3 ms·

Mozilla, committed to carbon-neutrality in specific ways, mentioned accepting Bitcoin as a donation currency, and her conclusions were: 1. Mozilla doesn't care

Mozilla, committed to carbon-neutrality in specific ways, mentioned accepting Bitcoin as a donation currency, and her conclusions were: 1. Mozilla doesn't care about the environment, and 2. I should drop Firefox and use Apple's browser. I'm curious about Apple's App Store revenues from cryptocurrency apps, or about Apple's policy regarding their carbon footprint. I suspect that a company which has knowingly relied on child factory workers as part of its famously-vertically-integrated supply chain is maybe not as conscientious as Mozilla. In that context, the author's snap judgement about how Mozilla must be totally reversing course seem a bit apoplectic and reactionary, given that she immediately went to Apple without taking even a cursory glance at Apples track record.

everfree 5y ago
This article seems to be more of a manufactured platform for the author's distaste for cryptocurrency than an expression of genuine concern about the environmental impact of web browser publishers. The author doesn't seem to appreciate that Mozilla's onboarding of a general cryptocurrency payment processor does not mean that Mozilla endorses the specific cryptocurrency Bitcoin with its notorious energy usage. And going by the language used in the article (her apparent distaste that Mozilla is "encouraging people to mine cryptocurrency"), it's pretty clear that the author does not grasp that many cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin are not mined. In short, aside from painting broad generalized strokes about Mozilla versus Apple, it also paints broad generalized strokes about cryptocurrencies. It's a piece based mostly on the author's opinion rather than objective research about the environmental footprints of companies or of payment processing.