What if my problem is that it's funded by Google to the tune of a billion a year and spent a large part of the last two years trying to reposition itself as an ad company?

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

So when options are

  1) Google, an ad company
  2) Firefox, a company who Google gives money to

Your choice is #1, because #2 is funded by #1?

I'm honestly having a difficult time following this logic

▲ dwedge 4 days ago | parent [-]

2. Should be "Firefox, an ad company sponsored by Google to keep anti-monopoly at bay"

My choice at that point comes down to which is the better browser rather than some moral support for one company over the other. It also rubs me the wrong way that Mozilla is pretending to be the good guy underdog.

In an ideal world, and hopefully soon, there would be a real third choice but for now they're the same picture.

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent [-]

Firefox is an ad company?

Okay, let's go with that premise, I'll rephrase.

So when options are

  1) Google, a $2.3T ad company
  2) Firefox, an ad company that Google pays $300m/yr for Google to be the default search engine
  3) Safari, a $3T ad company that Google pays $20bn/yr for Google to be the default search engine
  4) Opera, an ad company that Google pays ??/yr for Google to be the default search engine AND is Chromium based
  5) <other> browser, an ad company that Google pays ??/yr for Google to be the default search engine (and is likely Chromium based)

Your choice is #1, because #2 is funded by #1?

I am still failing to see the logic here. If anything, I'm more confused. What do you use? Ladybird? What about before that? Seriously, I'm so fucking lost here.

▲ bornfreddy 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, but let's keep things in perspective... "it's funded by Google" is still a lesser evil than "it is Google".

	▲	dwedge 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's true, but pretending to be the good guy underdog while really being Google's voice rubs me the wrong way