6 ms·

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...

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...