Obviously, people of the same ideology as her will agree with that, because they hate openness and debate. This is an excellent reason to stay away from Firefox. Using it is getting very close to being a political statement, which given the blog post, could mark its users as those in favour of in-browser political censorship.

Edit: very strange that some people cannot see this. She is extremely explicit:

> Donald Trump is certainly not the first politician to exploit the architecture of the internet [...] to foment violence and hate, and reinforce white supremacy [...] and he won't be the last [...] changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors

Let's rephrase that: she claims the "architecture of the internet" - that's the web - has "dangerous dynamics" because (she thinks) it helped a Republican. Not some specific website, or some specific incident, or even some specific politician! The whole design of the internet itself is dangerous, and hence she demands "solutions" to make a "better internet" that goes beyond mere "permanent removal of bad actors" but rather solves the problem pre-emptively before "untold damage is done". Nobody who runs a browser should have this kind of revulsion towards what the internet is.

The problem is that it's hard to pull that off: One of the chief challenges of current day is that people have a hard time even agreeing what the facts are, and what some people hold to be factual aren't necessarily so.

The "factual voices" promoted by Facebook in the linked NYT article, for example, are just mainstream media which shares Mozilla's political slant and which have a built-up reservoir of respectability from earlier days when they were higher quality, but which aren't exactly paragons of factuality or careful reporting today, having spread outright misinformation and been quiet about important events. To put it another way, should we promote say, Fox News, because they're mainstream? That's probably not wise, if you ask just about anyone here.

The thing is, Fox may have been first, but every news outlet has drifted in a Foxified direction of catering to an audience and telling them what they want to hear instead of challenging their preconceptions, which ends up with many outlets made a killing hyperventilating about Trump, for example.

So the issue ends up being that Mozilla's just fine boosting that hyperventilation, which is part and parcel of the polarization and "we can't even agree what the facts are" problem. The issue of people lacking trust isn't solved by browbeating, but by earning their trust. It's presently really, really hard, but still in principle possible.

In the end, I don't want my browser maker to have that attitude. Brave and Vivaldi don't: They just make browsers and other services and give me more and more options. Brave even lets me judge sources and adjust my search engine should I want to. Supporting these teams that focus on giving me control and making better and better tools for me is an easy choice.

Some of the other bullet points have genuine upside that would be wonderful, but they also have costs and downsides that aren't immediately apparent.

Granted, that statement by Mozilla left a sour taste in my mouth. I'd like my browser vendor to be content-neutral. I'll decide if something is bad or not for myself.