8 ms·

I've been primarily using Firefox since 2005, but Mozilla has gotten a bit too woke[0] for my liking. I've switched to Brave search, and have been using Brave's

I've been primarily using Firefox since 2005, but Mozilla has gotten a bit too woke[0] for my liking. I've switched to Brave search, and have been using Brave's browser on my phone, and I'm very tempted to switch on my desktops and laptops, too. This feature just might do it for me. [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...

sebazzz 4y ago
Being sensible is being woke now? In what way has Mozilla hurt you? Brave is an ad company basing it's browser on another as company's browser, you know.
- secondcoming 4y ago
  > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. Do you not think that's a bit concerning? Will I see a different internet using Firefox than I would with another browser?
  - _jal 4y ago
    No, I don't. Two things: - Your browser already makes "your internet" different than mine. You will see different different content and (at stores) pricing in Chrome than you do Firefox on a bunch of major sites. Try it, it is pretty obvious. - Second, the article is specifically referring to Facebook's "algorithm". This is frustrating, because we can't talk knowledgeably about what they actually did after Jan 6. But why anyone assumes the "more conflict" slider is somehow "more honest" is beyond me - it is a black box whose function feeds Facebook money. They were not tuning for honest before, and they weren't after. But of course, they were talking about FB, not their own product. Now, can you name specific concerns about what you fear FF might do with their browser to start gaslighting you?
    - secondcoming 4y ago
      I don't work at Mozilla so I don't know what these 'tools' are that they want to enable by default. That's my point. Do you know?
      - thomastjeffery 4y ago
        That's because such tools do not exist. If they ever choose to make some, they would certainly be very public about it.
    - MerelyMortal 4y ago
      Do you know which browser websites usually show the lower prices for? I know they'll show higher prices for people on a Mac and lower prices for people on Linux.
      - _jal 4y ago
        My most recent example was a low-end Unifi camera, which was $85-something in Safari/MacOS, $65-something in FF/MacOS at Amazon.
        MerelyMortal 4y ago
        Interesting that you saw Amazon apparently doing that. Thank you for the data point.
- leidenfrost 4y ago
  The "woke" crowd waves so many flags it often ends up shooting themselves in the foot. People got outraged because Mozilla asked for donations in crypto, because it's not green energy. They want a commercial grade browser, made with zero ads, zero crypto, with enough features to work both with DRM protected video but also with hardware video acceleration in even the most obscure OS, funded only by donations. And, in practice, money made from donations it's not enough at all for the amount of manpower needed for a project like this. I'm in favor for being sensible and having an inclusive environment. But people expect too much from a software project. PD: What's worse, the CEO of Mozilla Corporation raised her salary up to over 3 million dollars, while Firefox marketshare is down over 85%. Not very woke IMHO
  - cypress66 4y ago
    Mozilla doesn't even let you donate money to the browser development specifically, so of course people don't do so. They get an absurd amount of money from Google each year and they massively mismanage it, while paying an insane amount to their executives.
    - leidenfrost 4y ago
      I just added that part in an edit :) It's sad because I love the browser. But it looks like they don't want to succeed at all.
- pibechorro 4y ago
  Nah, they are beyond sensible, there are woke politics behind doors.
- cypress66 4y ago
  I disagree with companies pushing some political agenda , so if I can I avoid such companies' products I do. I still use Firefox only because I hate the chromium monopoly but I'm this close to giving up.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    There are two types of companies: - those pushing an overt political agenda - those pushing a political agenda they don't advertise If you prefer clandestine back-room dealing to front-room blogpost announcements because they aren't all in-your-face about it, that's a fair preference. But don't fall into the trap of believing there's such a thing as a company pushing no agenda; companies are made up of people, politics is the interaction of people. Every CEO, CFO, CTO, and VP has an opinion on topics like the one Mozilla posted about and the products they control grow to reflect those opinions
    - throw10920 4y ago
      This kind of "everything is political" thinking is incredibly divisive and is literally the cause of the culture war tearing apart the US (not sure where you live) right now. Plus, I straight-up don't believe it, and you've provided no evidence to support your claim. > companies are made up of people, politics is the interaction of people. conflates (intentionally or not) two very different kinds of "politics" - GP was talking about partisan politics, but you started discussing organizational politics. Unless you're claiming that all human interaction is intrinsically partisan... Also, I don't believe the claim that all execs are unable to prevent their political opinions from leaking into their direction for the company. They're often motivated extremely strongly by money, and I'm sure that we all know of at least one person that is willing to compromise on their morals (-> political views) for money. Finally, even treating the claim as true for the sake of argument - not all companies will push their own political agenda with the same strength, and it's entirely reasonable to avoid those that push harder.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        > Unless you're claiming that all human interaction is intrinsically partisan Basically, yes. Most people are out for themselves (which is of course partisan); those who believe in some other more altruistic model are operating under a philosophy that is also partisan ("We should be for others in addition to ourselves"). > They're often motivated extremely strongly by money I agree; that is also a political position. When considering a company with that position, one must ask "Okay, so what is the most damage they could do in pursuit of the almighty dollar?" and keep an eye out for behavior fitting that (are they cutting corners, abusing workers, abusing resources in a way that pushes externalities onto other people), and make one's own decisions accordingly. There's a reason we have laws requiring declaration of activity. > I straight-up don't believe it, and you've provided no evidence to support your claim. That's fair; I assumed this was a given and didn't think it needed support because of observations of how things have gone in the past decade or so (as people have come to realize that there are consequences to the "just get along attitude:" things don't get better for those for whom getting along is not an option). There's a lot of writing on the topic, but I might start with this if your focus is on how things have changed in recent years. https://daily.jstor.org/paul-krugman-everything-is-political/ https://daily.jstor.org/paul-krugman-everything-is-political...
mderazon 4y ago
- waihtis 4y ago
  personal opinions VS corporations controlling speech - not comparable
- moojd 4y ago
  I don't see how Brendan's opinions on Covid-19 have any thing to do with web browsers, contrary to Mitchell's opinions on deplatforming.
eneumann 4y ago
- brink 4y ago
  And who's going to decide what hate is - you? What if I think you're hateful?
  - robin_reala 4y ago
    Typically governments? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
    - brink 4y ago
      Then if you're in the US you shouldn't support de-platforming, because the government protects hate speech here.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      i think this is a culture mismatch between America and other places. we have no hate speech laws and have historically really disliked the idea of something like that in part because we trust our government a lot less than other countries. like, even liberals here will trust the government way less than right wingers in other countries. so we are pretty settled with our "clear and present danger" standard. also wouldn't you acknowledge the government continues to regularly lie to the public? e.g. "masks don't work" at the beginning of coronavirus to keep people from buying them. let me put this another way: it looks like you're in sweden where people trust the government a lot more. but would you be okay with joe biden or donald trump having significant control over "the truth"?
      - robin_reala 4y ago
        Control of the truth happens regardless. A large part of the US population still believes that the last election was stolen based on Trump’s story.
Jochim 4y ago
What's woke about any of the points in the article? What does the word mean to you? The points in question: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact. > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. > Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation Who gets to say what is factual? EDIT: This isn't a gotcha, I am genuinely curious about how we would establish a source of truth.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    The people who already have absolute control over what you do and don't see in your feed. The algorithms of these platforms have been extremely effective at enabling the dissemination of lies and misinformation. When you consider that they're also designed to essentially reinforce any particular view you might have then it becomes clear why we've seen such extreme polarisation. I have absolutely zero problems with those algorithms being altered to break people out of those filter bubbles and/or limit the reach of people with a history of making wildly unsubstantiated claims.
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      "out of filter bubbles" == "into other filter bubbles". This isn't empowerment, it's hijacking. Even in 2022, the world wide web is still a hell of a lot more diverse than one single organization. Especially Mozilla. Should you trust any one website? No. But which websites you frequent is your choice, and it's one of the few dimensions of freedom remaining to the internet. The only job of the browser is to facilitate this freedom, and any divergence from that goal will only diminish what free choice remains.
brthsim 4y ago
totalZero 4y ago
There's a political angle to a lot of the work around internet freedom, and a surprising number of people/lobbyists operate on the touch point between browsers and public policy. Faction-choosing is, I guess, a side effect of that dynamic.
ploppyploppy 4y ago
Firefox being too woke is also why I am switching to Brave.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
the_gipsy 4y ago
[flagged]
- shukantpal 4y ago
  > if questioning Trump's borderline coup attempt is too "woke" for you. It seems like this comment was made in bad faith − because the article is not simply questioning the "borderline coup attempt".
  - the_gipsy 4y ago
    It's questioning how we got there. What is bad faith if not quoting "woke" on something like that?
josefx 4y ago
I am not sure I would call an article that praises Facebook controlled media access woke. However every reminder that Mozilla considers Facebook a decent business partner is a reminder that they are still a corporation and where your privacy and rights end at the convenience of the CEOs paycheck.
vachina 4y ago
- drak0n1c 4y ago
  I have a similarly mercenary and utilitarian POV as far as using products that personally benefit me. However, it's understandable that the idealistically minded prefer not to use/support enterprises they see as lobbying to degrade their pet issues - be that the internet, or the environment, etc. It's not any different than those refuse to engage with Amazon, Walmart, Hollywood, Chick-Fil-A, or subsidiaries of the Kochs.
- soundnote 4y ago
  Advocating tuning algorithms to favour sources the Mozilla Foundation likes is not my idea of user control. That said, I simply enjoy the product more. Stuff like tab groups and PWAs and other Chromium-derived niceties with a pretty thorough degoogling is a good combination. Add to that an independent search index and it's a pretty damn good package.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  why are you using trans pejoratively
jccalhoun 4y ago
The politics of the person running Brave are why I will never use it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

sebazzz 4y ago

Being sensible is being woke now? In what way has Mozilla hurt you? Brave is an ad company basing it's browser on another as company's browser, you know.

secondcoming 4y ago
> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. Do you not think that's a bit concerning? Will I see a different internet using Firefox than I would with another browser?
- _jal 4y ago
  No, I don't. Two things: - Your browser already makes "your internet" different than mine. You will see different different content and (at stores) pricing in Chrome than you do Firefox on a bunch of major sites. Try it, it is pretty obvious. - Second, the article is specifically referring to Facebook's "algorithm". This is frustrating, because we can't talk knowledgeably about what they actually did after Jan 6. But why anyone assumes the "more conflict" slider is somehow "more honest" is beyond me - it is a black box whose function feeds Facebook money. They were not tuning for honest before, and they weren't after. But of course, they were talking about FB, not their own product. Now, can you name specific concerns about what you fear FF might do with their browser to start gaslighting you?
  - secondcoming 4y ago
    I don't work at Mozilla so I don't know what these 'tools' are that they want to enable by default. That's my point. Do you know?
    - thomastjeffery 4y ago
      That's because such tools do not exist. If they ever choose to make some, they would certainly be very public about it.
  - MerelyMortal 4y ago
    Do you know which browser websites usually show the lower prices for? I know they'll show higher prices for people on a Mac and lower prices for people on Linux.
    - _jal 4y ago
      My most recent example was a low-end Unifi camera, which was $85-something in Safari/MacOS, $65-something in FF/MacOS at Amazon.
      - MerelyMortal 4y ago
        Interesting that you saw Amazon apparently doing that. Thank you for the data point.
leidenfrost 4y ago
The "woke" crowd waves so many flags it often ends up shooting themselves in the foot. People got outraged because Mozilla asked for donations in crypto, because it's not green energy. They want a commercial grade browser, made with zero ads, zero crypto, with enough features to work both with DRM protected video but also with hardware video acceleration in even the most obscure OS, funded only by donations. And, in practice, money made from donations it's not enough at all for the amount of manpower needed for a project like this. I'm in favor for being sensible and having an inclusive environment. But people expect too much from a software project. PD: What's worse, the CEO of Mozilla Corporation raised her salary up to over 3 million dollars, while Firefox marketshare is down over 85%. Not very woke IMHO
- cypress66 4y ago
  Mozilla doesn't even let you donate money to the browser development specifically, so of course people don't do so. They get an absurd amount of money from Google each year and they massively mismanage it, while paying an insane amount to their executives.
  - leidenfrost 4y ago
    I just added that part in an edit :) It's sad because I love the browser. But it looks like they don't want to succeed at all.
pibechorro 4y ago
Nah, they are beyond sensible, there are woke politics behind doors.
cypress66 4y ago
I disagree with companies pushing some political agenda , so if I can I avoid such companies' products I do. I still use Firefox only because I hate the chromium monopoly but I'm this close to giving up.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  There are two types of companies: - those pushing an overt political agenda - those pushing a political agenda they don't advertise If you prefer clandestine back-room dealing to front-room blogpost announcements because they aren't all in-your-face about it, that's a fair preference. But don't fall into the trap of believing there's such a thing as a company pushing no agenda; companies are made up of people, politics is the interaction of people. Every CEO, CFO, CTO, and VP has an opinion on topics like the one Mozilla posted about and the products they control grow to reflect those opinions
  - throw10920 4y ago
    This kind of "everything is political" thinking is incredibly divisive and is literally the cause of the culture war tearing apart the US (not sure where you live) right now. Plus, I straight-up don't believe it, and you've provided no evidence to support your claim. > companies are made up of people, politics is the interaction of people. conflates (intentionally or not) two very different kinds of "politics" - GP was talking about partisan politics, but you started discussing organizational politics. Unless you're claiming that all human interaction is intrinsically partisan... Also, I don't believe the claim that all execs are unable to prevent their political opinions from leaking into their direction for the company. They're often motivated extremely strongly by money, and I'm sure that we all know of at least one person that is willing to compromise on their morals (-> political views) for money. Finally, even treating the claim as true for the sake of argument - not all companies will push their own political agenda with the same strength, and it's entirely reasonable to avoid those that push harder.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      > Unless you're claiming that all human interaction is intrinsically partisan Basically, yes. Most people are out for themselves (which is of course partisan); those who believe in some other more altruistic model are operating under a philosophy that is also partisan ("We should be for others in addition to ourselves"). > They're often motivated extremely strongly by money I agree; that is also a political position. When considering a company with that position, one must ask "Okay, so what is the most damage they could do in pursuit of the almighty dollar?" and keep an eye out for behavior fitting that (are they cutting corners, abusing workers, abusing resources in a way that pushes externalities onto other people), and make one's own decisions accordingly. There's a reason we have laws requiring declaration of activity. > I straight-up don't believe it, and you've provided no evidence to support your claim. That's fair; I assumed this was a given and didn't think it needed support because of observations of how things have gone in the past decade or so (as people have come to realize that there are consequences to the "just get along attitude:" things don't get better for those for whom getting along is not an option). There's a lot of writing on the topic, but I might start with this if your focus is on how things have changed in recent years. https://daily.jstor.org/paul-krugman-everything-is-political/ https://daily.jstor.org/paul-krugman-everything-is-political...

mderazon 4y ago

waihtis 4y ago
personal opinions VS corporations controlling speech - not comparable
moojd 4y ago
I don't see how Brendan's opinions on Covid-19 have any thing to do with web browsers, contrary to Mitchell's opinions on deplatforming.

eneumann 4y ago

brink 4y ago
And who's going to decide what hate is - you? What if I think you're hateful?
- robin_reala 4y ago
  Typically governments? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
  - brink 4y ago
    Then if you're in the US you shouldn't support de-platforming, because the government protects hate speech here.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    i think this is a culture mismatch between America and other places. we have no hate speech laws and have historically really disliked the idea of something like that in part because we trust our government a lot less than other countries. like, even liberals here will trust the government way less than right wingers in other countries. so we are pretty settled with our "clear and present danger" standard. also wouldn't you acknowledge the government continues to regularly lie to the public? e.g. "masks don't work" at the beginning of coronavirus to keep people from buying them. let me put this another way: it looks like you're in sweden where people trust the government a lot more. but would you be okay with joe biden or donald trump having significant control over "the truth"?
    - robin_reala 4y ago
      Control of the truth happens regardless. A large part of the US population still believes that the last election was stolen based on Trump’s story.

Jochim 4y ago

What's woke about any of the points in the article? What does the word mean to you? The points in question: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact. > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. > Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

DeWilde 4y ago
> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation Who gets to say what is factual? EDIT: This isn't a gotcha, I am genuinely curious about how we would establish a source of truth.
- Jochim 4y ago
  The people who already have absolute control over what you do and don't see in your feed. The algorithms of these platforms have been extremely effective at enabling the dissemination of lies and misinformation. When you consider that they're also designed to essentially reinforce any particular view you might have then it becomes clear why we've seen such extreme polarisation. I have absolutely zero problems with those algorithms being altered to break people out of those filter bubbles and/or limit the reach of people with a history of making wildly unsubstantiated claims.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    "out of filter bubbles" == "into other filter bubbles". This isn't empowerment, it's hijacking. Even in 2022, the world wide web is still a hell of a lot more diverse than one single organization. Especially Mozilla. Should you trust any one website? No. But which websites you frequent is your choice, and it's one of the few dimensions of freedom remaining to the internet. The only job of the browser is to facilitate this freedom, and any divergence from that goal will only diminish what free choice remains.

brthsim 4y ago

totalZero 4y ago

There's a political angle to a lot of the work around internet freedom, and a surprising number of people/lobbyists operate on the touch point between browsers and public policy. Faction-choosing is, I guess, a side effect of that dynamic.

ploppyploppy 4y ago

Firefox being too woke is also why I am switching to Brave.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

the_gipsy 4y ago

[flagged]

shukantpal 4y ago
> if questioning Trump's borderline coup attempt is too "woke" for you. It seems like this comment was made in bad faith − because the article is not simply questioning the "borderline coup attempt".
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  It's questioning how we got there. What is bad faith if not quoting "woke" on something like that?

josefx 4y ago

I am not sure I would call an article that praises Facebook controlled media access woke. However every reminder that Mozilla considers Facebook a decent business partner is a reminder that they are still a corporation and where your privacy and rights end at the convenience of the CEOs paycheck.

vachina 4y ago

drak0n1c 4y ago
I have a similarly mercenary and utilitarian POV as far as using products that personally benefit me. However, it's understandable that the idealistically minded prefer not to use/support enterprises they see as lobbying to degrade their pet issues - be that the internet, or the environment, etc. It's not any different than those refuse to engage with Amazon, Walmart, Hollywood, Chick-Fil-A, or subsidiaries of the Kochs.
soundnote 4y ago
Advocating tuning algorithms to favour sources the Mozilla Foundation likes is not my idea of user control. That said, I simply enjoy the product more. Stuff like tab groups and PWAs and other Chromium-derived niceties with a pretty thorough degoogling is a good combination. Add to that an independent search index and it's a pretty damn good package.
wahnfrieden 4y ago
why are you using trans pejoratively

jccalhoun 4y ago

The politics of the person running Brave are why I will never use it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]