@aral I think it's pretty idealistic to call them hypocrites — as if everyone doesn't have to make compromises to get by. Like "Hey, Josh hates capitalism and yet he charges money for his products! Hypocrite!" Anyway here's a decent thread on the internal decision process on tracking protection: https://twitter.com/benadida/status/1035363437776261120
@joshsharp You're right, I mean, after all, Green Peace takes billions from Exxon Mobil and even Ind.ie is funded by Facebook. Oh, wait, we aren’t and they don’t because, unlike Mozilla, we aren’t hypocrites.
Being the opposite of what you say you are isn’t a compromise, it’s a con.
Mozilla is a surveillance capitalist.
Follow the money.
@aral I think "being the opposite of what you say you are" sounds like a powerful statement but is empty because how do you define "opposite"? Yes, they take money from Google, who make money from surveillance, and that is bad. Agreed. If they do only good with it, is that good entirely negated by the source of the funds? I think you're saying yes, it is, but I disagree.
All those searches went through Google instead of something else because Firefox actively made Google search the default.
Consider a non-profit taking donations from a drug lord and using it for good. No ethical problem with that. But actively promoting drugs to its users can't be ethical.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!