←back to thread

Firefox 120 to Firefox 141 Web Browser Benchmarks

(www.phoronix.com)
119 points mikece | 3 comments | 02 Jul 25 15:11 UTC | HN request time: 2.023s | source
Show context
eastbound ◴[02 Jul 25 17:19 UTC] No.44446316[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(9): >>44446361 #>>44446382 #>>44446460 #>>44446570 #>>44446847 #>>44447210 #>>44447214 #>>44457741 #>>44460623 #
ZeroGravitas ◴[02 Jul 25 17:36 UTC] No.44446570[source]▶
And the people angry about that have popped up in every Mozilla and Firefox discussion for a decade to let us know that Firefox is too woke and now we have a corporate browser monoculture.

Well done folks, your MAGA browser culture war has ruined browsers just like it ruins everything else it touches.

But maybe they'll actually ban gay marriage again and it will all have been worth it for you.

replies(1): >>44446614 #
saubeidl ◴[02 Jul 25 17:40 UTC] No.44446614[source]▶
Funnily enough, it's the same people who argue that corporations are people and should have free speech.

Firing the CEO was an expression of said free speech.

replies(3): >>44446959 #>>44447155 #>>44447766 #
wk_end ◴[02 Jul 25 19:21 UTC] No.44447766[source]▶
The argument here is that being against punishing someone for their speech is anti-free speech? Because the punishment constitutes speech?
replies(1): >>44448117 #
1. const_cast ◴[02 Jul 25 19:56 UTC] No.44448117[source]▶
Well, um, yes. Having an opinion is free speech. Calling someone else's opinion stupid is, in it of itself, an opinion. So that's also free speech.

The point being free speech is a two-way street. Speech without consequences is actually un-free in that sense. Because you're free to say whatever, but I'm not free to say whatever in response.

Now, whether corporate actions constitute speech is kind of another question. But the consensus in the US is that yes, they do. Corporations are allowed to have opinions and make donations, and they're allowed to fire you for having opinions or making donations.

The important thing to note is that free speech, as we understand it, is a protection for private entities from public entities. Meaning it protects you, a citizen, from public censorship. And it protects companies, private entities, from public censorship. So it, in a way, enables private companies to censor. Because the public can't censor their censorship.

replies(1): >>44448227 #
2. wk_end ◴[02 Jul 25 20:06 UTC] No.44448227[source]▶
You’re conflating the US’s constitutional protections against government attacks on free speech with the broader concept of (the virtue of) free speech. No one is saying that what Mozilla did was illegal.

Just curious: would you defend a company for firing someone for speaking out in support of gay marriage?

replies(1): >>44448645 #
3. const_cast ◴[02 Jul 25 20:46 UTC] No.44448645[source]▶
> Just curious: would you defend a company for firing someone for speaking out in support of gay marriage?

Well companies already do this all the time - this is more so the status-quo. I'm not going to pretend the majority are somehow, in some roundabout way, oppressed. Is this person fired for supporting gay marriage, or being gay? Because obviously that's illegal... you can't fire someone for being part of a protected class. Being a republican or whatever is not a protected class, being gay is. One matters, one doesn't.