5 ms·
> Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forge
by slver 6y ago
> Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users.
"Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills.
First thing every web user does, pro or amateur, is configure their browser to access Google easily. One way or another, Firefox will serve Google first, except for a loud minority of people who would use Duck Duck Go or something like that.
So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare?
- rapnie 6y ago> So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare? These millions sure are a juicy carrot. Question is, were there other revenue model options, before taking on such a huge conflict of interest? One that effectively compromises you and assures you can never take a real principled stance against your competition.
- slver 6y ago> One that effectively compromises you and assures you can never take a real principled stance against your competition. I don't understand this attitude. Is there any better search engine than Google today? No. If Firefox hardcoded Bing to the homepage, or some other such "principled stance", people would completely stop using them. Principled stances work great for TV pundits and politicians, and in both cases because they don't care if they lie to you. In the real world we deal with nuance and practical situations. Mozilla doesn't have to HATE or DESPISE or BAN Google, or whatever other verb implies strong enough principled stance. They can recognize them as the lead search engine, and do their part when they're in position to. It seems in the public debate we want to reduce every situation to a pro-wrestling match.
- Ygg2 6y ago> Is there any better search engine than Google today? From time to time, Bing and DDG are better at searching web than Google. Not always, but the number of times I started reaching for an alternative search engine has increased.
- rapnie 6y ago> Mozilla doesn't have to HATE or DESPISE or BAN Google, or whatever other verb implies strong enough principled stance. Hate and despise show no principle, ban is hard. How about independent, not co-opted?
- ddtaylor 6y ago> "Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills. Do you think companies have to be unethical to feed their families or pay bills?
- slver 6y agoI think we need to tone down our understanding of "unethical" to something reasonable. There's nothing unethical about Firefox having a Google homepage. If you start digging too deep, it's unethical we get up from bed in the morning at all. The problem is it's become a cultural phenomenon to hate big corporations, as a way to offset our guilt for using their products and services. Ask anyone and they'll tell you how much they hate unethical Big Oil and they may even tell you so while using oil-produced electrical power or driving a gas-powered car. If enough people really cared, they'd change their homepage from Google to something else. They don't. Ergo I guess we're all unethical. Or maybe we need to stop lying to ourselves and realize the world is shades of gray, not black and white.