4 ms·

[flagged]

throwmeoutplzdo 8mo ago
You’re mixing up funding with control. Mozilla Corporation takes money from Google for search placement. That doesn’t turn it into a subsidiary. Google doesn’t own it, doesn’t run its roadmap, and doesn’t ship its code. Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. On telemetry: you’re overstating it. Firefox ships with telemetry on, but it documents what it collects, lets users turn it off, and exposes most of it in about:config. Google Chrome ties into a much broader account system, sync stack, and ad network. Chrome doesn’t operate in isolation; it plugs straight into Google’s data ecosystem. Firefox doesn’t own an ad network to feed. “Almost comparable” needs evidence. Comparable how? Volume? Type? Identifiability? Retention? Without specifics, the claim collapses into vibes. The bigger difference sits lower in the stack: engine independence. Firefox runs on Gecko. Chrome runs on Blink. If you care about web monoculture, that matters more than marginal telemetry deltas. When one engine dominates, web standards start drifting toward what that engine implements. We watched that happen in the IE6 era. As for uBlock Origin: yes, it’s a major reason people choose Firefox. But browser architecture shapes how long powerful content blockers survive. Chrome’s extension model changes (Manifest V3) restrict what blockers can do. Firefox kept the older, more capable API. That choice signals priorities. If your argument reduces to “both collect some data, so it doesn’t matter,” you flatten meaningful differences. The question isn’t purity. The question asks who controls the engine, who sets extension policy, and who benefits from surveillance at scale. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur structural distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.
- Aeglaecia 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- shevy-java 8mo ago
  That is not a mix-up though. Mozilla became dependent on the Google money - everyone sees this.
  - Aeglaecia 8mo ago
    [flagged]
  - tbossanova 8mo ago
    Still better though right?
  - Sabinus 8mo ago
    Feel free to provide Mozilla with a better funding stream. They've tried quite a few things. I'm hoping the Europeans fund development to provide an alternative to Chrome.
- jahsome 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- stephenr 8mo ago
  > Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. Google search revenue represents about 75% of Mozilla's total revenue. Google search revenue represents about 4% of Apple's total revenue. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur financial distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.
wormpilled 8mo ago
That's a pretty big aside
petesergeant 8mo ago
You're being down-voted because it's a low-effort comment which comes with a large burden of proof that you've not included. Specifically: > mozilla is basically a google subsidiary "Everyone" knows that Mozilla has a heavy financial reliance on Google. So are you bringing this up to suggest that Mozilla also consistently acts to benefit Google and its ad network? If so, where's the proof? If not, what's the point you're making? > firefox telemetry is almost comparable to chrome Comparable to Chrome what? Telemetry? Something else? What is Firefox using that data for? In the service of or against users? What's the point you're trying to make? If you're making assertions, where's the proof? You're making a lot of imprecise comments, most of interpretations of which carry a large burden of proof, and then complaining that people are just down-voting and moving on.

[flagged]

You’re mixing up funding with control. Mozilla Corporation takes money from Google for search placement. That doesn’t turn it into a subsidiary. Google doesn’t own it, doesn’t run its roadmap, and doesn’t ship its code. Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. On telemetry: you’re overstating it. Firefox ships with telemetry on, but it documents what it collects, lets users turn it off, and exposes most of it in about:config. Google Chrome ties into a much broader account system, sync stack, and ad network. Chrome doesn’t operate in isolation; it plugs straight into Google’s data ecosystem. Firefox doesn’t own an ad network to feed. “Almost comparable” needs evidence. Comparable how? Volume? Type? Identifiability? Retention? Without specifics, the claim collapses into vibes. The bigger difference sits lower in the stack: engine independence. Firefox runs on Gecko. Chrome runs on Blink. If you care about web monoculture, that matters more than marginal telemetry deltas. When one engine dominates, web standards start drifting toward what that engine implements. We watched that happen in the IE6 era. As for uBlock Origin: yes, it’s a major reason people choose Firefox. But browser architecture shapes how long powerful content blockers survive. Chrome’s extension model changes (Manifest V3) restrict what blockers can do. Firefox kept the older, more capable API. That choice signals priorities. If your argument reduces to “both collect some data, so it doesn’t matter,” you flatten meaningful differences. The question isn’t purity. The question asks who controls the engine, who sets extension policy, and who benefits from surveillance at scale. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur structural distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.

Aeglaecia 8mo ago
[flagged]
shevy-java 8mo ago
That is not a mix-up though. Mozilla became dependent on the Google money - everyone sees this.
- Aeglaecia 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- tbossanova 8mo ago
  Still better though right?
- Sabinus 8mo ago
  Feel free to provide Mozilla with a better funding stream. They've tried quite a few things. I'm hoping the Europeans fund development to provide an alternative to Chrome.
jahsome 8mo ago
[flagged]
stephenr 8mo ago
> Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. Google search revenue represents about 75% of Mozilla's total revenue. Google search revenue represents about 4% of Apple's total revenue. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur financial distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.

wormpilled 8mo ago

That's a pretty big aside

petesergeant 8mo ago

You're being down-voted because it's a low-effort comment which comes with a large burden of proof that you've not included. Specifically: > mozilla is basically a google subsidiary "Everyone" knows that Mozilla has a heavy financial reliance on Google. So are you bringing this up to suggest that Mozilla also consistently acts to benefit Google and its ad network? If so, where's the proof? If not, what's the point you're making? > firefox telemetry is almost comparable to chrome Comparable to Chrome what? Telemetry? Something else? What is Firefox using that data for? In the service of or against users? What's the point you're trying to make? If you're making assertions, where's the proof? You're making a lot of imprecise comments, most of interpretations of which carry a large burden of proof, and then complaining that people are just down-voting and moving on.