Isn't it just a way to sync a reading list across browsers, and have those pages pre-cached on a mobile device for reading when you have no connection?
I'm interested in what people find objectionable about it.
The strongest argument I've heard is that it's not core browser functionality, it was fine before Mozilla bought them, and therefore it's just a distraction/bloat for Firefox. Which is definitely arguable, but probably not a reason to write off the biggest independent browser.
Imo the people making a big deal out of it are using it to justify why they're OK sticking with chrome (best case), or have a partisan political reason to hate Mozilla because of their ESG / DEI positions (ughhhhhh)
HN loves to simultaneously criticize Mozilla for
1) being utterly financially dependent on Google
2) putting resources into anything except Firefox
3) doing anything that smells like monetizing Firefox
Spoiler alert: They can't avoid 1 without doing 2 or 3. It is what it is.
Basically, and I’ve been using it for that since before the acquisition, although recently the Android version had removed the option to cache full versions (only reader mode remains), which has enough of an impact on my usage that I’m planning to migrate away.
Still, there’s a lot of things that seem very misaligned with Mozilla’s mission: the huge dark-pattern tracking banner, the non-open-source nature, the huge dark-pattern tracking banner, the default homepage with weird US-politics-related recommendations that has replaced the actual list, the huge dark-pattern tracking banner, the recommended links inserted at the end of each article as an engagement-driven manipulation, and have I mentioned the huge dark-pattern tracking banner with the accompanying tracking. This would be an expected amount of evil assholery from a random SV startup, but from Mozilla it does feel like a point to add to the betrayal tally (hello EME/Widevine),
Why? Technically, it shouldn't be impossible - one shouldn't exclude the other.