←back to thread

Let me pay for Firefox

(discourse.mozilla.org)
803 points csmantle | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.366s | source
Show context
gr4vityWall ◴[] No.44549048[source]
I used to want to donate to Mozilla Foundation, but I've long lost any hope that the corporation would spend that money in a way that makes sense to me. The pessimist on me would expect donated money to be spent on more built-in "campaigns", "studies" or ads. Or maybe a bonus for their executives.

I just want Firefox to be faster. I'm donating to Floorp (a Firefox fork), at least they seem focused on making the browser better.

replies(21): >>44549113 #>>44549167 #>>44549236 #>>44549241 #>>44549326 #>>44549407 #>>44549438 #>>44549518 #>>44549541 #>>44549713 #>>44549720 #>>44549848 #>>44550129 #>>44550186 #>>44550236 #>>44550963 #>>44551035 #>>44552251 #>>44552725 #>>44553787 #>>44554444 #
Uehreka ◴[] No.44549541[source]
I get why people are pissed at Mozilla, but I do feel like people on HN also underestimate how much hating Mozilla is becoming a hacker tribal signifier. It almost feel like each commenter is competing to out-hate the others or to add a layer of “in fact its so bad that we should (consequences)”.

Like, in general, I find that any HN thread where most of the comments are just agreeing, one-upping and yes-anding while invoking the same talking points and terminology (CEO ghouls, etc.) is probably a topic we might need to chill out on.

replies(22): >>44549569 #>>44549570 #>>44549593 #>>44549647 #>>44549652 #>>44549739 #>>44550040 #>>44550191 #>>44550364 #>>44550420 #>>44550422 #>>44550443 #>>44550471 #>>44550686 #>>44550727 #>>44550871 #>>44551243 #>>44552259 #>>44555879 #>>44556225 #>>44563570 #>>44566848 #
arp242 ◴[] No.44549652[source]
Many people on HN hold Mozilla to impossible and conflicting standards. It is simultaneously a compromised propaganda arm of Google for taking the Google bribe, while also being compromised money-grabbing wankers diluting their mission when they try to generate alternative revenues of income. I realise that HN has different people posting different arguments, but I've seen many people post both over the years.

All of that is frequently married with an the amount of vitriol that seems out of place and downright bizarre. There is typically a lack of constructive discourse or suggestions, beyond vague hand-waving about how they should "just do better", or "just do this or that". Well, if it's that easy then why don't you start a browser?

In-between all of that there is the inevitable political vitriol and flaming about Mozilla. Have we gotten a flamewar about Brendan Eich (who left over 11 years ago) yet? It's the Godwin Law of Mozilla/Firefox.

These threads bring out the absolute worst of the site and many people with more nuanced views probably make a habit of staying out of them. When I've commented on this before I've been accosted with highly aggressive personal attacks. So now I often just hide them.

replies(5): >>44549826 #>>44549855 #>>44550679 #>>44551068 #>>44552433 #
safety1st ◴[] No.44549855[source]
[flagged]
replies(5): >>44549911 #>>44549997 #>>44550020 #>>44550025 #>>44550394 #
meowface ◴[] No.44550394[source]
>Google is a convicted criminal that suppressed competition and is now awaiting sentencing

>Google's illegal monopoly

>Google's criminality is the one mitigating favor

As someone who switched from Firefox to Chrome a while ago, these remarks made me curious enough to research the case.

The judge ruled based on "billions of dollars Google spends every year to install its search engine as the default option on new cellphones and tech gadgets".

The crime of the century laid bare before our eyes. A search engine company caught red-handed paying companies to set its search engine as the default search engine as everyone everywhere knew and saw for decades. Utterly reprehensible.

replies(2): >>44550528 #>>44550611 #
paulryanrogers ◴[] No.44550528[source]
IMO buying defaults isn't as bad as Google's rigging the ad market. At least others have outbid them for search defaults in the past and in other markets.
replies(1): >>44551146 #
1. meowface ◴[] No.44551146[source]
That one is definitely a lot worse and a danger of a monopoly/extremely powerful market player. I would argue that a monopoly is not inherently "bad"* but has much more ability to do bad things if it chooses to, with not much potential recourse from others.

https://economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/ad-v...

*Strictly in an ethics and fairness sense. It might (or might not) be worse for consumers. Just worse in a kind of boring rather than nefarious or deeply harmful way.