4 ms·

1) Does anybody have a digestible summary of what the the AICOA actually does and how this law might be abused? In this article they glossed over what effect th

1) Does anybody have a digestible summary of what the the AICOA actually does and how this law might be abused? In this article they glossed over what effect they think it might have, but I don’t think they simply spelled out what the law actually is, or went over any possible unintended consequences. 2) Whether or not Mozilla’s opinion here is right is something I’m not quite sure about, but what I’m sure about is that Mozilla comes across badly. They lost their extremely big league in the open web by focusing more about woke politics than the tech, and now are whining that they can’t compete. Boo hoo. You have millions and millions of dollars in resources. Build a better browser rather than writing about political censorship and other nonsense you’ve been doing in the past years.

encryptluks2 4y ago
If Microsoft can use Chromium backend for Edge than so can Mozilla, but here they are complaining that Google needs to allow them to compete. Geezus Mozilla really is something special, and not in a good way.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Why does the world need another Chromium reskin? What's the point of a Firefox that's just Chrome? How is it competing to slap your brand on top of a competitor's product like you're reselling wholesale electronics from an overseas manufacturer? Look at Edge's market share and explain to me how Mozilla is going to deliver a better Chrome reskin than Microsoft with a tiny fraction of the budget.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    The point is that Google does not prevent them from competing. They (Mozilla) are the ones proverbially shooting themselves in the foot. Mozilla to me seems like a cult of grifters in denial with ADD that never even attempt to focus on improving their browser (especially on Linux) and instead would rather build iPhone password managers and act like they aren't enabling a lot of anti-privacy telemetry and data collection by default.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Mozilla is effectively the arm of Google that Google points to to argue they’re not a monopoly. It’s silly - I’ve heard more about Mozilla doing these performative stunts than I have about the actually trying to build a better browser.
kevingadd 4y ago
What do "woke politics" have to do with Mozilla's failure? What is woke about that company to you in particular? Their political leanings are basically unchanged dating back to before Chrome even existed.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > What is woke about that company to you in particular? My main issue is them getting involved in them supporting censorship, deplatforming wrong-thinkers, and more nonsense. Plenty of articles about this here: https://reclaimthenet.org/?s=mozilla https://reclaimthenet.org/?s=mozilla > What do "woke politics" have to do with Mozilla's failure? 1) The more time and effort they spend focusing on non-technical issues is time away from the one thing that matters. 2) Also, the more they appear to be favoring certain political views, the fewer conservatives, libertarians, centrists, etc may want to use them. When a company starts favoring one political side over another and loses its appearance of non-bias, especially when it concerns information flow, it's hard to trust them again. DuckDuckGo made the same fatal flaw of trying to be explicit about bias and though there's some noise in the stats, it looks like their search results have peaked as well. Without as many users, you can't progress nearly as quickly. > Their political leanings are basically unchanged dating back to before Chrome even existed. I'm not sure, but I can't remember them supporting the censorship stuff until a bit more recently. Even when they were pretty gay friendly and whatever, they never supported censorship as far as I can remember.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    Although I'd probably be described as "far right" according to some opinions, I still use Firefox for the sites where IE won't work, because the alternative is Chrome. I loathe all their politics, but still further hate the fact that all browsers seem to be going down the same (Google-lead) path. When it comes to computing, the enemy isn't really "the other side" politically. It's Big Tech. I agree that the politics are a distraction, and that might actually be the intended effect --- to distract away from the monopoly that's forming. Both sides should realise and unite against that.

encryptluks2 4y ago

If Microsoft can use Chromium backend for Edge than so can Mozilla, but here they are complaining that Google needs to allow them to compete. Geezus Mozilla really is something special, and not in a good way.

kevingadd 4y ago
Why does the world need another Chromium reskin? What's the point of a Firefox that's just Chrome? How is it competing to slap your brand on top of a competitor's product like you're reselling wholesale electronics from an overseas manufacturer? Look at Edge's market share and explain to me how Mozilla is going to deliver a better Chrome reskin than Microsoft with a tiny fraction of the budget.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  The point is that Google does not prevent them from competing. They (Mozilla) are the ones proverbially shooting themselves in the foot. Mozilla to me seems like a cult of grifters in denial with ADD that never even attempt to focus on improving their browser (especially on Linux) and instead would rather build iPhone password managers and act like they aren't enabling a lot of anti-privacy telemetry and data collection by default.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Mozilla is effectively the arm of Google that Google points to to argue they’re not a monopoly. It’s silly - I’ve heard more about Mozilla doing these performative stunts than I have about the actually trying to build a better browser.

kevingadd 4y ago

What do "woke politics" have to do with Mozilla's failure? What is woke about that company to you in particular? Their political leanings are basically unchanged dating back to before Chrome even existed.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> What is woke about that company to you in particular? My main issue is them getting involved in them supporting censorship, deplatforming wrong-thinkers, and more nonsense. Plenty of articles about this here: https://reclaimthenet.org/?s=mozilla https://reclaimthenet.org/?s=mozilla > What do "woke politics" have to do with Mozilla's failure? 1) The more time and effort they spend focusing on non-technical issues is time away from the one thing that matters. 2) Also, the more they appear to be favoring certain political views, the fewer conservatives, libertarians, centrists, etc may want to use them. When a company starts favoring one political side over another and loses its appearance of non-bias, especially when it concerns information flow, it's hard to trust them again. DuckDuckGo made the same fatal flaw of trying to be explicit about bias and though there's some noise in the stats, it looks like their search results have peaked as well. Without as many users, you can't progress nearly as quickly. > Their political leanings are basically unchanged dating back to before Chrome even existed. I'm not sure, but I can't remember them supporting the censorship stuff until a bit more recently. Even when they were pretty gay friendly and whatever, they never supported censorship as far as I can remember.
- userbinator 4y ago
  Although I'd probably be described as "far right" according to some opinions, I still use Firefox for the sites where IE won't work, because the alternative is Chrome. I loathe all their politics, but still further hate the fact that all browsers seem to be going down the same (Google-lead) path. When it comes to computing, the enemy isn't really "the other side" politically. It's Big Tech. I agree that the politics are a distraction, and that might actually be the intended effect --- to distract away from the monopoly that's forming. Both sides should realise and unite against that.