This opinion is fully consistent with Mozilla's self-interest, whether it is or is not in Google's interest is basically immaterial.
I also have to say I find it difficult to take "Mozilla is Google by proxy" complaints seriously when the same people tend to simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams. It's unreasonable to on one hand whine about their financial dependence on the Firefox default search deal with Google and then on the other hand whine any time they make a little bit of revenue on a VPN partnership, or Pocket, or a Disney movie about a Red Panda.
> when the same people simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams.
I don't know what "same people" you're talking about, but the criticism I see is typically about a) Mozilla's attempts to branch out which failed, b) Mozilla's "branching out" attempts that are just as bad as their reliance on Google (like how they bought an ad company and are pushing their form of "anonymous tracking" or whatnot.)
Hot take: Developing a privacy concious replacement for the current ad-surveillance-industrial-complex model is NOT a bad idea, it's probably a good one and consistent with their values. It's also one of the few ideas which could actually plausibly fund their operations.
I liked their partnership with Scroll, before it got destroyed by the Twitter acquisition.
>I find it difficult to take "Mozilla is Google by proxy" complaints seriously when the same people tend to simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams.
I don't wish to cause too much argument, but it might be worth to consider that not all naysayers are from the same cloth. It could easily be several different groups of people that might not overlap. Each might complain about Mozilla, but for different reasons. I.e. Group 1: "Mozilla takes money from google, and that's bad! They rely too much on Web Browsers!" Group 2: "Mozilla is too distracted by side projects! They need to focus on what they're best at!"
Both of those groups might not agree with one another, but at other times there might be some overlap in complaints, too. I could see group 1 and 2 both complain that, for instance, "AI is an untested, trendy/gimmicky idea that they shouldn't be focusing on right now."
I'm not terribly wrapped up with what Mozilla does, or does not do; Mozilla can do whatever they want...I don't work there, so I don't care too terribly. I do my best to judge ideas on its merits.
>I could see group 1 and 2 both complain that, for instance, "AI is an untested, trendy/gimmicky idea that they shouldn't be focusing on right now."
If you think that Mozilla is too dependent on a search engine deal, would it not be wise to hedge against the fact that search itself may be less relevant in the future? Certainly Google, Apple and Microsoft are not ignoring AI as a browser supplement / replacement. But they're all incentivized to do it on their own proprietary systems, whereas Mozilla is incentivized to use local, open source, small models. That's potential differentiation.
I was using an example of criticism I've heard regarding Mozilla. As I stated:
>I'm not terribly wrapped up with what Mozilla does, or does not do; Mozilla can do whatever they want...I don't work there, so I don't care too terribly.
I don't think GAI (generative AI), in the commercial sense that it has been marketed in the last year or two, has been around long enough to critique it with any verifiable wisdom or insight - ChatGPT for example only launched around mid 2022 - we aren't far enough removed from its hype to make any kind of neutral assessment.
In more broad terms as a field of computer science ala machine learning, computer vision, deep learning, etc. it's far too niche an area for me to really assert any insight on - I'm at the kids table.
As an overview, I typically favor optimism over the long-term (15-20 year) on technological advancements - spellcheck is in a better spot than it was in 2004 for example, however, I have also been exceedingly dismissive over some things: online video (YouTube), streaming (Netflix, Hulu, etc.), and microblogging when they were new. They, of course then became explosively successful several seconds after the words tumbled out between my lips.
GAI is simply too new a technology in its current form to say if it is a: positive, negative, neutral, or somewhere in-between. And if it doesn't seem smart to speculate one way or another about GAI, it seems even more ill-advised to speculate whether it is profitable to invest in GAI.
I think those people are (1) worried about Google and also simultaneously (2) worried/annoyed by activities that they think will never be sufficient to replace Google funding and that distract from browser development.
Exactly. Mozilla is a seriously bloated organization. Most of its $500M+ budget goes toward activities that have little to do with Firefox development.
(In another thread a couple of months ago, it was postulated that Firefox development accounts for at most $200M of the budget, and likely much less than that.)
Basically, they are using Firefox search deals and other revenue streams to fund their political and educational campaigns. Not that I disagree with their ideals, but I really wish they left the activism to other orgs like EFF and just focused on making a browser.
Well, sure, but you could also ask the question: let's say Mozilla loses this funding. Will the web, either as standards or as a marketplace, improve as a result?
I think the answer is a pretty definitive "no way in hell". All browsers will start pulling "the old tricks" like replacing adverts on websites to fund themselves.
If anything, the funding has corrupted them, as they opted for web extensions instead of extending or re-implementing their XUL framework, thereby removing significant amounts of user control over the browser. We can now see the true intention behind web extensions, exemplified by Chrome's implementation of Manifest V3, which appears to be designed to make it challenging for web extension developers to keep up with the changes while maintaining privacy and user control, ultimately causing the extension ecosystem to fragment. This outcome could have been avoided if browsers had stuck to their own paths from the start.
This trend has continued to this day, as evident in your mention of compromised privacy, where Mozilla may take some steps to protect users but then introduce subtle changes that include analytics and tracking.
Additionally, the funding likely retained a lot of talent at Mozilla that could have otherwise contributed to the former SerenityOS's browser, now known as LadyBird, thereby diversifying the ecosystem.
Mozilla is an adtech company now (https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/18/mozilla_buys_anonym_b...) and by default they now collect everyone's browsing history, track what you're doing online, then give that information to third parties who use it to deliver reports to marketers.
>Proposals in US vs. Google threaten vital role of independent browsers
That's a creative way to put it considering there is only one independent browser (singular) that's being harmed by this. A more straightforward title world be `Proposals in US vs. Google threaten the only viable independent browser maker left`
Hmm I think two, since Google pays (paid) Apple to be the default search engine on iOS, it could’ve been said that WebKit and Safari development might have been partially financed with this money.
But I guess that falls apart when we treat Safari as dependent on Apple, which it is.
Sadly Mozilla is like a large dead tree husk, full of parasites, that deprives healthy tree saplings from sunlight. I know its harsh, but I say knock it down. Much better for the browser market.
> We urge the court to consider remedies that achieve its goals without harming independent browsers, browser engines and ultimately without harming the web.
Such as? I have no idea what the solution to this issue is and, it seems, neither does Mozilla.
If you have a monopoly, the only way to handle it is to split the company down the middle. Give both full rights to all the contained IP except the name of the original company. Google.com would redirect to the two resulting companies randomly. Maybe after this split stabilizes you need to split the resulting companies again.
Markets need to emulate evolution. Consolidation is emulating invasive clonal individuals that eventually crash. We need to emulate offspring and the death of the parent.
…this might be the worst possible solution for all parties involved. How do I handle my own credentials when I have no idea which way a coin toss is going to go when I reach the site? How are certs handled? What would anyone gain from one Google becoming two, identical and indistinguishable Googles?
> How do I handle my own credentials when I have no idea which way a coin toss is going to go when I reach the site?
You'll notice which one you got to after the redirect obviously. Reset credentials isn't a huge deal either, it happens after hacking attacks all the time.
> How are certs handled?
I don't understand this question. There are two different companies afterwards, with their own certs and their own name. No problem at all.
> What would anyone gain from one Google becoming two, identical and indistinguishable Googles?
Indistinguishable? No. They must rename. And they will diverge over time as they try to compete. You know.. like markets are supposed to work.
That’s an interesting idea. I would think that trying to do a second split would have significant challenges because the monopoly has already been turned into a duopoly, so now you have to do the work against two rich companies. Looking at the two most famous breakups of monopolies, Standard Oil and AT&T, where each was broken into multiple entities, I would argue that the resulting “children” were still far too powerful. Maybe these monopolies need to be broken into 10+ separate businesses for it to be truly effective.
In the case of AT&T the problem was that 100% of the children were (regional) monopolies. This won't be the case for an internet based organization like google.
> As written, the proposed remedies will force smaller and independent browsers like Firefox to fundamentally reexamine their entire operating model.
I think a lot of us Firefox users would see that as a good thing, or at least no worse than the status quo. Firefox is now a small slice of the market, and it seems Mozilla has lost the will to ever truly challenge Chrome again. Maybe removing the easy Google money would be, shall we say, motivating.
> and it seems Mozilla has lost the will to ever truly challenge Chrome again
They never intend to challenge Chrome in the first place. Once they displaced IE, and Chrome gained ground they considered themselves mission accomplished. Although I cant search for the reference where Mozilla said this. It was in the early 10s.
Stop doing weird campaigns, or rather anything unrelated to building a browser.
Rehire the servo team.
Focus on the devs.
There was a time, when firefox with the firebug plugin was the dev tool for the web.
So people made sure websites worked in Firefox.
But since quite a while, chrome dev tools are superior in allmost every regard and the ff ones unusable to me.
Oh and let go of the expensive management. The one that openly talks about privacy, but ships FF with tracking and advertisment integrated by default. Stuff like this burned my trust.
So I still use FF, because chrome is not better in that regard, but that is the only reason.
I'd also say they should listen to power users: allow any/custom add-ons and re-enable dev tools in Firefox for Android (like kiwi browser). A mainstream android browser with these two features would easily outclass chrome on android for most power users.
If I were in charge? I would start by creating 3 (or more) editions of Firefox, segmented to casual, power, and pro users. Casual would be similar to the current Firefox, but with even more focus on ease of use, a “hand holding” mode, and more clarity and guidance when it comes to security and privacy. Power would have most hidden options exposed in UI, personalizations would be exportable/importable, extensions and user scripts would of course be treated as first class citizens. Pro would be fully customizable/optimizable for different verticals like medical, scientific, industrial, legal, engineering, etc. maybe a set of templates that can then be further customized, plus LTS with guarantee against random UI changes and ongoing testing against important sites/apps in each vertical. This is also where you could have a marketplace for high-end extensions or full on mods for the Pro edition. Pricing wise, Casual would be free, Power would be free with a donation of any amount or contribution of code/bug reports, and Pro would be $$ per seat per year, plus a cut of sales in the marketplace.
That’s how I would start. I have lots of other ideas for longer term projects all focused on the browser.
It's an absolute scandal that Mozilla gets HALF A BILLION $ PER YEAR from Google and Firefox isn't even technically or by market share the greatest browser in the market.
How is it that despite this tremendous funding, no other company is using the gecko engine?
How did Microsoft end up using Google's engine over Mozilla's?
Mitchell Baker has a lot to answer for. She is single-handedly responsible for pillaging this opportunity. How she has lasted as the CEO for so long is criminal.
"For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the US because it provides the best search experience for our users."
And the fact that Mozilla is under agreement with Google to send search data to the company in return for hundreds of millions in revenue, without which Mozilla would allegedly cease to exist, is a fortuitous coincidence.
We could could modify this statement to be more truthful as follows:
For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the US in part because Mozilla believes it provides the best search experience for our users.
As a longtime user since the Netscape Navigator days, I have yet to receive a user survey from Mozilla asking me what I believe "provides the best search experience". In fact, Mozilla never asks users what they think. Instead they attempt to spy on them through telemetry.
Article doesn't answer question... it vaguely talks about search, defaults, threats but you have to kind of infer and guess what is actually written in the judgement. I wanted to read "the judgement says xxx which means xxx will happen which causes xxx".
Isn't Mozilla worth half a billion dollars? Perhaps they are "independent" in the sense that they are technically a different organization than google, but usually when I hear independent it evokes images of some "plucky upstart" looking to take on some giant superstructure. I'm talking about independent movie theaters, or independent coffee companies. Things like that.
Calling Firefox an independent browser is kind of like calling Internet Explorer an "independent browser" - it very well may be a different organization, but Microsoft is hardly independent as some kind of thin, agile, and flexible upstart looking to "take on old man google".
This is a reminder that Mozilla only exists because of google, in the Mozilla Foundation's 2021–2022 financial statement, Mozilla states to have made $593 Million, $510 Million of that came from Google. Mozilla is bitching because they dont exist without Google, and while they may claim to be independent or whatever, if the DOJ forces Google to end default search deals, Mozilla disappears.
Maybe they should think of starting to spend "Mozilla Foundation" money on browser development, like most donors expect them to, instead of other random things no one cares about.
> It does make profit. The Corportation-owned-by-Foundation model is not that uncommon.
How, exactly? Excess from Google's money drops?
If their corporate structure is a barrier to using donations for development, I think they need to change it. If "MoFo" can't send money to "MoCo," but I bet the opposite could be made to work. Maybe "MoCo" should gift the browser software and development teams to "MoFo," and pay the Google money (as long as it lasts) to the foundation to license it back to distribute it with search engine-placements, etc.
Didn't they lay off all the rust devs they funded?
I'm unclear what Mozilla actually did to _actively_ foster Rust.
I get the impression it was more like Tim Berners-Lee and Cern.
They do in fact have "alternative revenue streams" and HN complains about the existence of every single one of them. Every threat about Pocket or Mozilla VPN or Lockwise etc. etc. is full of the refrain "Why don't they just focus on Firefox"
There's no "alternative revenue stream" that would bring in that quantity of money without requiring significant investment that would detract from Firefox engineering, which people would then also whine about endlessly.
I can only speak for myself, but Pocket is barely usable (half the time it just loads the live page instead of the snapshot), Mozilla VPN is only sold in a handful of countries (while Mullvad is sold everywhere), Lockwise is gone (I like FF Password Manager, but it's very basic, you can't store anything more than URL, username and a password). And etc. (shrug). It wouldn't be a problem if they were focusing on alternative products for profit, if they were any good, but the thing is - they're not even good.
Making the browser itself paid would instantly doom them to irrelevance. It's already bad enough trying to make developers care about a browser with 2% marketshare, it will be impossible to do so if their marketshare drops to 0.1%, which it will if you make it paid.
That strategy only works for browsers that are basically just thin wrappers around Chrome or Webkit, with basically no development cost for the core browser tech and low divergence from those platforms. It's not going to sustain a fully independent browser stack.
Brave replaces third party ads with their own, I don't see that as being particularly ethical.
Personally I'd like to see them try to recreate what Scroll were doing a few years ago before the Twitter acquisition destroyed them. They'd have to make it cross-browser though.
We have never and will never "replace third party ads". At this point, repeating this easily disproven story just calls your reliability into question.
We talked to Tony Haile and Scroll before they exited. I asked him how selling (enterprise pre-sales and sales) to publishers was going. Tony said "it's like stabbing yourself in the eye a different way each day".
Publishers do not want to share subscriber data, period full stop. They also hate ad blockers. For Brave, we had to make a primal choice: user-first means blocking ads and trackers, not trying to serve publishers too. House divided will fall, and this kind of conflict of interest between fake blockers who sell whitelisting or otherwise cater to big publishers has hurt Eyeo GmbH among others famous cases.
I think Brave is disreputable but they’ve arguably been able to capture more excitement as an alternative browser in recent years, though I don’t know how much of that is because of Brendan Eich’s name. But at least they’re innovating on how to make money with a browser.
Maybe Firefox could release an ad-supported edition?
They appear to actively scorn the idea of making a good browser as a method of funding as well, they seem to prioritize everything but firefox, and want to blow what's left of the budget on company events at fancy hotels. There's a reason firefox forks get so much more goodwill than mozilla itself for the past several years...
Making the browser itself paid would instantly doom them to irrelevance. It's already bad enough trying to make developers care about a browser with 2% marketshare, it will be impossible to do so if their marketshare drops to 0.1%, which it will if you make it paid.
That strategy only works for browsers that are basically just thin wrappers around Chrome or Webkit, with basically no development cost for the core browser tech and low divergence from those platforms. It's not going to sustain a fully independent browser stack.
I was not suggesting a paid browser, that's a bit of a leap. But right now mozilla has burned all their goodwill. If they wanted to, for example, focus on making firefox really good and solicit donations specifically to support continued firefox development, it wouldn't work anymore. They could have followed the model of other large open source projects that do the same.
But now i would never want to support them. The goodwill is just gone and if you give money to mozilla right now it gets wasted on nonsense, they have so little interest in firefox. I'd rather support any of the forks.
if only there was some project that had a great donation scheme and works really well, that is a poster child of good donation models, probably not real though.
If I'm counting right, that page (minus header/footer) mentions Firefox three times, and AI 17 times. And one of the mentions of Firefox is practically pejorative: "Mozilla has been incorrectly thought of by many as 'the Firefox company.'"
This is depressing. Firefox is the only browser I'm willing to daily drive because it's the only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. I love Firefox, but loving Mozilla gets harder every day.
I suspect we have different definitions of "political speech" and "silence" and how that applies to the 1st amendment.
Jan 6 was an abomination, and it should not be controversial for a tech company that values democratic values to call for algorithm and advertising transparency.
We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith.
there is the problem. regardless of who is right or who is actually arguing in good faith, if you stop assuming good faith from someone then you are yourself no longer listening to what others have to say nor making a constructive contribution.
i am adressing this to all participants in an argument. the reality is that all sides are guilty of this and if we want to effect any kind of change this behavior or attitude must stop.
start listening to each other and try to actually understand what each others concerns are, and then work together to address them.
across the world opposing parties are just fighting each other, blaming any problems on others instead of cooperating to actually solve problems.
I agree, and when I'm in person with someone, particularly someone I know, I will listen to them. Among several Donald voters I know, I talked to one who I've known for more than 20 years. We agree on many things in life, in morals, in politics. But he voted for Donald. I didn't agree with what I perceived to be his flawed reasoning, but I listened, didn't call him names, and I know he doesn't hate certain classes of people. (He's just wrong about some things).
It's harder to do that online, when I don't know if someone is even real, or if they have the ability to have a decent discussion. And my patience when typing is thinner than in person, so I don't have time to explain how Donald matches everything everyone should have learned to be wary of in history class.
that is unfortunately true. the only way to deal with that though in my opinion is to not engage people like that online. when i get the feeling that this happens i bail out. it's not worth my time.
>We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith.
Due to the inevitable abuse that unfettered viral social media, black-box algorithms and dark money in social media advertising lead to.
I 100% believe Elon Musk's PAC should be shamed and possibly punished for simultaneously running "Kamala stands with Israel" in Muslim Michigan while running "Kamala stands with Palestine" in Jewish Philadelphia. Then again, punished? Maybe America should be punished for electing these charlatans.
Support cutting taxes for the rich and recycling the bodies of the poor to feed into a new Monsanto product? Fine. But lie about facts, spin up millions of fake accounts to promote lies, and try to hide where the lies are coming from? Nah, fuck that. Social media should stop disinformation.
> It's never not going to be "controversial" for a faction to oppose things that are obviously bad for them.
If spewing disinformation is all the right has going for them, then I don't care what they think - cut them off. Just like I'm not surprised that CEOs hate unions and taxes.
Here you are wanting a pity party for how democratic politics work (winning over factions with competing interests).
That was a genius political move. He illustrated strong understanding of how politics works, are you confused? Tell me then, which side did Kamala stand with?
>Support cutting taxes
I love low taxes, I hope they are cut extensively. I'll be thrilled if/when this happens.
>Maybe America should be punished
The winners, not the losers, get to decide who gets punished. But yes, wishing ill on your political enemies is exactly what I pegged as your main motivation, which is why dressing it up in fake moralism doesn't work.
>Monsanto
The new head of Health and Human Services on Monsanto:
I don't know what you're talking about in your first sentence. What side is Harris on? I don't know, the side that hates this country and its government less? I'm sorry you're celebrating someone hacking democratic processes with lies and hatred, just because he won. (Shocking how quickly the GOP base decided elections are valid when their side has a win).
I support making America more affordable for the working classes. Besides the fact that Donald's policies may raise taxes for the lower class while cutting it for businesses and the rich (Hello, 2017!), his plans would raise prices on all people. Great job.
>But yes, wishing ill on your political enemies is exactly what I pegged as your main motivation
That's not what I meant. I did not confirm your hypothesis. You misread. What I meant is that the winning candidate will fuck everyone over, including his voters.
I don't want a 2028 Democrat to be elected then take out retribution on Republicans. That is terrible and un-American. That's what Donald is doing.
I'm saying that Donald voters want to touch the hot stove, and it's time to let them feel the burn. If we're going to cut social services, raise prices further on goods through 6th grade economics, let the billionaire sycophants of Donald destroy the laws that hold their businesses accountable, and institute a pogrom on brown-looking people, then I hope the supporters of the regime are the ones most hurt by their own policies.
The fact that RFK Jr. wants to regulate additives in food alongside taking away vaccines is the high point of what a reasonable person can look forward to for the next four years, is sad.
I can't reply to PKop's reply, so I'll say a few things here.
Immigration in the US and Europe are different issues. Immigration in the US is not why things are expensive in the US, not why crime is any level of issue in the US. Immigrants are not causing the problems this country faces.
To the extent that unchecked immigration/migration is an issue, the solution would be a point-forward policy of harsher denials, shorter stints in judicial review, and enforcement of legal residence on employers like agriculture, hospitality, food service, construction, and other undocumented-worker-prevalent industries.
We had a border bill that was agreed to, then GOP backed out because Donald didn't want something to be achieved during the Biden term. Kind of like how the GOP and Dems hammered out a CR to fund the government, then Musk and his assistant Donald told the GOP to back out of it and shut the government down.
*The GOP doesn't want to fix immigration, they just want people to be mad about it*.
Fucking over undocumented immigrants isn't the way to "make their country stronger and better for their own citizens". We could be talking about better visa programs, legal residence programs, employment verification, stronger stances with other nations on how to deport people back to certain countries in certain circumstances... Mass deportation in the US is lazy at best and hateful at worst.
----
Biden and Donald, GOP and Democrats, played a part in the money printing that caused inflation in the past four years. Golly gee whiz, I wonder what happened in 2020 to make that happen across the entire planet? Governments are lurching rightward for a number of reasons, and trying to play like the GOP is innocent in the reasons people are angry is foolish.
Donald won't fix affordability. He won't fix housing. He won't fix access to healthcare. Whatever "fix" occurs with immigration is at the cost of uprooting millions of peaceful members of our society so that some citizens can take joy in others' pain (because it isn't about border security, stop repeating that).
It's fair to be mad at the cost of living right now, but that doesn't make it reasonable to give people a pass for voting for a criminal piece of trash who has no decent "concept of a plan" for anything, and only wants to burn the government to the ground because it's the only thing that's tried to hold him accountable to his actions in his life.
Nah, the 2024 border bill wasn't nonsense. Yes, a path to legal status is the only moral, viable option to solving the issue of the people here today. Yes, we need to tighten up enforcement going forward. Yes, more action should have been pushed by democrats on border issues between 2020 and 2024.
No, these economic issues are not as zero sum as you make it sound. Being decent to non-citizens isn't the reason citizens are having problems. Trying to pin it on them entirely, when you have devoted zero words to health insurance reform, zoning/housing innovationa or social safety net improvements, is telling.
These filthy Mexicans aren't the reason Arby's costs $17 or the reason Kroger is having a record year or the reason eggs went up in price. They aren't the reason people are scared to go to the doctor because they don't want to know if they have cancer, because they couldn't afford the treatment if they knew. They're part of communities, they pay taxes, many of them have been here decades.
I'll look up the claim that the fed "blames immigration" for housing. But like I said, Donald doesn't have a plan for Americans on anything, except "kick out a bunch of people". The GOP doesn't have a better alternative, either. You're acting like Dems are the ones who have waffled on solutions, the when asked what ideas the GOP has (besides mass deportation) they have nothing. Just like healthcare.
I hope you care about your fellow citizens and want them to have better health insurance and more affordable, safer food and a warm place to sleep.
We are going to get a better deal here in a few months after winning the Senate, House, and Presidency. It's dumb to think otherwise. We don't care about your definition of moral, we care about our own.
A case like this demonstrates that principles are as soft as butter when they are tested.
Mozilla is all preachy about privacy but is in bed with the greatest private data hoarder in the world. They take the blood money and continue to enable the monopoly status quo.
Mozilla is in favor of more competition to combat Big Tech, but as soon as an actual measure is taken that does that but has negative second order effects for themselves, it's...wait, not like that.
Mozilla is looking out for all types of marginalized folks if you have to believe their activist blogs but in reality spent huge sums on leadership that failed to achieve any target at all for a decade in a row.
Mozilla is the definition of woke capitalism. Hypocritical to the bone.
This is an organization that ordinarily cannot exist. It is showered with money for doing nothing at all: just keep the search box pointed at Google. Half a billion to piss away at hobbies. There is zero accountability to any one or any thing.
The only true principle Mozilla has is that it likes to continue this toddler organization. Free money, no accountability. All the do-good talk is a cover for this.
Is Mozilla independent?
The undisputed reality is that Mozilla is almost wholly funded by the dominant (i.e. monopoly) search provider.
This blog post as well as basic Firefox design decisions (compromised privacy by default) are fully conducive and reflective of this reality.
In other words, this opinion was bought and paid for by Google.
This opinion is fully consistent with Mozilla's self-interest, whether it is or is not in Google's interest is basically immaterial.
I also have to say I find it difficult to take "Mozilla is Google by proxy" complaints seriously when the same people tend to simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams. It's unreasonable to on one hand whine about their financial dependence on the Firefox default search deal with Google and then on the other hand whine any time they make a little bit of revenue on a VPN partnership, or Pocket, or a Disney movie about a Red Panda.
> when the same people simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams.
I don't know what "same people" you're talking about, but the criticism I see is typically about a) Mozilla's attempts to branch out which failed, b) Mozilla's "branching out" attempts that are just as bad as their reliance on Google (like how they bought an ad company and are pushing their form of "anonymous tracking" or whatnot.)
Hot take: Developing a privacy concious replacement for the current ad-surveillance-industrial-complex model is NOT a bad idea, it's probably a good one and consistent with their values. It's also one of the few ideas which could actually plausibly fund their operations.
I liked their partnership with Scroll, before it got destroyed by the Twitter acquisition.
>I find it difficult to take "Mozilla is Google by proxy" complaints seriously when the same people tend to simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams.
I don't wish to cause too much argument, but it might be worth to consider that not all naysayers are from the same cloth. It could easily be several different groups of people that might not overlap. Each might complain about Mozilla, but for different reasons. I.e. Group 1: "Mozilla takes money from google, and that's bad! They rely too much on Web Browsers!" Group 2: "Mozilla is too distracted by side projects! They need to focus on what they're best at!"
Both of those groups might not agree with one another, but at other times there might be some overlap in complaints, too. I could see group 1 and 2 both complain that, for instance, "AI is an untested, trendy/gimmicky idea that they shouldn't be focusing on right now."
I'm not terribly wrapped up with what Mozilla does, or does not do; Mozilla can do whatever they want...I don't work there, so I don't care too terribly. I do my best to judge ideas on its merits.
>I could see group 1 and 2 both complain that, for instance, "AI is an untested, trendy/gimmicky idea that they shouldn't be focusing on right now."
If you think that Mozilla is too dependent on a search engine deal, would it not be wise to hedge against the fact that search itself may be less relevant in the future? Certainly Google, Apple and Microsoft are not ignoring AI as a browser supplement / replacement. But they're all incentivized to do it on their own proprietary systems, whereas Mozilla is incentivized to use local, open source, small models. That's potential differentiation.
I was using an example of criticism I've heard regarding Mozilla. As I stated:
>I'm not terribly wrapped up with what Mozilla does, or does not do; Mozilla can do whatever they want...I don't work there, so I don't care too terribly.
I don't think GAI (generative AI), in the commercial sense that it has been marketed in the last year or two, has been around long enough to critique it with any verifiable wisdom or insight - ChatGPT for example only launched around mid 2022 - we aren't far enough removed from its hype to make any kind of neutral assessment.
In more broad terms as a field of computer science ala machine learning, computer vision, deep learning, etc. it's far too niche an area for me to really assert any insight on - I'm at the kids table.
As an overview, I typically favor optimism over the long-term (15-20 year) on technological advancements - spellcheck is in a better spot than it was in 2004 for example, however, I have also been exceedingly dismissive over some things: online video (YouTube), streaming (Netflix, Hulu, etc.), and microblogging when they were new. They, of course then became explosively successful several seconds after the words tumbled out between my lips.
GAI is simply too new a technology in its current form to say if it is a: positive, negative, neutral, or somewhere in-between. And if it doesn't seem smart to speculate one way or another about GAI, it seems even more ill-advised to speculate whether it is profitable to invest in GAI.
This opinion is fully consistent with Mozilla's self-interest
This opinion is fully consistent with Google's self-interest.
Coincidence? I think not --- there are about $400M reasons for it.
I think those people are (1) worried about Google and also simultaneously (2) worried/annoyed by activities that they think will never be sufficient to replace Google funding and that distract from browser development.
Exactly. Mozilla is a seriously bloated organization. Most of its $500M+ budget goes toward activities that have little to do with Firefox development.
(In another thread a couple of months ago, it was postulated that Firefox development accounts for at most $200M of the budget, and likely much less than that.)
Basically, they are using Firefox search deals and other revenue streams to fund their political and educational campaigns. Not that I disagree with their ideals, but I really wish they left the activism to other orgs like EFF and just focused on making a browser.
> whether it is or is not in Google's interest is basically immaterial.
It's incredibly material to this discussion - as it's Google who is funding Mozilla.
Well, sure, but you could also ask the question: let's say Mozilla loses this funding. Will the web, either as standards or as a marketplace, improve as a result?
I think the answer is a pretty definitive "no way in hell". All browsers will start pulling "the old tricks" like replacing adverts on websites to fund themselves.
If anything, the funding has corrupted them, as they opted for web extensions instead of extending or re-implementing their XUL framework, thereby removing significant amounts of user control over the browser. We can now see the true intention behind web extensions, exemplified by Chrome's implementation of Manifest V3, which appears to be designed to make it challenging for web extension developers to keep up with the changes while maintaining privacy and user control, ultimately causing the extension ecosystem to fragment. This outcome could have been avoided if browsers had stuck to their own paths from the start.
This trend has continued to this day, as evident in your mention of compromised privacy, where Mozilla may take some steps to protect users but then introduce subtle changes that include analytics and tracking.
Additionally, the funding likely retained a lot of talent at Mozilla that could have otherwise contributed to the former SerenityOS's browser, now known as LadyBird, thereby diversifying the ecosystem.
In what way is Privacy in Firefox compromised by default? And how does that compare to Chrome, Edge, or Safari in their default privacy settings?
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study...
Mozilla is an adtech company now (https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/18/mozilla_buys_anonym_b...) and by default they now collect everyone's browsing history, track what you're doing online, then give that information to third parties who use it to deliver reports to marketers.
>Proposals in US vs. Google threaten vital role of independent browsers
That's a creative way to put it considering there is only one independent browser (singular) that's being harmed by this. A more straightforward title world be `Proposals in US vs. Google threaten the only viable independent browser maker left`
Hmm I think two, since Google pays (paid) Apple to be the default search engine on iOS, it could’ve been said that WebKit and Safari development might have been partially financed with this money.
But I guess that falls apart when we treat Safari as dependent on Apple, which it is.
It also harms any other browsers based on the gecko engine.
Opera also has a search deal with Google.
Sadly Mozilla is like a large dead tree husk, full of parasites, that deprives healthy tree saplings from sunlight. I know its harsh, but I say knock it down. Much better for the browser market.
> We urge the court to consider remedies that achieve its goals without harming independent browsers, browser engines and ultimately without harming the web.
Such as? I have no idea what the solution to this issue is and, it seems, neither does Mozilla.
If you have a monopoly, the only way to handle it is to split the company down the middle. Give both full rights to all the contained IP except the name of the original company. Google.com would redirect to the two resulting companies randomly. Maybe after this split stabilizes you need to split the resulting companies again.
Markets need to emulate evolution. Consolidation is emulating invasive clonal individuals that eventually crash. We need to emulate offspring and the death of the parent.
…this might be the worst possible solution for all parties involved. How do I handle my own credentials when I have no idea which way a coin toss is going to go when I reach the site? How are certs handled? What would anyone gain from one Google becoming two, identical and indistinguishable Googles?
> How do I handle my own credentials when I have no idea which way a coin toss is going to go when I reach the site?
You'll notice which one you got to after the redirect obviously. Reset credentials isn't a huge deal either, it happens after hacking attacks all the time.
> How are certs handled?
I don't understand this question. There are two different companies afterwards, with their own certs and their own name. No problem at all.
> What would anyone gain from one Google becoming two, identical and indistinguishable Googles?
Indistinguishable? No. They must rename. And they will diverge over time as they try to compete. You know.. like markets are supposed to work.
That’s an interesting idea. I would think that trying to do a second split would have significant challenges because the monopoly has already been turned into a duopoly, so now you have to do the work against two rich companies. Looking at the two most famous breakups of monopolies, Standard Oil and AT&T, where each was broken into multiple entities, I would argue that the resulting “children” were still far too powerful. Maybe these monopolies need to be broken into 10+ separate businesses for it to be truly effective.
In the case of AT&T the problem was that 100% of the children were (regional) monopolies. This won't be the case for an internet based organization like google.
> As written, the proposed remedies will force smaller and independent browsers like Firefox to fundamentally reexamine their entire operating model.
I think a lot of us Firefox users would see that as a good thing, or at least no worse than the status quo. Firefox is now a small slice of the market, and it seems Mozilla has lost the will to ever truly challenge Chrome again. Maybe removing the easy Google money would be, shall we say, motivating.
> and it seems Mozilla has lost the will to ever truly challenge Chrome again
They never intend to challenge Chrome in the first place. Once they displaced IE, and Chrome gained ground they considered themselves mission accomplished. Although I cant search for the reference where Mozilla said this. It was in the early 10s.
Much more looking forward to Ladybird.
What do you think Mozilla should be doing to recapture market share from Chrome that they aren't doing now?
Stop doing weird campaigns, or rather anything unrelated to building a browser.
Rehire the servo team.
Focus on the devs.
There was a time, when firefox with the firebug plugin was the dev tool for the web.
So people made sure websites worked in Firefox.
But since quite a while, chrome dev tools are superior in allmost every regard and the ff ones unusable to me.
Oh and let go of the expensive management. The one that openly talks about privacy, but ships FF with tracking and advertisment integrated by default. Stuff like this burned my trust.
So I still use FF, because chrome is not better in that regard, but that is the only reason.
I'd also say they should listen to power users: allow any/custom add-ons and re-enable dev tools in Firefox for Android (like kiwi browser). A mainstream android browser with these two features would easily outclass chrome on android for most power users.
So you basically think they should stop trying to make revenue streams independent from Google.
If I were in charge? I would start by creating 3 (or more) editions of Firefox, segmented to casual, power, and pro users. Casual would be similar to the current Firefox, but with even more focus on ease of use, a “hand holding” mode, and more clarity and guidance when it comes to security and privacy. Power would have most hidden options exposed in UI, personalizations would be exportable/importable, extensions and user scripts would of course be treated as first class citizens. Pro would be fully customizable/optimizable for different verticals like medical, scientific, industrial, legal, engineering, etc. maybe a set of templates that can then be further customized, plus LTS with guarantee against random UI changes and ongoing testing against important sites/apps in each vertical. This is also where you could have a marketplace for high-end extensions or full on mods for the Pro edition. Pricing wise, Casual would be free, Power would be free with a donation of any amount or contribution of code/bug reports, and Pro would be $$ per seat per year, plus a cut of sales in the marketplace.
That’s how I would start. I have lots of other ideas for longer term projects all focused on the browser.
Revert to 3.6 and redo the last 15 years
I honestly do not think Mozilla is fixable.
[flagged]
Honestly with out Google's money i think Mozilla is more likely then not to drop Firefox development in favor of ads and AI.
It's an absolute scandal that Mozilla gets HALF A BILLION $ PER YEAR from Google and Firefox isn't even technically or by market share the greatest browser in the market.
How is it that despite this tremendous funding, no other company is using the gecko engine? How did Microsoft end up using Google's engine over Mozilla's?
Mitchell Baker has a lot to answer for. She is single-handedly responsible for pillaging this opportunity. How she has lasted as the CEO for so long is criminal.
Zen also uses Gecko:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41303974
"For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the US because it provides the best search experience for our users."
And the fact that Mozilla is under agreement with Google to send search data to the company in return for hundreds of millions in revenue, without which Mozilla would allegedly cease to exist, is a fortuitous coincidence.
We could could modify this statement to be more truthful as follows:
For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the US in part because Mozilla believes it provides the best search experience for our users.
As a longtime user since the Netscape Navigator days, I have yet to receive a user survey from Mozilla asking me what I believe "provides the best search experience". In fact, Mozilla never asks users what they think. Instead they attempt to spy on them through telemetry.
Bing or Yahoo are also willing to pay.
> As written, the proposed remedies will force smaller and independent browsers like Firefox to fundamentally reexamine their entire operating model.
> For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the U.S. because it provides the best search experience for our users.
Isn't Google search the default because Google pays to be the default?
Article doesn't answer question... it vaguely talks about search, defaults, threats but you have to kind of infer and guess what is actually written in the judgement. I wanted to read "the judgement says xxx which means xxx will happen which causes xxx".
I have more questions after reading than before!
Why not mandate that each browser shows search options on first install, and then periodically ask again every... 6 months?
Google could still pay to be the top sponsored option.
Would Google still pay Mozilla in this case?
Doesn't the graph [1] in this article seem to be missing Safari at the start of the horizontal WebKit bar?
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/278/files/2024...
Isn't Mozilla worth half a billion dollars? Perhaps they are "independent" in the sense that they are technically a different organization than google, but usually when I hear independent it evokes images of some "plucky upstart" looking to take on some giant superstructure. I'm talking about independent movie theaters, or independent coffee companies. Things like that.
Calling Firefox an independent browser is kind of like calling Internet Explorer an "independent browser" - it very well may be a different organization, but Microsoft is hardly independent as some kind of thin, agile, and flexible upstart looking to "take on old man google".
No one has figured out how to fund browser development because of ads. The siren call was too strong and drowned out alternate funding models.
This is a reminder that Mozilla only exists because of google, in the Mozilla Foundation's 2021–2022 financial statement, Mozilla states to have made $593 Million, $510 Million of that came from Google. Mozilla is bitching because they dont exist without Google, and while they may claim to be independent or whatever, if the DOJ forces Google to end default search deals, Mozilla disappears.
Maybe they should think of starting to spend "Mozilla Foundation" money on browser development, like most donors expect them to, instead of other random things no one cares about.
>Maybe they should think of starting to spend "Mozilla Foundation" money on browser development
That would be tax fraud. Tax-exempt charitable donations from MoFo can't be used for product development by MoCo, a for-profit company.
That's technically true but MoFo could hire some developers directly.
It sounds like MoCo doesn't make any profit anyway, it's just an antitrust shield for Google.
It does make profit. The Corportation-owned-by-Foundation model is not that uncommon.
> It does make profit. The Corportation-owned-by-Foundation model is not that uncommon.
How, exactly? Excess from Google's money drops?
If their corporate structure is a barrier to using donations for development, I think they need to change it. If "MoFo" can't send money to "MoCo," but I bet the opposite could be made to work. Maybe "MoCo" should gift the browser software and development teams to "MoFo," and pay the Google money (as long as it lasts) to the foundation to license it back to distribute it with search engine-placements, etc.
I personally stopped giving them money when I learned they didn't spend any of the donations on firefox.
To be fair, the Rust thing was really great.
All the lackluster AI, VR, and other toys have been wasted efforts though.
Didn't they lay off all the rust devs they funded? I'm unclear what Mozilla actually did to _actively_ foster Rust. I get the impression it was more like Tim Berners-Lee and Cern.
At some point this is Mozilla’s own fault for not finding an alternative revenue scheme after all these decades. Addicted to an easy money spigot.
They do in fact have "alternative revenue streams" and HN complains about the existence of every single one of them. Every threat about Pocket or Mozilla VPN or Lockwise etc. etc. is full of the refrain "Why don't they just focus on Firefox"
There's no "alternative revenue stream" that would bring in that quantity of money without requiring significant investment that would detract from Firefox engineering, which people would then also whine about endlessly.
I can only speak for myself, but Pocket is barely usable (half the time it just loads the live page instead of the snapshot), Mozilla VPN is only sold in a handful of countries (while Mullvad is sold everywhere), Lockwise is gone (I like FF Password Manager, but it's very basic, you can't store anything more than URL, username and a password). And etc. (shrug). It wouldn't be a problem if they were focusing on alternative products for profit, if they were any good, but the thing is - they're not even good.
What if they found a way to monetize Firefox
It’s not like those alternative streams have been very successful. Feels like they’ve been floundering from project to project for a decade now.
Making the browser itself paid would instantly doom them to irrelevance. It's already bad enough trying to make developers care about a browser with 2% marketshare, it will be impossible to do so if their marketshare drops to 0.1%, which it will if you make it paid.
That strategy only works for browsers that are basically just thin wrappers around Chrome or Webkit, with basically no development cost for the core browser tech and low divergence from those platforms. It's not going to sustain a fully independent browser stack.
What if they pursued a freemium model, other browsers like Orion do that.
What if they monetize an aspect of the browser that people will actually pay good money for (something more than Pocket).
Heck even Brave is trying something with its model.
Brave replaces third party ads with their own, I don't see that as being particularly ethical.
Personally I'd like to see them try to recreate what Scroll were doing a few years ago before the Twitter acquisition destroyed them. They'd have to make it cross-browser though.
We have never and will never "replace third party ads". At this point, repeating this easily disproven story just calls your reliability into question.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42380899
We talked to Tony Haile and Scroll before they exited. I asked him how selling (enterprise pre-sales and sales) to publishers was going. Tony said "it's like stabbing yourself in the eye a different way each day".
Publishers do not want to share subscriber data, period full stop. They also hate ad blockers. For Brave, we had to make a primal choice: user-first means blocking ads and trackers, not trying to serve publishers too. House divided will fall, and this kind of conflict of interest between fake blockers who sell whitelisting or otherwise cater to big publishers has hurt Eyeo GmbH among others famous cases.
I think Brave is disreputable but they’ve arguably been able to capture more excitement as an alternative browser in recent years, though I don’t know how much of that is because of Brendan Eich’s name. But at least they’re innovating on how to make money with a browser.
Maybe Firefox could release an ad-supported edition?
On "disreputable", see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42380899.
On Firefox doing ads, you must have missed https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t... (Brave post on a related move by Mozilla and Meta at https://brave.com/blog/mozilla-ppa/).
They appear to actively scorn the idea of making a good browser as a method of funding as well, they seem to prioritize everything but firefox, and want to blow what's left of the budget on company events at fancy hotels. There's a reason firefox forks get so much more goodwill than mozilla itself for the past several years...
Making the browser itself paid would instantly doom them to irrelevance. It's already bad enough trying to make developers care about a browser with 2% marketshare, it will be impossible to do so if their marketshare drops to 0.1%, which it will if you make it paid.
That strategy only works for browsers that are basically just thin wrappers around Chrome or Webkit, with basically no development cost for the core browser tech and low divergence from those platforms. It's not going to sustain a fully independent browser stack.
I was not suggesting a paid browser, that's a bit of a leap. But right now mozilla has burned all their goodwill. If they wanted to, for example, focus on making firefox really good and solicit donations specifically to support continued firefox development, it wouldn't work anymore. They could have followed the model of other large open source projects that do the same.
But now i would never want to support them. The goodwill is just gone and if you give money to mozilla right now it gets wasted on nonsense, they have so little interest in firefox. I'd rather support any of the forks.
if only there was some project that had a great donation scheme and works really well, that is a poster child of good donation models, probably not real though.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/
Yup.
If I'm counting right, that page (minus header/footer) mentions Firefox three times, and AI 17 times. And one of the mentions of Firefox is practically pejorative: "Mozilla has been incorrectly thought of by many as 'the Firefox company.'"
This is depressing. Firefox is the only browser I'm willing to daily drive because it's the only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. I love Firefox, but loving Mozilla gets harder every day.
>only one that's good and built by a nonprofit.
Firefox is developed by Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit.
I hadn’t realized that. :(
They’re right. Mozilla is ‘the Firefox company who imagines themselves otherwise’.
It doesn't help that they're bleeding their minimal customer-base with political bullshit:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need...
Everything they list in their "recommended actions" section is spot-on.
Calling for algorithm and advertising transparency should not be controversial.
> Calling for algorithm and advertising transparency should not be controversial.
It's not. You just picked the least controversial one.
> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.
I don't care what they define as factual. Give me what I look for, not what I did not look for.
"show me evidence confirming my theory that the air is really 50% sulfur and crocodiles inhabit a layer beneath the crust"
You would take issue with a note that says "FYI that's not true at all, here are videos explaining that"?
No, because that's obviously and easily-provably false. Stop strawmanning.
[flagged]
I suspect we have different definitions of "political speech" and "silence" and how that applies to the 1st amendment.
Jan 6 was an abomination, and it should not be controversial for a tech company that values democratic values to call for algorithm and advertising transparency.
[flagged]
We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith.
there is the problem. regardless of who is right or who is actually arguing in good faith, if you stop assuming good faith from someone then you are yourself no longer listening to what others have to say nor making a constructive contribution.
i am adressing this to all participants in an argument. the reality is that all sides are guilty of this and if we want to effect any kind of change this behavior or attitude must stop.
start listening to each other and try to actually understand what each others concerns are, and then work together to address them.
across the world opposing parties are just fighting each other, blaming any problems on others instead of cooperating to actually solve problems.
I agree, and when I'm in person with someone, particularly someone I know, I will listen to them. Among several Donald voters I know, I talked to one who I've known for more than 20 years. We agree on many things in life, in morals, in politics. But he voted for Donald. I didn't agree with what I perceived to be his flawed reasoning, but I listened, didn't call him names, and I know he doesn't hate certain classes of people. (He's just wrong about some things).
It's harder to do that online, when I don't know if someone is even real, or if they have the ability to have a decent discussion. And my patience when typing is thinner than in person, so I don't have time to explain how Donald matches everything everyone should have learned to be wary of in history class.
It's harder to do that online
that is unfortunately true. the only way to deal with that though in my opinion is to not engage people like that online. when i get the feeling that this happens i bail out. it's not worth my time.
>We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith.
Due to the inevitable abuse that unfettered viral social media, black-box algorithms and dark money in social media advertising lead to.
I 100% believe Elon Musk's PAC should be shamed and possibly punished for simultaneously running "Kamala stands with Israel" in Muslim Michigan while running "Kamala stands with Palestine" in Jewish Philadelphia. Then again, punished? Maybe America should be punished for electing these charlatans.
Support cutting taxes for the rich and recycling the bodies of the poor to feed into a new Monsanto product? Fine. But lie about facts, spin up millions of fake accounts to promote lies, and try to hide where the lies are coming from? Nah, fuck that. Social media should stop disinformation.
> It's never not going to be "controversial" for a faction to oppose things that are obviously bad for them.
If spewing disinformation is all the right has going for them, then I don't care what they think - cut them off. Just like I'm not surprised that CEOs hate unions and taxes.
Here you are wanting a pity party for how democratic politics work (winning over factions with competing interests).
That was a genius political move. He illustrated strong understanding of how politics works, are you confused? Tell me then, which side did Kamala stand with?
>Support cutting taxes
I love low taxes, I hope they are cut extensively. I'll be thrilled if/when this happens.
>Maybe America should be punished
The winners, not the losers, get to decide who gets punished. But yes, wishing ill on your political enemies is exactly what I pegged as your main motivation, which is why dressing it up in fake moralism doesn't work.
>Monsanto
The new head of Health and Human Services on Monsanto:
https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0?si=vWOF5LXtMIDL71k9
I don't know what you're talking about in your first sentence. What side is Harris on? I don't know, the side that hates this country and its government less? I'm sorry you're celebrating someone hacking democratic processes with lies and hatred, just because he won. (Shocking how quickly the GOP base decided elections are valid when their side has a win).
I support making America more affordable for the working classes. Besides the fact that Donald's policies may raise taxes for the lower class while cutting it for businesses and the rich (Hello, 2017!), his plans would raise prices on all people. Great job.
>But yes, wishing ill on your political enemies is exactly what I pegged as your main motivation
That's not what I meant. I did not confirm your hypothesis. You misread. What I meant is that the winning candidate will fuck everyone over, including his voters.
I don't want a 2028 Democrat to be elected then take out retribution on Republicans. That is terrible and un-American. That's what Donald is doing.
I'm saying that Donald voters want to touch the hot stove, and it's time to let them feel the burn. If we're going to cut social services, raise prices further on goods through 6th grade economics, let the billionaire sycophants of Donald destroy the laws that hold their businesses accountable, and institute a pogrom on brown-looking people, then I hope the supporters of the regime are the ones most hurt by their own policies.
The fact that RFK Jr. wants to regulate additives in food alongside taking away vaccines is the high point of what a reasonable person can look forward to for the next four years, is sad.
I can't reply to PKop's reply, so I'll say a few things here.
Immigration in the US and Europe are different issues. Immigration in the US is not why things are expensive in the US, not why crime is any level of issue in the US. Immigrants are not causing the problems this country faces.
To the extent that unchecked immigration/migration is an issue, the solution would be a point-forward policy of harsher denials, shorter stints in judicial review, and enforcement of legal residence on employers like agriculture, hospitality, food service, construction, and other undocumented-worker-prevalent industries.
We had a border bill that was agreed to, then GOP backed out because Donald didn't want something to be achieved during the Biden term. Kind of like how the GOP and Dems hammered out a CR to fund the government, then Musk and his assistant Donald told the GOP to back out of it and shut the government down.
*The GOP doesn't want to fix immigration, they just want people to be mad about it*.
Fucking over undocumented immigrants isn't the way to "make their country stronger and better for their own citizens". We could be talking about better visa programs, legal residence programs, employment verification, stronger stances with other nations on how to deport people back to certain countries in certain circumstances... Mass deportation in the US is lazy at best and hateful at worst.
----
Biden and Donald, GOP and Democrats, played a part in the money printing that caused inflation in the past four years. Golly gee whiz, I wonder what happened in 2020 to make that happen across the entire planet? Governments are lurching rightward for a number of reasons, and trying to play like the GOP is innocent in the reasons people are angry is foolish.
Donald won't fix affordability. He won't fix housing. He won't fix access to healthcare. Whatever "fix" occurs with immigration is at the cost of uprooting millions of peaceful members of our society so that some citizens can take joy in others' pain (because it isn't about border security, stop repeating that).
It's fair to be mad at the cost of living right now, but that doesn't make it reasonable to give people a pass for voting for a criminal piece of trash who has no decent "concept of a plan" for anything, and only wants to burn the government to the ground because it's the only thing that's tried to hold him accountable to his actions in his life.
[flagged]
Nah, the 2024 border bill wasn't nonsense. Yes, a path to legal status is the only moral, viable option to solving the issue of the people here today. Yes, we need to tighten up enforcement going forward. Yes, more action should have been pushed by democrats on border issues between 2020 and 2024.
No, these economic issues are not as zero sum as you make it sound. Being decent to non-citizens isn't the reason citizens are having problems. Trying to pin it on them entirely, when you have devoted zero words to health insurance reform, zoning/housing innovationa or social safety net improvements, is telling.
These filthy Mexicans aren't the reason Arby's costs $17 or the reason Kroger is having a record year or the reason eggs went up in price. They aren't the reason people are scared to go to the doctor because they don't want to know if they have cancer, because they couldn't afford the treatment if they knew. They're part of communities, they pay taxes, many of them have been here decades.
I'll look up the claim that the fed "blames immigration" for housing. But like I said, Donald doesn't have a plan for Americans on anything, except "kick out a bunch of people". The GOP doesn't have a better alternative, either. You're acting like Dems are the ones who have waffled on solutions, the when asked what ideas the GOP has (besides mass deportation) they have nothing. Just like healthcare.
I hope you care about your fellow citizens and want them to have better health insurance and more affordable, safer food and a warm place to sleep.
Don't call someone childish in a debate.
We are going to get a better deal here in a few months after winning the Senate, House, and Presidency. It's dumb to think otherwise. We don't care about your definition of moral, we care about our own.
[flagged]
A case like this demonstrates that principles are as soft as butter when they are tested.
Mozilla is all preachy about privacy but is in bed with the greatest private data hoarder in the world. They take the blood money and continue to enable the monopoly status quo.
Mozilla is in favor of more competition to combat Big Tech, but as soon as an actual measure is taken that does that but has negative second order effects for themselves, it's...wait, not like that.
Mozilla is looking out for all types of marginalized folks if you have to believe their activist blogs but in reality spent huge sums on leadership that failed to achieve any target at all for a decade in a row.
Mozilla is the definition of woke capitalism. Hypocritical to the bone.
This is an organization that ordinarily cannot exist. It is showered with money for doing nothing at all: just keep the search box pointed at Google. Half a billion to piss away at hobbies. There is zero accountability to any one or any thing.
The only true principle Mozilla has is that it likes to continue this toddler organization. Free money, no accountability. All the do-good talk is a cover for this.