The Fall of a Privacy Icon

Mozilla, once celebrated as a stalwart of user privacy and FOSS ideals, is facing fierce backlash after quietly updating its policy to claim a “nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license” to use data uploaded or input through Firefox. The clause, buried in its terms of service, has left users, contributors and digital rights advocates stunned.

For decades, Mozilla’s success was rooted in the open-source community’s collective effort. Thousands of developers, volunteers, and advocates contributed code, localized Firefox for global audiences, and evangelized its mission of a “healthier internet.” From grassroots campaigns to replace Internet Explorer in the 2000s to fighting against surveillance laws, Mozilla’s achievements were never solely its own—they belonged to the global community that built and nurtured it.

“Mozilla was supposed to be the people’s browser. Its code was ours. Its values were ours. Now, it’s exploiting the very trust we helped create,” is the voice being echoed by the Firefox contributors.

Yet today, Mozilla appears to have traded principles for profit, eroding trust in one of the last remaining alternatives to BigTech-controlled browsers. The new policy mirrors the data exploitation tactics of Big Tech giants and entities Mozilla long positioned itself against.

Mozilla’s policy shift isn’t just about data rights—it poses a greater danger of how easily institutions think the community is disposable without accountability. At the heart of this controversy is a critical failure: the lack of public consultation.

Consequences: Mozilla rose to prominence by positioning itself as the antidote to Silicon Valley’s data exploitation. Yet, by quietly claiming broad rights to user data, it now mirrors the extractive practices it once condemned. This isn’t merely ironic—it actively undermines the fight for a trustworthy internet. When an organization built on resisting surveillance capitalism becomes a participant, it legitimizes the very systems it sought to dismantle.
The Transparency Void: Open-source projects thrive on collective governance. Historically, Mozilla involved its community in major decisions, from feature updates to privacy policies. This time, however, the policy change was introduced unilaterally, bypassing the open dialogue that once defined its ethos.
Why Consultation Matters: Public consultation isn’t a bureaucratic formality—it’s a safeguard against mission drift. For a project like Firefox, whose codebase and advocacy rely on volunteer contributors and user trust, sidelining the community fractures its social contract. Mozilla’s failure to consult its community isn’t just a misstep—it’s been seen as a betrayal of the open-web movement’s core tenets. For decades, its credibility hinged on being “of the people, by the people.” By discarding that compact, it risks becoming yet another opaque corporation, alienating the very contributors who sustain it.
Alternatives Demand Collective Action: The fallout isn’t just a critique—it’s a rallying cry. Mozilla’s lapse exposes the fragility of relying on institutions that lack enforceable accountability to users. The answer lies in community-driven models, where transparency and participation are non-negotiable.

Power to the People: The phrase “Power to the People” is more than a slogan—it’s a blueprint for rebuilding technology as a public good. At its core, this model shifts authority from corporate boardrooms to communities, ensuring that tools are shaped by those who use them. Here’s the proposal on how it should work:

Community-Sourced Funding: Money Without Strings
Traditional tech giants and even many nonprofits rely on opaque funding structures—venture capital, targeted ads, or corporate grants—that inevitably prioritize profit or donor interests. In contrast, community-sourced funding democratizes financial power:

Community/Crowdfunding & Micro-Donations: Small contributions from thousands of users, rather than massive corporate sponsors, ensure accountability to the public.
Transparent Allocation: Every rupee/dollar is publicly tracked. Donors see exactly how funds are used—whether for server costs, developer stipends, or training workshops.
Ethical Grants & Partnerships: Collaborations with governments or nonprofits align with community needs, not shareholder returns. Money from any source has to come without strings.

Why It Matters: When people fund technology, they own its direction. No hidden agendas, no data monetization—just tools built for collective benefit.

Democratic Decision-Making: From Code to Policy
In corporate-led models, decisions about features, data policies, or priorities are made behind closed doors. Community-driven projects invert this hierarchy:

Open Forums & Town Halls: Platforms like public forums, decentralized voting systems, or participatory budgeting allow users and contributors to debate priorities.
Meritocracy with Guardrails: While technical expertise guides development, governance frameworks (e.g., elected steering committees) ensure marginalized voices aren’t drowned out.
Policy Co-Creation: Terms of service, privacy policies, and ethical guidelines are drafted collaboratively. Imagine Mozilla’s controversial clause being put to a community vote—it never would have passed.

Sustainability Through Collective Ownership
Critics argue community models can’t scale. They’re wrong.

Shared Infrastructure: Collaborative networks (e.g., federated servers, volunteer cloud resources) reduce costs.
Skill-Based Contributions: Not everyone donates money. Developers write code, designers improve UX, and activists spread awareness—all roles valued equally.
Long-Term Stewardship: By diversifying funding (donations, grants, partnerships) and decentralizing control, projects avoid the boom-bust cycles of venture-backed startups.

The two decades of our intervention ie Swecha-FSMI Model given us more learnings on ensuring sustainability with community participation and ownership. We shall release our learnings in the subsequent posts.

The lesson is clear: Ethical tech cannot exist without democratic governance. If Mozilla won’t uphold that standard, the community must—and will—build alternatives that do.

- Kiran Chandra
General Secretary