zlacker

>>danShu+(OP)
Expected, but meaningless if we can't drive people towards Firefox and away from Chromium products. That's something of a responsibility we all have, especially those of us invested in the safety and security (collectively, trust) of the web.

I haven't seen anything yet on whether Brave will support it, though if I'm understanding correctly, they won't have a choice since they're using Chromium. Hopefully I'm misinformed.

>>eganis+s8
Judging by all the hate Mozilla gets around here, it would be nice to at least see some credit given where it is due.

Ultimately I think we must permanently return to browser ballots back by the law, like the IE bundling fallout. Otherwise friction and incentives will continue to entrench one dominant player.

>>paulry+N8
Mozilla gets hate because they say they're fighting for the user and then fail to live up to that standard. People expect Google to try and screw over users, so when it happens nobody is disappointed. I do agree that this results in oddly skewed reactions, but the emotional side makes sense.

>>yjftsj+2k
How do we define "failure"? Let's say we can measure how much Mozilla fights for the user and put it on a scale:

         |--------------------|
    anti-user              pro-user

Where on the scale is "failure"? Let's say Mozilla is on the M, and Google is on the G:

         |----G-------M-------|
    anti-user              pro-user

Is Mozilla failing?

The sentiment I seem to see is that anything short of perfect is failure.

>>zirak+0q
How do we define "evil"? Let's say we can measure how much evil Putin does and put it on a scale:

         |--------------------|
    anti-user              pro-user

Where on the scale is "failure"? Let's say Putin is on the P, and Hitler is on the H:

         |----H-------P-------|
    anti-user              pro-user

Is Putin evil?

The sentiment I seem to see is that anything short of sainthood is evil.

The answer of course is that relativism is not a good way to judge people or organizations. Mozilla chooses to do a lot of shitty things. They should be criticized for that even if someone else is worse.

>>accoun+yV
We have a lot of other comparison points between Putin and Hitler of national leaders who are not generally considered evil, so it's not accurate that the sentiment is that anything short of sainthood is evil.

Besides, people aren't using relativism here. Relativism is the idea that nothing is truly good or bad, it's all a matter of personal or cultural preferences. That would mean that people were saying that that Mozilla's behavior about X, Y, and Z isn't really bad. But that's not really the argument here. People are generally saying that despite engaging in the bad behaviors X,Y and Z, Mozilla is still in balance better than Google, and arguably still worthy of some level of support. To phrase it in terms of Aristotelian ethics: "For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good". You're unquestionably correct that Mozilla should be criticized, even harshly so. But you can criticize a company (or person, or party, or country) and still support them. Or if short of support, still prefer them to the available alternatives.