blind3rdeye

terrible choice of link. There was a stack of reporting from various tech-news sites and blogs; but you've given as the nazi site.

It really is a shitty take. Mozilla are essentially saying they depend on Google remaining a monopoly; and that we shouldn't fight the bad guys because the bad guys might hurt us if we try.

The Mozilla blog post was all about the DOJ asking to end search-bar payments, and how this might hurt independent browser. But I saw no mention of the DOJ saying that Google must sell Chrome; which I think is very relevant to the discussion about browser dominance.

More and more I believe that Mozilla's current leadership are acting in their own self interest, not for the public good.

I use to dislike lemmy.world, because I kept seeing divisive posts from them trying to stir up hate against other instances. I find that kind of unprovoked unnecessary shit-stirring to be ugly.

But then I realised that these negative posts were always coming from the same couple of users, every time. So it wasn't because lemmy.world had that attitude, but rather there were a couple of zealots who happen to be on that instance.

And I think of that whenever someone says bad stuff about other instances; because it's probably a similar situation - just a couple of people giving the instance a bad rep.

Need more advertising in Firefox to keep pumping those exec salaries.

What kind of 'voter reform' are you talking about?

Are you talking about making formal requirements for things that are already core safety practices that we really need all voters to do so that they don't accidentally kill someone?

I think it's a psychological thing.

Like, while thinking about what kind of phone we want - a small phone sounds pretty good. But when it comes time to buy it, we start comparing phones, and we see some small ones, and some slightly bigger ones, and some really big ones. We tend to go bigger than we'd originally intended because of psychological anchoring effects.

The slightly bigger phone is seen as a slightly better phone. "not too big" we think, as we compare it to some monsters; and the key stats such as screen resolution and battery capacity sound slightly better. So we tend to buy that bigger phone even if it isn't what we actually thought we wanted.

[edit] I should say that I'm saying "we" in a totally generic way. I definitely don't do this myself. I've literally only ever owned smartphone in my life, and it isn't particularly big or flashy. I have an anti-phone attitude.

They wouldn't have to do every country. A single example would be helpful, for context and clarity.

They're not that cash strapped though. Their blog post says that they need the revenue to 'grow', and they go on to talk about the new people they've added to the board. So it isn't really about getting enough money to survive. It's about getting money to support a top-heavy company structure.

He doesn't need to kick them off. Its more advantageous for him to keep them on his platform, where he can influence who sees their posts; and for how long; and in what context. He can suppress messages that he doesn't like; and twist narratives; and promote messages he does like - all while making "X" seem like a useful platform to get news and to reach followers.

The high engagement numbers of X do make it look like a place worth staying on. But make no mistake, Musk can (and does) use his control of the platform to change what people see there for his own benefit.

I'm sure they'll make good use of it, and return when they're finished - if possible.

(and my axe, too.)

Mozilla are a non profit organisation. Their recent blog post says that they will invest in advertising to increase short-term revenue that they need to "grow". The blog goes on to talk about the increase in board members, and new leaders being added. The CEO and these new leaders are highly paid...

To me this looks bad. It looks to me that Mozilla's new leaders have pushed out the old; and are now moving towards advertising and selling user data not because they need it to stabilise and survive, but because they need it to pay the people making the decision to burn trust and reputation. It has become a top-heavy organisation, and greed has seeped in.

A few people will be self-enriched by this, and then the orgasation will be weaker as a result.

The change was accepted after a short conversation. So to talk about "refusing a small change so aggressively" is total bullshit, like you're trying to start a fight or something.