3 ms·

I mean, it’s not like you can’t look up all the various grants, fellowships, groups, businesses, programs, etc Mozilla funds. Or fault us for noticing all the r

I mean, it’s not like you can’t look up all the various grants, fellowships, groups, businesses, programs, etc Mozilla funds. Or fault us for noticing all the random endeavours they pursue then kill because they would seemingly rather do anything than make sure Firefox offers an attractive alternative to other browsers. Firefox had ~30% market share 15 years ago and Mozilla leveraged that into Pocket/firefox send/firefox os/hubs/lockwise/hello/thimble/notes/persona/etc. All defunct except the ones they mashed into the browser itself, when the initial selling point in the IE days was that it was “lightweight”.

glenstein 2y ago
So this is the type of comment I was thinking of. I'm just paste a segment from a previous comment that highlights the problems with this form of criticism, which I take to be more demonstration of an information literacy problem than a narrative that's pertinent to happenings with Firefox. >I don't believe it's astroturfing, simply just mind bogglingly awful arguments. Claiming the decline in market share is tied to inadequate browser features with no two conversations ever agreeing on what those features are. No coherent theory of cause and effect between features and market share while ignoring structural advantages that are much more important drivers, which Google leverages. Claims that CEO pay is the problem when it's 1% of annual revenue. Idiosyncratic interpretations of their published statements that make unfalsifiable assumptions about intentions. And a basic inability to grasp and compare the relative scale of different types of transgressions (e.g. Google is increasingly driving the web into deeper dependence on Chromium, but Mozilla once did a Mr. Robot promo!) These aren't good arguments. These aren't coming from a place of coherent thinking about the actual drivers of market share, and there's no coherent theory of cause and effect that ties other side bets to the trajectory. It's all incredibly low effort vibes because people seem to have lost grasp of how to make real arguments.

glenstein 2y ago

So this is the type of comment I was thinking of. I'm just paste a segment from a previous comment that highlights the problems with this form of criticism, which I take to be more demonstration of an information literacy problem than a narrative that's pertinent to happenings with Firefox. >I don't believe it's astroturfing, simply just mind bogglingly awful arguments. Claiming the decline in market share is tied to inadequate browser features with no two conversations ever agreeing on what those features are. No coherent theory of cause and effect between features and market share while ignoring structural advantages that are much more important drivers, which Google leverages. Claims that CEO pay is the problem when it's 1% of annual revenue. Idiosyncratic interpretations of their published statements that make unfalsifiable assumptions about intentions. And a basic inability to grasp and compare the relative scale of different types of transgressions (e.g. Google is increasingly driving the web into deeper dependence on Chromium, but Mozilla once did a Mr. Robot promo!) These aren't good arguments. These aren't coming from a place of coherent thinking about the actual drivers of market share, and there's no coherent theory of cause and effect that ties other side bets to the trajectory. It's all incredibly low effort vibes because people seem to have lost grasp of how to make real arguments.