As a Firefox user: if I want a VPN I'll use an actual VPN. Focus on making a great browser, and not all this distraction.<p>Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"
> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"<p>This is such a un-nuanced take.<p>In this case Firefox's route-to-market is the product. It's a distribution channel where some people who receive the free version will upgrade.<p>Free tiers for products where some will pay to upgrade seems like a reasonable compromise, but it does depend on how the deal is structured.<p>If Mullvad pays Firefox for the free users then Firefox's incentives are aligned with its users.<p>If Mullvad pays per conversion then it's a different story.
Mozilla only makes the integration between the browser and the VPN, not the VPN network itself - Mozilla VPN is white label Mullvad.
According to <a href="https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/03/firefox-adding-a-free-vpn" rel="nofollow">https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/03/firefox-adding-a-free-vp...</a> Mullvad might not be used for the free service. Whether that's correct or incorrect extrapolation we will see...
That's an existing product that may or may not be related. Unless you know something the article doesn't?
> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"<p>This must apply to Firefox itself, right?
I often use Opera browser's free proxy they offer for basic browsing or blocked sites. They advertise it as a free VPN but it's merely a proxy. As far as I know, it's unlimited traffic and you can choose the region it connects to.<p>Edge also has some Microsoft VPN with a very small amount of bandwidth for the free tier.<p>I'm fine with this kind of stuff as long as people are aware it doesn't offer the same connectivity as a full paid VPN.
> They advertise it as a free VPN but it's merely a proxy.<p>What's the difference when you're accessing it through a browser?<p>> I'm fine with this kind of stuff as long as people are aware it doesn't offer the same connectivity as a full paid VPN.<p>Are you talking about it not reaching out and affecting other programs, or is there a restriction within the browser?
In Opera, with their "VPN" it only affects traffic <i>within</i> the browser and it sounds like that's the same thing Firefox will offer.<p>A proxy isn't as secure as a full VPN. I had previously read a really good article on it but I hunted and hunted but couldn't find it.<p>This explains it well enough though:<p><a href="https://www.quora.com/Is-Opera-browser-with-built-in-VPN-a-genuine-VPN" rel="nofollow">https://www.quora.com/Is-Opera-browser-with-built-in-VPN-a-g...</a><p>However, reading the write up from Opera it's actually pretty decent tech that they've had audited by a third party and the whole nine:<p><i>Why browsing with Opera’s VPN is safer</i>
<a href="https://blogs.opera.com/security/2025/07/opera-vpn-is-safe/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.opera.com/security/2025/07/opera-vpn-is-safe/</a><p>Hopefully no one will start with the whole "they're Chinese owned" argument. If anybody is still on that whole trip, see this (and go watch SomeOrdinaryGamer's video on the subject) but in short it's really nothing to worry about.<p><i>Debunking misinformation about Opera’s browsers</i>
<a href="https://blogs.opera.com/security/2023/07/debunking-spyware-misinformation/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.opera.com/security/2023/07/debunking-spyware-m...</a>
In the Firefox case, no difference. It doesn’t encrypt traffic from your device outside of Firefox but for whatever you do inside of Firefox it’s == VPN.
It comes down to encryption. Proxies aren’t usually encrypted, I don’t know what it does in opera or Firefox’s case.
As I understand it, it is just like in Opera. So a proxy not a VPN. I honestly find it distasteful that they may call it a VPN without it actually being one.
What makes a proxy a "VPN" again? Most popular "VPN" companies only offer a proxy that merely runs over a VPN protocol.
> Most popular "VPN" companies only offer a proxy that merely runs over a VPN protocol.<p>Well that doesn't seem true?<p>Mullvad, Proton, Private Internet Access, NordVPN, ExpressVPN etc are all VPNs. You can use them for whatever protocol you want.
> You can use them for whatever protocol you want.<p>the two most commons protocols used for proxying traffic support arbitrary tcp traffic.
socks is quite self explanatory but http is not limited to https either!<p>Of course most providers might block non https traffic by doing DPI or (more realistically) refusing to proxy ports other than 80/443 but nothing is inherent to the protocol.<p>edit:
this is also mentioned on MDN: <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Methods/CONNECT" rel="nofollow">https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/...</a><p>> Aside from enabling secure access to websites behind proxies, a HTTP tunnel provides a way to allow traffic that would otherwise be restricted (SSH or FTP) over the HTTP(S) protocol.<p>> If you are running a proxy that supports CONNECT, restrict its use to a set of known ports or a configurable list of safe request targets<p>> A loosely-configured proxy may be abused to forward traffic such as SMTP to relay spam email, for example.
All of them offer only proxied access to the internet. They do not expose access to any "private network".
Because people understand VPN but not necessarily proxy. It's targeted to non-tech people.
Is the proxy encrypted? If so then you might as well call it a VPN.
I usually defend Mozilla with these things, but I'm a bit bearish on this. It's not like they're not relying on big partnerships already for their survival. I don't have a problem with free to long as there is a paid plan, which I don't see on their announcement page. I don't care who is running a free-only VPN is a huge red flag, and I am one of those people that recommends using VPN services instead of running your thing on a VPS or something.<p>What worries me is this will get adoption and they're start talking about profiting from it via "differential privacy"<p>Or, even worse for the web is a more realistic problem: Firefox is notoriously hard to manage in an enterprise fleet. Their biggest hurdle to marketshare is just that, chrome works well with windows, linux and mac a like and lends itself to management. I'm frequently fighting to be allowed to use Firefox already personally. This poses a direct threat to enterprise security policies. Anyone who bans random free vpns in their networks, now has to include Firefox to that list. And I don't need to mention how bad that is for the web given Google will effectively be the gatekeeper of the entire internet, even the tiny marketshare Mozilla has will be crushed. I wonder if in retrospect, this seemingly mundane feature would be the death-blow to the only alternative browser ecosystem.
You know what would be actually cool and a transformative improvement? Mozilla to make an iOS port of Firefox and publish it in regions where Apple has been forced to allow it.
Why are they trying to sell a VPN in the countries where users barely need it?
<a href="https://www.pornhub.com/blog/age-verification-in-the-news" rel="nofollow">https://www.pornhub.com/blog/age-verification-in-the-news</a><p>Over the past year, Pornhub had to make the difficult decision to block access to users in the following American states due to Age Verification laws:<p><pre><code> Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming</code></pre>
Do they name the service provider of this VPN or how it works? The official announcement is just as sparse on the details.
> Mozilla said the free tier will initially provide 50GB of monthly data to users in the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.<p>Sadly no countries are mentioned where such VPN is really needed (due to strict internet censorship).
Now, from the people who brought you Pocket.<p>Could they please stop integrating services into Firefox? Thank you.
VPN is like SSL some time ago (and there were times when a browser would come without SSL, and you'd have to explicitly download it yourself) - it quickly becomes a basic necessity even in civilized societies, let alone say Russia, Iran and the likes.
Source: <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/firefox-148-149-new-features/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/firefox-148-149-new-feat...</a> (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47415420">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47415420</a>)
Where's the money for this VPN going to come from? The ads they insert into my home page or the CEO's inflated compensation?
Free VPN's are usually funded by agreeing to route some VPN traffic for other people though your own network. They basically work as mixers, randomizing traffic throughout the VPN population.<p>This can expose users to legal risks, but but can also add plausible deniability at the same time "it wasn't me, it was someone on VPN".
[dead]