Cook’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by screwing up git commands.”

Before continuing, I want to specify that I’m agreeing with you but clarifying the situation because there is a business interest involved here.

The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit with several wholly-owned, for-profit business subsidiaries, most notably the Mozilla Corporation. The Corporation markets and distributes several Mozilla products, including the Firefox browser, as well as its other commercial ventures like Pocket. The corporate subsidiaries’ profits do get returned to the owner of those businesses, which is the Foundation.

I would replace that “aggregated and anonymized” with an and/or, as that is consistent with the language in Mozilla’s privacy policy. The distinction is fairly important because de-anonymizing user data is a practice of its own and exactly what it sounds like.

Now, is the data which Mozilla “shares with” (sells to) its partners anonymized reliably enough that the identity of the person it relates to can never be rediscovered? Granting Mozilla the benefit of the doubt, if it is sufficiently anonymous today, could future developments lead to de-anonymization of that data at a later date? This could include leaks, cyber-attacks directed at Mozilla, AI-assisted statistical analysis of bulk data, etc.

All of this sucks, but I’m going to specifically complain that the first edit just makes no sense. The old terms say “Super free, actually” and then explain how super free is different from free. The edited version just defines super free the same way every normal human defines free: “You don’t pay anything to use it.” What’s super about using words for their intended meaning?