The project manager for it used to work in the advertising industry. When the ticket was filed in Bugzilla, she quickly set it to be private to try and hide it. Another mozilla employee put it back to public, and then the ticket was set such that not even employees could see it by Mozilla executive leadership.
How about them ramming Pocket down everyone's throats?
Or the 2022 "partnership" with Facebook over an advertising a "privacy preserving" advertising standard?
How about the CEO's astronomical pay increases while market share sank? How about the fact that they now have a billion dollars in assets, half of that in cash? And they slashed their software development budget a year or two ago? And paid someone ~350,000+ to write an "AI and racial justice" report?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...
And then there's the partnership with an identity protection service (why the fuck is a browser company getting involved in that!?) whose CEO was running people-search network sites https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/03/mozilla-drops-onerep-aft...
Unfortunately, it's iOS only and based on WebKit.
There's definitely an opportunity here, maybe using Servo as the browser engine.
It's available on macOS as well: https://kagi.com/orion/#download_sec
Hopefully enough folks do prioritize browser engine diversity, so we aren't stuck with no significant alternative.
Im not sure that we should support one "not the best" company just because other company definitely worse.
Would you care to provide examples? I am a longtime user of Mozilla products unfamiliar with the topic and I am genuinely curious.
> What should we think of their VPN they try to promote so much
Mozilla does not have its own service but rather resells Mullvad, one of the most privacy focused services in existence. Is there more to this story that I am unaware of?
"""
Mozilla replaced a feature that was end to end encrypted with one that sent private data to a third party for data mining. They denied getting paid for the integration. That was technically true. They eventually admitted they got paid for referrals. They bought the company in 2017 and promised to release the source code. They still haven't. The Pocket website says "as a member of the Firefox family, privacy is paramount."[1] The first part is misleading and the second part is simply false.
"""
Because what people really want is a browser that can't use Netflix or Spotify...
Firefox would no longer exist today if they hadn't included DRM. Ideological purity is fun and all, but it's perhaps a good idea to occasionally recognize reality.
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
Let's put it bluntly, but libre principle does not live well with consumerism of the modern world.
I think that's a poor argument. However, I think the stronger argument is that in this case it's actually relatively okay. Like, it'd be a better world if DRM didn't exist, but given that they lack the market power to do anything about that, EME actually seems like the least bad option:
* It's sandboxed.
* It's optional and doesn't run by default.
* Firefox prompts the user and asks if they want to run the DRM.
In fairness, I understand that there are different views on this; I stop one tiny half-step shy of the GNU/FSF position, in that I would argue that people should have complete control of their machines, but that that includes the right to run software that doesn't respect their right to control the machine.