3 ms·

Nothing wrong with the first instance. I'd much rather Mozilla have independence and deal with one tiny advert. At least they were "transparent" about the seco

Nothing wrong with the first instance. I'd much rather Mozilla have independence and deal with one tiny advert. At least they were "transparent" about the second one. But sending my browsing history to a company I've never heard of is a big ask. At least I can choose to have Chrome sync with Google, this wasn't ever asked.

sieabahlpark 7y ago
You'd prefer that Mozilla could install any extension they want? You do realize that sets precedent that they're free to sell forced extension installs that run universally on every page? Give an inch, take a mile. It's always like that every time by every single company in existence.
- onyva 7y ago
  You sound like a Fox News host spewing talking points. Mozilla has a proven track record and a purpose, which is users rights online. Stupid or bad decisions will be made. It’s to be expected. This though doesn’t negate and change anything about my trust in them. Definitely not when compared with the likes of Brave with its tiresome PR. I suggest renaming brave AdBuddy.
  - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
    Based on your non sequitur bleating about Fox News we can now confirm beyond any doubt whatsoever that you definitely don’t actually have a problem with Brave but rather you just hate its conservative creator Brandon Eich and in a blind rage you are stapling together barely coherent sentences to try to hurt him somehow.
  - kipqi 7y ago
    Sending the full history to an ad company by default is not a "stupid or bad decision". It goes well beyond that.
    - sieabahlpark 7y ago
      That along with automatically installing anything that you didn't approve. That's malware.
blub 7y ago
You stance regarding mozilla and their willingness to betray the trust of their supporters makes no sense. How exactly is mozilla independent if they have to resort to all sorts of tricks to fund themselves? All of their efforts to wean themselves of the Google cash have been not only pathetic failures, but also breaches of trust. Many people and long time Firefox users felt back then that Mozilla did do something wrong.

sieabahlpark 7y ago

You'd prefer that Mozilla could install any extension they want? You do realize that sets precedent that they're free to sell forced extension installs that run universally on every page? Give an inch, take a mile. It's always like that every time by every single company in existence.

onyva 7y ago
You sound like a Fox News host spewing talking points. Mozilla has a proven track record and a purpose, which is users rights online. Stupid or bad decisions will be made. It’s to be expected. This though doesn’t negate and change anything about my trust in them. Definitely not when compared with the likes of Brave with its tiresome PR. I suggest renaming brave AdBuddy.
- Chris_Chambers 7y ago
  Based on your non sequitur bleating about Fox News we can now confirm beyond any doubt whatsoever that you definitely don’t actually have a problem with Brave but rather you just hate its conservative creator Brandon Eich and in a blind rage you are stapling together barely coherent sentences to try to hurt him somehow.
- kipqi 7y ago
  Sending the full history to an ad company by default is not a "stupid or bad decision". It goes well beyond that.
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    That along with automatically installing anything that you didn't approve. That's malware.

blub 7y ago

You stance regarding mozilla and their willingness to betray the trust of their supporters makes no sense. How exactly is mozilla independent if they have to resort to all sorts of tricks to fund themselves? All of their efforts to wean themselves of the Google cash have been not only pathetic failures, but also breaches of trust. Many people and long time Firefox users felt back then that Mozilla did do something wrong.