> 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 4 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 4 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 2 hours 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.