  >  The problem is not AI. The problem is that Mozilla keeps jumping on fads instead of focusing on their browser core

Nah, the problem is people just want to hate on Mozilla. I mean even that Mastadon thread they bring up people hating on Mozilla for accepting crypto donations and are equating it to putting a miner in the browser. Like what a fucking joke. It's such a crazy exaggeration of what actually happened. Company just adds new way for people to give them money (which they desperately need) and then everyone gets upset.

How is this not laughable?

Now we're seeing a similar thing. Everyone is talking about fucking LLMs. What, do you think FF is going to start shipping a 100GB browser? Even Llama-8B is >15GB. That would be ridiculous!

No, what FF is doing is implementing features like Translate (an ALREADY opt-in feature[0]) and semantic search. Seriously, go to their Labs tab! They let you opt in to try a feature to semantically search your browser history. That's not an LLM, that's a vector embedding model! What are they going to do next? Semantic search of a webpage? Regex search?! Even in their announcement the other day they mention the iOS "shake to summarize" and that's not even an AI they're shipping it's just a shortcut to Apple Intelligence. The only other thing they've announced is what already exists, a shortcut to use your chatbot of choice. That's not AI in the browser it is literally a split window.

  | Mozilla is not going to train its own giant LLM anytime soon.[1]

  > having a faint through about removing adblock support

Don't be so fucking disingenuous.

They said literally the opposite[1]

  | At some point, though, Enzor-DeMeo will have to tend to Mozilla’s own business. “I do think we need revenue diversification away from Google,” he says, “but I don’t necessarily believe we need revenue diversification away from the browser.” It seems he thinks a combination of subscription revenue, advertising, and maybe a few search and AI placement deals can get that done. He’s also bullish that things like built-in VPN and a privacy service called Monitor can get more people to pay for their browser. He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission.

That's not even a quote from him, that's a summarization of their conversation and it literally says that removing ad blockers is against their mission.

Literally the opposite of what you're suggestion.

Sorry, people just want to hate on Firefox.

Look, if anyone wants to be a power user there's nothing Firefox is doing from stopping them from using a fork like Mullvad or Waterfox. Those are going to keep all these AI features out. So what do we privacy maximalists care? The forks give us exactly what we want.

Meanwhile we're just attacking the last line of defense against Google (Chromium) taking over the internet? How fucking stupid are we? We're eating our cake and what, complaining that the baker's hands aren't made of gold? It's just laughable at how much we love shooting ourselves in the foot here. We've been playing this same stupid fucking game for years and watching Chrome take more and more market share. Let FF be the browser for the masses and use a fucking fork if you care about true Scottsmen. It takes literally no technical skill to click download on a different webpage. Seriously, this is so fucking dumb.

I'm just going to link this from further down the main post. The two toots summarize it well[2]

[0] You literally have to download the translation models!

[1] https://www.theverge.com/tech/845216/mozilla-ceo-anthony-enz... (https://archive.is/20251217170357/https://www.theverge.com/t...)

[2] https://mastodon.social/@nical@mastodon.gamedev.place/115741...

▲ conartist6 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that the forks are the pressure release valves here. Would strongly consider switching to a fork myself.

But still I'm just wrenched by the dissonance in what new-CEO-guy said. 5 years ago or so I reported a serious bug in pointer events. If you move the mouse less than 1px the browser 5-10% of the time Firefox reports to JS that the you moved the cursor ~400pixels up and to the right or left.

Honestly this bug isn't super high impact for the web as a whole, but anyone who uses pointer events needs to work around it by smoothing the input stream. They confirmed the bug in their tracker and there it has sat for five years with no activity while the browser behaves in violation of the contract between the user and the web platform, putting an extra stumbling block in the way of every web application that allows drawing on screen with the mouse cursor.

To me, an issue like that is the canary in the coal mine, and the canary is dead. There's only a few reasons I can think of to leave a perfectly-reproduceable issue like that sitting for five years: 1) you don't have the energy for it, probably because so many other things are on fire 2) you don't see any value in having the trust of your users. or 3) your code is so fucked up inside that there's just no hope of figuring out why a half-pixel movement triggers a mouse would do something insane like trigger a mouse event 400 pixels away.

So now this new CEO guy comes along and says "we've lost people's trust." Wow, I think to myself, he really gets it!" Then he says: "to get trust back, our top priority will be working on AI features." WHAT THE FUCK WHYYYYY!?!?

Did you not literally just say you recognized that you had lost people's trust? Did you think that people didn't trust you because you hadn't tasked every engineer that wants to be able to get a promotion to work on AI!?

▲ godelski 2 hours ago | parent [-]

  >  Then he says: "to get trust back, our top priority will be working on AI features." WHAT THE FUCK WHYYYYY!?!?

I don't think adding a fucking shortcut to ChatGPT is "top priority" or even time consuming.

Did you even look at what they're calling "AI Mode" in that link? They call it "AI Window". It's the same fucking thing as the window where you can opt in to using chatbots. That's nowhere near the same thing as pushing AI on us

	▲	conartist6 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		See the document the new CEO linked to in his introductory blog post, which I will also link here: https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/278/files/2025... This is not a shortcut to ChatGPT. They're totally shifting directions, trying to pivot to being an AI company.

▲ mr_machine 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> people just want to hate on Firefox

While that may describe a few people, I don't think it fairly characterizes the backlash at all.

I want to love on Firefox. I've been using it since before it was "Firefox." I've championed it among co-workers and friends tirelessly. But over time, Firefox has become more and more unlovable, getting softer on privacy, altering settings in updates, foisting 'experiments' off on us, and now this AI nonsense.

I'm part of a large makerspace and have watched their market share dwindle among the nerds. Virtually no one is left.

	▲	godelski 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		`> I don't think it fairly characterizes the backlash at all.` People are saying LLMs are being forced on them. That's just not true. So yeah, I'm sticking with what I said. Again, FF added shortcuts to the 5th most popular site in the world. So what. They also have shortcuts to Google, Bing, Wikipedia, and a bunch of other sites with their bangs. The split window for the chatbot sites? That's barely any bloat and you're not forced to use that. Nor is it even close to shipping you an LLM. And the translate is completely opt-in. You have to fucking download the translations! They also aren't LLMs. They're like 50MB lol. But they're opt-in! `> foisting 'experiments' off on us` The Mr Robot thing? Hell yeah I was pissed about that. And that's a legitimate reason to be pissed. But have they tried that again? If they learned they learned and let's move on (even with extra caution). But if we're grabbing pitchforks for fiction then why should they care when we grab pitchforks for reality? Literally boy who cries wolf situation here and that's why I'm calling it laughable. Just as it is laughable when the OP doubled down and called the accepting of crypto donations like wearing a swastika. It is just ridiculously disingenuous and delegitimizes any serious complaints. So it is entirely counterproductive. I'll save my pitchfork when the bullshit becomes real, not when the bullshit is based on flimsy rumors and egregious mischaracterizations. That's a witch hunt, and I don't want any part of that.

▲ tliltocatl 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> money (which they desperately need)

True. But crypto is bad publicity and everyone knows it. At that point it's no better than going out wearing a swastika sign (sorry, Poe's law triggered) and saying it's an ancient Buddhist symbol.

> No, what FF is doing is implementing features like Translate (an ALREADY opt-in feature[0]) and semantic search

Did you read my comment? The problem is that this takes focus away from the browser core. Why did they kill Servo? Were are XUL API replacements that were promised? The AI fluff could have been an extension - and that would keep everyone happy.

> It feels off-mission.

Than he doesn't need to talk about it at all. Unless that's a vibe check that's it. Somebody already posted an xkcd of it, I'm just doubling: https://xkcd.com/463/

> We're eating our cake and what, complaining that the baker's hands aren't made of gold?

Unfortunately it's pretty hard to define where "hand aren't made of gold" stops and "gotta call a HAZMAT decontamination team" starts.

> Meanwhile we're just attacking the last line of defense against Google (Chromium) taking over the internet?

The thing is: Google started as "don't be evil" as well. It didn't lasted because of inherit incentives issue. And so if Mozilla is the last line of defense it'd better have some distinguishing features other than "we are not google". Because if they keep focusing on "average user" (btw it's my firm belief that the said user doesn't exist outside management's heads) their incentives wouldn't be any different.

> So what do we privacy maximalists care? The forks give us exactly what we want.

That's what I'm doing personally. But the forks barely have resources to remove the crap, yet alone implement new features.

▲ godelski 3 hours ago | parent [-]

  > it's no better than going out wearing a swastika sign

Come on, I'm far from a crypto fanboy but this is just making my case. It's incredibly egregious. You can call crypto a bullshit fad loved by scammers without saying anyone that accepts it is a Nazi.

I don't see anyone getting all up in arms about the Wayback Machine, The EFF, or plenty of others who accept cryptocurrencies as payments.

And again, to equate it to shipping a miner in the browser is BEYOND EGREGIOUS. It is nothing short of laughable.

  > Than he doesn't need to talk about it at all.

We don't know the full context since it is summarized. Maybe he was explicitly asked. But honestly I read it as a bad joke along the lines of "we could be evil and greedy if we really wanted money, but we're not." But I don't know how you can read what was actually written as anything remotely close to suggesting they might even consider blocking ad blockers. At best it is making mountains out of mole hills but even that is being generous to your interpretation.

  > The thing is: Google started as "don't be evil" as well.

This is irrelevant at this point. At this point it doesn't matter if Mozilla is evil. It doesn't matter if Mozilla is more evil than Google. Mozilla has little to no power to capitalize on that evil. But Google does. And whatever the situation is, Google having competition and being tied up from implementing evil is a good thing. In the worst situation, assuming Mozilla is more evil than Google (lol), it buys us more time for another player who isn't evil to enter the space and gain browser market share. But if we let Google kill Firefox then that 3rd player is going to have a much harder barrier to entry.

So yeah, I'm sticking with laughable. Because all you're accomplishing is handing market share to Google. All you're doing is repeating the same thing that's been happening for years. Crypto, AI, whatever, it is the same thing. People grab their pitchforks to go after Mozilla at the slightest misstep and do nothing as Google tramples all over causing more damage than an evil Mozilla could even imagine. It is laughable.

	▲	tliltocatl 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> This is irrelevant at this point. At this point it doesn't matter if Mozilla is evil. It doesn't matter if Mozilla is more evil than Google. Mozilla has little to no power to capitalize on that evil. I guess that's where we disagree a lot. If Google monopolizes the web completely, it'll end up with the web dying as a relevant platform. Just like it happened with Win32 (sure, after a decade or so of constant suffering), just like it happened to minis&mainframes. Because, let's face it, being a platform monopolist isn't very profitable unless you are screwing the developers and users so hard they'll jump on the first opportunity. And it's not like the web isn't worth saving as it is now, but it is not worth saving if it is going to turn into corporate crap. > . People grab their pitchforks to go after Mozilla at the slightest misstep and do nothing as Google tramples all over causing more damage than an evil Mozilla could even imagine. It is laughable. People expect a lawnmower to chop off their hands if they stick one into it. People don't expect a nonprofit declaring their dedication to freedoms to chop their hands off - and not even single fingers. Yes, declaring moral superiority means you will be judged a lot.
	▲	mapontosevenths 28 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> You can call crypto a bullshit fad loved by scammers without saying anyone that accepts it is a Nazi. I'm actually mostly on your side in this debate, but to clarify that's not actually what I think they were saying here. I think they were talking about folks who argue that the swastiki was a Buddhist symbol first so it's fine to wear it in public... They aren't technically wrong they're just assholes. He was comparing that attitude to folks who endorse crypto, not literally calling them Nazi's.