Ten minutes into the article now and I stopped reading. I'm sure the author has some good points and I'm glad people take a closer look at Mozilla but this post

Ten minutes into the article now and I stopped reading. I'm sure the author has some good points and I'm glad people take a closer look at Mozilla but this post is a bit... questionable. As far as I can tell now (correct me if I'm wrong) there's lots of claims without further explanation or proof, the author makes harmless things sound like a big deal (the deprecation of XUL extensions in favor of WebExt for example) and sometimes the author words things in such a way or cuts out important details just to make Mozilla look bad (for example the Google SafeBrowsing thing, which you can afaik turn off from the settings). I'm always interested in the "dark sides" of the companies I trust and I'm grateful people are researching this but this post "ain't it". I'm not saying the author has an obligation to improve the post and I'd guess the author doesn't care about my opinion anyways but I think it would reach more people (and therefore fullfil its goal better) if the author worded it in a more unbiased way, removed the false claims and maybe outlined their "threat model" (in this case, what they consider a threat to their freedom/privacy) before they go on to rant about things that others would classify as harmless.