Ooops, I posted a reply to someone earlier and got it right (and forgot this one). Thanks for the heads up (fixed now)!

This is a federation issue.

The link is: https://www.quippd.com/writing/2026/02/02/fifteen-years-of-waterfox-alex-kontos-on-independence-ai-and-the-future-of-browsers.html

deleted by creator

Interestingly, I just interviewed the Waterfox developer, who actually references Oblivious HTTP and his interest in developing this into a paid feature for Waterfox.

I added a section to my post with some additional comment.

I began thinking of privacy because Mozilla was clearly thinking of it when designing this feature, but I don’t think they really thought it through.

People’s browsers are visiting pages that they never intended to. If a random extension did that, you would say that it was violating your privacy. The browser does it, and you get people defending it as “optional”. Yes, but the user never installed the malware extension that is leaking your privacy. It is your browser doing it in an automated update.

If you don’t think this is a privacy issue, why doesn’t the next version of Firefox just visit every page on every page that I visit, so that when I hover over a link, I can get a link preview immediately, without needing to wait. That would save me some real time and effort!

As opposed to the case where you don’t have a link preview, and you click on a website to see what it contains, and they get your IP. The author seems to think Mozilla should have protected our privacy by having someone act as the proxy for the request. Because involving a thirds party that receives all these requests and does work for us for free is absolutely how we protect our privacy.

But that is exactly what Mozilla is telling us – trust us.

Why was the feature added if my browser is going to browse to the page anyway? What is the value add? I was looking for some way for it to make sense - ah right, it could be a privacy preserving feature - I can preview the link and verify whether I want to visit it before I actually visit it. But that isn’t how it works.

Yes, a feature clearly designed for pushing onto that juicy “people with mobility impairments” userbase.

Love that you ignore all of the people who are currently seeing the popups and not understanding why.

Pretty shocking that something this bad was pushed to you, then, no?

Can you explain how they might be more beneficial than simply visiting the link and clicking back if it isn’t what you wanted? Sincerely curious.

deleted by creator

The output of the LLM can be incorporated into copyrighted material and is copyright free. I never claimed that the copyright on the original work was lost.

I’m posting from Fedia and am not picking an image at all, so it definitely feels like a federation issue.

EDIT: See https://lemmy.today/post/44634337

It is, there might be a federation issue if you aren’t seeing it.

https://www.quippd.com/writing/2026/01/06/architecting-consent-for-ai-deceptive-patterns-in-firefox-link-previews.html

That is absolutely not true. It doesn’t remove the copyright from the original work and no court has ruled as such.

Sorry, I just got around to this message. That is the idea of the provenance – clearly, the canonical work is copyright. It is the version that has been stripped of its provenance via the LLM that no longer retains its copyright (because as I pointed out, LLM outputs cannot be copyright).

I can read your code, learn from it, and create my own code with the knowledge gained from your code without violating an OSS license.

Why is Clean-room design a thing then?

You can’t “train” on code you haven’t copied. That is kind of obvious, right? So did they have the right to copy and then reproduce the work without attribution?

Training proprietary LLMs on open source code is shitty, rent-seeking behavior, but not really a unique development, and certainly not something that undermines the core value of open source.

Destroying “share alike” doesn’t undermine the core value of open source? What IS the core value?

That’s the TIME magazine cover, buddy.

Copyleft software isn’t supposed to just be repackaged as proprietary, though. Permissive licenses, sure - but people know what they were signing up for (presumably) there.

Do you understand how free software works? Did you read the post? I’d love to clarify, but I’m not going to rewrite the article.

I wonder if the whole purpose of promotion of FOSS by big companies was, long-term, this. Finding some way to abuse openness and collect for free the resource that becomes digital oil in the next stage, but only for those who own the foundries - computing resources for ML, that is.

Even if it wasn’t, it seems that they are perfectly fine with it now.