>>106269925
>So using a browser that might collect your data = bad
LOL
Lets translate this
>So using a browser that 800% collect your data and is so evil it now demand you agree to a TOS = bad
YES FAGOT!

>Using a browser that we know collects data
Lets translate this
>Using a browser that can collect your data and has been fined for it multiple times THAT DID NOT REQUIRE A TOS = good.
YES FAGOT!

Because if they break the law they will get fined.
FF is so evil they want a TOS to get legal protection for going 900000% 1984 at this point.

>>106270020
>If my data is being collected. Might as well have a functional browser attached to it.
This also however

>But now that that's out the window
NO NO NO NO NO!

FF is not le collection data like all the browsers they are so unhinged they demand you sign a TOS or literally no internet!

This must be some next level criminal shit for them to do that not the normie spyware of all the chrome forks.

And like stated before TOS is super evil because if the chrome forks overstep their data collection they get punished SJW-zilla is doing this to cover their asses legally. Let this sink in!

PS: The most comical part is that FF is a dead browser with a nonexistent user base I understand if google chrome says
>Agree to TOS or no internet!
Since they are like 99% of all browsers and can push this.

WTF dose FF have? a handful of schizos and human failures who uses it unironically?