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
They take so many active anti user steps.

Pocket, cliq, Push Notifications for Mozilla Blog without user consent, Mr robot, Firefox Suggest etc they are littered with mistakes and scandals and have never improved their governance or process.

I can give them a pass on technical decisions like Thunderbird or breaking extensions but when it's purely commercial it has to be judged differently.

>>lozeng+Qy
The fact that an easter egg about a TV show makes the list of the worst things they've ever done speaks volumes. It was a bad decision, but it was not malicious and it had negligible impact on users. Google does something 10x worse every single day.

>>TheCoe+2m1
I was about to post this comment. I can't BELIEVE people are still hung up on the Mr. Robot thing. This is exactly what we're talking about in this thread when we say that HN has a strong anti-Mozilla bias for some reason.

>>ragnes+BL1
In a situation like that, it's not just about any direct harm that may have arisen.

It's also about the loss of trust.

That particular incident, for example, was completely unnecessary. It involved a significant display of unbelievably poor judgment, and a total lack of foresight. It shouldn't have happened.

The fact that it did happen, despite it being such an obviously bad idea, raised a lot of questions and doubt.

It causes people to wonder what other incidents, which could potentially be far worse, might happen in the future.

It's remembered years later because it involved such a major loss of trust for so many people.

>>Vancou+m12
So let's just keep using the browser from the company with 90% control of the web and ACTIVELY (see this article) trying to make it impossible for you to do things like block ads or write a web scraper just because of "some loss of trust"

There is no perfect option right now, and Mozilla will never be that perfect option because they are human and at least three people working there probably want to make some money.

So yeah, lets just keep making them irrelevant so in ten years I won't have a choice and be FORCED to use the browser that says ad blocking is stealing and spoofing your user agent is a violation of the CFAA and all this other blatantly user hostile shit.

It's such clear whataboutism, to have ANYTHING to hold against the only web browser that isn't actively controlled by the people with billions of dollars a year incentive to actually harm how you use the web.