531–540 of 721 posts
The feature is clearly designed to push their Trusted Partners into the faces of their ideological opponents. Wikipedia is non-scary entry point. Expect SPLC or some fact-checkers next. The low revenue un-targeted advertising feature can easily be jettisoned to placate people while the real payload is deployed.
As someone who has used Firefox since v0.* I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately. > relevant suggestions from our trusted partners The suggestions are not relevant to, and the partners not trusted by, me.
Yeah, it really sucks. I've been using Firefox for 15 years or so but this shit is just so discouraging. Can't we have one piece of good software that doesn't try to shove "relevant" "suggestions" from "trusted" "partners" down our throats? I just want a browser that isn't controlled by the ad mafia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly that. If they got rid of their hobbies then this sort of scam wouldn't be necessary. Yes, it's a scam: bait and switch.
Remember Mozilla is ultimately a non profit and must spend a healthy percentage of their income every year. Mozilla is just representing the collective self interest of those it employs. People wanting to keep their cushy job.
Mozilla Corporation (which is where your donations go - you can't donate to Firefox as such) is a taxable, profit-making company.
Mozilla Foundation wholly owns Mozilla Corporation, and is a non-profit. But you can't donate to Mozilla Foundation.
(I don't know how you can be a non-profit that wholly owns a profit-making corporation; I'm not an accountant, and I'm not familiar with US tax law)
If their CEO salary was not paid in millions dollars maybe the users would be more keen to donate money? I never saw a fundraising like the ones from Wikipedia.
Is there a backlog (I know there's always a backlog) of WORTHWHILE features/services they could be working on if more money was reallocated to engineering?
Seems like a lot of their more recent services are probably breaking even or maybe even costing them. And I doubt they're really affecting market share or reputation in a meaningful way.
Meanwhile Firefox seems either at parity or ahead of Chrome/Safari/etc, depending on who you ask. (Ahead if you ask me, except on power consumption).
Perhaps Mozilla would have been able to continue Servo, but that's about the only example I can think of. The Rust language and ecosystem doesn't seem to need Mozilla at this point in time. https://killedbymozilla.com/
Maybe lack of a vision has a lot to do with the state of Mozilla and/or Firefox. Then again, it would depend on the vision. After all, Mozilla/Firefox's competition have deep pockets to keep up with any technological advantage that comes their way that doesn't negatively affect/impact their lucrative business interests (advertising, services, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worst thing is that every single time they do this kind of bullshit, they do it without asking for opt-in and enable it sneakily by default. Absolutely the worst.
The blog seems pretty clear they will be asking for permission? Tho not in the best way, I feel, but at least this is opt-in?
They did not. I checked on all my computers following the update and all of them had the option enabled by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "guy in a bathrobe" is still the lead and has the final say. Is he compensated anywhere near what Mozilla's CEO is? In fact is the total comp of all the people significantly involved in Linux kernel development anywhere near the total comp of Mozilla's C-suite? I doubt it.
> Is he compensated anywhere near what Mozilla's CEO is? Torvalds is at $2M and Baker is at $2.5M.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 for "iff" (if and only if), which I wish were more broadly used and recognized in written English
Except it's not used correctly here. "A iff B" means "A implies B and B implies A". "I'd be willing to entertain, or even support, this way of them making money iff they spelled out honestly what they're doing and why" implies both of these: - "If they spelled out honestly what they're doing and why, I'd be willing to entertain [...]" - "If I'd be willing to entertain [..] then they will honestly spell what they're d…
> - "If I'd be willing to entertain [..] then they will honestly spell what they're doing and why".
This is true, because if they won't, then you wouldn't be willing to entertain [..]
As someone who has used Firefox since v0.* I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately. > relevant suggestions from our trusted partners The suggestions are not relevant to, and the partners not trusted by, me.
> I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately. That is exactly the problem I have with it - weasel words and euphemisms; FF is scoring an own-goal here and eroding trust. Why not just tell it like it is. "We need funding and are lining up deals with third parties to display their ads/messaging in the address bar search. We vet these third parties by holding them contractually to these standard…
Excactly them trying to find more sources of income is fine by me. The hiding it and the deceptive messaging is awful. "enhance and speed up your searching experience" - I'm sure it will.
Even the opt-in screen is an anti-pattern.
"Allow suggestions" or "customize". No "do not allow suggestions". On the first level.
This is the stuff I want (and in the past expected) Mozilla to fight, not to become.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worst thing is that every single time they do this kind of bullshit, they do it without asking for opt-in and enable it sneakily by default. Absolutely the worst.
The blog seems pretty clear they will be asking for permission? Tho not in the best way, I feel, but at least this is opt-in?