needed to be axed. It's like Google saying do no evil; the sands of time revealed these points unsustainable and limiting to even achieve their objectives in a vacuum. Funding is a security issue. Easy privacy is nice, but the industry needs a lot of work and people have to eat while we test the risky innovations that will make the future shine. Mozilla is still providing great steps to ensure someone somewhere can still make achievable best practices available for all, and when they fail we'll be there to clean up the mess.

some are subcomponents of the main disabled feature. i checked this on my browser which was only modified by GUI, and nothing i saw 'enabled' was actually enabled, but instead a subfeature of what I had disabled.

I could give you some very long stories related to this. In the end of it, it comes down to how can they 'sterilize' the avenues of data collection and allow more opt-out scenarios, and more nuanced potentials that would provide comfort in your browsing habits and privacy desires. It remains to be seen how the situation pans out, but this isn't a 100% done with them action. They have opportunities here, and we'll see if their course turns evil or not.

The premise of 'sharing' and then receiving something from who you shared with IS a form of selling. If Mozilla .never. shared data,,, are you sure you 'can words'?

Mozilla shares your data under certain circumstances. This helps people realize that Mozilla is able to share your data, regardless of 'selling' potential. Some people assumed 'we dont sell your data' meant 'we dont share your data' when that was impossible for the definition of how some built in features work.

That .is. an improvement. That does not change my position. Share is synonymous to sell when you consider the spread of data. Mozilla was not fully clarifying this is the reason for change in vernacular, and many people felt 'fooled' into thinking 'we dont sell your data' means 'we dont share your data'

If mozilla passed our anonymized data to a third party to enable a feature, that explains the change in vernacular. Many people consider this 'selling' because as with data brokers, there doesn't have to be a direct monetary transaction for mutual benefits to be traded. This was a good move, with a trigger happy crowd trying to take down our best support against data broker monopolies. We should be asking Mozilla to improve our ability to personally remove participation in this collection, not slamming them for clarifying their stance.

are you using isp dns? try third party like quad9 test the issue on VPN next time

Because the presidency is openly controlled by a data broker lol. No one has stronger blackmail