Firefox displayed a pop-up ad for Mozilla VPN over an unrelated page

https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/browser/components/n...

"Messaging System"

"Vision"

"Firefox must be an opinionated user agent that keeps folks safe, informed and effective while browsing the Web. In order to have an opinion, Firefox must have a voice."

"That voice will respect the user’s attention while surfacing contextually relevant and timely information tailored to their individual needs and choices."

Somewhere in all of these companies exists the belligerent ** who orders the subordinates to inject inappropriate profit-seeking changes into the product. And then cajole/order/encourage another subordinate to write a florid virtuous editorial justifying their belligerent idea.

>>Crimso+V6
> write a florid virtuous editorial

>>ReadCa+s7
> As for "making the world a better place", again, there seems to be some kind of implicit political agenda.

Ironically, Firefox could make the world a slightly better place (in a very specific aspect of the world) if they focused simply in making a great web browser, without unnecessary bells and whistles and without any politic posturing, but that aimed at denting the Chrome monopoly.

>>surgic+og
That's no longer their goal, though. Their goal is to appear like they care about making a better browser, while actually doing whatever makes the executives the most money.

>>BearOs+oj
So, is Firefox effectively on life-support, and functioning purely as a corpse from which the MBA-type vultures who encircle it can pluck morsels of resumé-fluff at the browser's expense?

>>martyf+Mm
It's just my opinion, but yes and no. There's still quite a few decent people working on the browser, and they deserve props. The browser is really good code-wise. The problem is everything else around it.

The current CEO, Mitchell Baker, is clearly in it for the money. She got a salary increase while cutting 250 employees last year, and still had the audacity to say it wasn't enough. Brendan Eich had a bit of political controversy, but being a technical person I think he would've been better as far as focusing on the actual browser.

>>BearOs+Co
> Brendan Eich had a bit of political controversy, but being a technical person I think he would've been better as far as focusing on the actual browser.

He didn't have a political controversy. He was pushed out because he didn't subscribe to the US democrat partisan allowed views, but quite the opposite, which is a fireable offense, apparently.

I don't agree with him on that stance but it shouldn't matter to run a tech company.

I absolutely know that those who censor and fire for political differences definitely don't have my best interests at heart and, while claiming to represent me and my "diversity", they'll brush me aside with a label as soon as I'm not convenient to them or go against their power hungry messaging.

Brendan Eich was a sign of the authoritarian and censorious movement which also tried to bring down the likes of Linus Torvalds or RMS but ultimately failed because it doesn't really produce value and they do, far too much.

Just because someone says they're doing good while claiming you're evil if you don't agree with their non debatable measures doesn't mean they're right, consistent and/or honest.

>>isaacr+Fk1
Eich was in a position to benefit from the size and scope of Mozilla's user base, much as Mitchell Baker is today. The difference is, AFAIK Baker doesn't use her money and influence to rally the electorate to deprive other people of their rights.

It's disingenuous in the extreme for you to cite Eich's victimhood at the hands of a mythical "cancel culture" when the real cancel culture is powered by government-backed forces that he helped to nurture and guide.

In short, if you want to leverage your celebrity and influence to make the world a worse place rather than a better one, you can't expect people to ignore it. There's a fellow named Musk who is likely to learn the same lesson if he doesn't step off the path he's on now.

zlacker