3 ms·
> The problem is not AI. The problem is that Mozilla keeps jumping on fads instead of focusing on their browser core Nah, the problem is people just want to h
by godelski 11mo ago
> The problem is not AI. The problem is that Mozilla keeps jumping on fads instead of focusing on their browser core
Nah, the problem is people just want to hate on Mozilla. I mean even that Mastadon thread they bring up people hating on Mozilla for accepting crypto donations and are equating it to putting a miner in the browser. Like what a fucking joke. It's such a crazy exaggeration of what actually happened. Company just adds new way for people to give them money (which they desperately need) and then everyone gets upset.
How is this not laughable?
Now we're seeing a similar thing. Everyone is talking about fucking LLMs. What, do you think FF is going to start shipping a 100GB browser? Even Llama-8B is >15GB. That would be ridiculous!
No, what FF is doing is implementing features like Translate (an ALREADY opt-in feature[0]) and semantic search. Seriously, go to their Labs tab! They let you opt in to try a feature to semantically search your browser history. That's not an LLM, that's a vector embedding model! What are they going to do next? Semantic search of a webpage? Regex search?! Even in their announcement the other day they mention the iOS "shake to summarize" and that's not even an AI they're shipping it's just a shortcut to Apple Intelligence. The only other thing they've announced is what already exists, a shortcut to use your chatbot of choice. That's not AI in the browser it is literally a split window.
| Mozilla is not going to train its own giant LLM anytime soon.[1]
> having a faint through about removing adblock support
Don't be so fucking disingenuous.
They said literally the opposite[1]
| At some point, though, Enzor-DeMeo will have to tend to Mozilla’s own business. “I do think we need revenue diversification away from Google,” he says, “but I don’t necessarily believe we need revenue diversification away from the browser.” It seems he thinks a combination of subscription revenue, advertising, and maybe a few search and AI placement deals can get that done. He’s also bullish that things like built-in VPN and a privacy service called Monitor can get more people to pay for their browser. He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission.
That's not even a quote from him, that's a summarization of their conversation and it literally says that removing ad blockers is against their mission.
Literally the opposite of what you're suggestion.
Sorry, people just want to hate on Firefox.
Look, if anyone wants to be a power user there's nothing Firefox is doing from stopping them from using a fork like Mullvad or Waterfox. Those are going to keep all these AI features out. So what do we privacy maximalists care? The forks give us exactly what we want.
Meanwhile we're just attacking the last line of defense against Google (Chromium) taking over the internet? How fucking stupid are we? We're eating our cake and what, complaining that the baker's hands aren't made of gold? It's just laughable at how much we love shooting ourselves in the foot here. We've been playing this same stupid fucking game for years and watching Chrome take more and more market share. Let FF be the browser for the masses and use a fucking fork if you care about true Scottsmen. It takes literally no technical skill to click download on a different webpage. Seriously, this is so fucking dumb.
I'm just going to link this from further down the main post. The two toots summarize it well[2]
[0] You literally have to download the translation models!
[1] https://www.theverge.com/tech/845216/mozilla-ceo-anthony-enzor-demeo https://www.theverge.com/tech/845216/mozilla-ceo-anthony-enz... (https://archive.is/20251217170357/https://www.theverge.com/tech/845216/mozilla-ceo-anthony-enzor-demeo#selection-1619.0-1619.61 https://archive.is/20251217170357/https://www.theverge.com/t...)
[2] https://mastodon.social/@nical@mastodon.gamedev.place/115741276288490611 https://mastodon.social/@nical@mastodon.gamedev.place/115741...
- tliltocatl 11mo ago> money (which they desperately need) True. But crypto is bad publicity and everyone knows it. At that point it's no better than going out wearing a swastika sign (sorry, Poe's law triggered) and saying it's an ancient Buddhist symbol. > No, what FF is doing is implementing features like Translate (an ALREADY opt-in feature[0]) and semantic search Did you read my comment? The problem is that this takes focus away from the browser core. Why did they kill Servo? Were are XUL API replacements that were promised? The AI fluff could have been an extension - and that would keep everyone happy. > It feels off-mission. Than he doesn't need to talk about it at all. Unless that's a vibe check that's it. Somebody already posted an xkcd of it, I'm just doubling: https://xkcd.com/463/ https://xkcd.com/463/ > We're eating our cake and what, complaining that the baker's hands aren't made of gold? Unfortunately it's pretty hard to define where "hand aren't made of gold" stops and "gotta call a HAZMAT decontamination team" starts. > Meanwhile we're just attacking the last line of defense against Google (Chromium) taking over the internet? The thing is: Google started as "don't be evil" as well. It didn't lasted because of inherit incentives issue. And so if Mozilla is the last line of defense it'd better have some distinguishing features other than "we are not google". Because if they keep focusing on "average user" (btw it's my firm belief that the said user doesn't exist outside management's heads) their incentives wouldn't be any different. > So what do we privacy maximalists care? The forks give us exactly what we want. That's what I'm doing personally. But the forks barely have resources to remove the crap, yet alone implement new features.
- godelski 11mo ago> it's no better than going out wearing a swastika sign Come on, I'm far from a crypto fanboy but this is just making my case. It's incredibly egregious. You can call crypto a bullshit fad loved by scammers without saying anyone that accepts it is a Nazi. I don't see anyone getting all up in arms about the Wayback Machine, The EFF, or plenty of others who accept cryptocurrencies as payments. And again, to equate it to shipping a miner in the browser is BEYOND EGREGIOUS. It is nothing short of laughable. > Than he doesn't need to talk about it at all. We don't know the full context since it is summarized. Maybe he was explicitly asked. But honestly I read it as a bad joke along the lines of "we could be evil and greedy if we really wanted money, but we're not." But I don't know how you can read what was actually written as anything remotely close to suggesting they might even consider blocking ad blockers. At best it is making mountains out of mole hills but even that is being generous to your interpretation. > The thing is: Google started as "don't be evil" as well. This is irrelevant at this point. At this point it doesn't matter if Mozilla is evil. It doesn't matter if Mozilla is more evil than Google. Mozilla has little to no power to capitalize on that evil. But Google does. And whatever the situation is, Google having competition and being tied up from implementing evil is a good thing. In the worst situation, assuming Mozilla is more evil than Google (lol), it buys us more time for another player who isn't evil to enter the space and gain browser market share. But if we let Google kill Firefox then that 3rd player is going to have a much harder barrier to entry. So yeah, I'm sticking with laughable. Because all you're accomplishing is handing market share to Google. All you're doing is repeating the same thing that's been happening for years. Crypto, AI, whatever, it is the same thing. People grab their pitchforks to go after Mozilla at the slightest misstep and do nothing as Google tramples all over causing more damage than an evil Mozilla could even imagine. It is laughable.