Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans
hypnosec writes "Mozilla has ditched Firefox's new-tab monetization plans because they 'didn't go over well' with the community. Johnathan Nightingale, Mozilla's VP of Firefox, said much of Firefox's community was worried Mozilla would 'turn Firefox into a mess of logos sold to the highest bidder' and that users wouldn't have control over this or see any actual benefit. 'That's not going to happen. That's not who we are at Mozilla.'"
laugh... but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community".
We need a new Firefox, someone "pure" again.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If it's not, then don't come up with ideas like that in the first place.
The new UI isn't going over well either; maybe they should ditch it, too. (I know some people like it - I wish they'd at least make it optional.)
And I'll never use it again.
FTA: "But we will experiment. In the coming weeks, we’ll be landing tests on our pre-release channels to see whether we can make things like the new tab page more useful, particularly for fresh installs of Firefox, where we don’t yet have any recommendations to make from your history."
Or how about just not recommending anything to me? That too complicated a concept, or just not enough money in it?
Funny thing about the web - I get to decide where I go and what I see and when. Any attempts to circumvent that control, whether by obnoxious advertising or regional access controls or even hijacking my new blank tabs with anything other than a new blank tab, people will push back against. And people will succeed, because you ain't the only game in town - And yes, that includes Mozilla, it includes Google, it includes Microsoft. Give us what we want, not what you wish we wanted, or we will move on and leave you to die from prolonged irrelevance.
Now, if they would just ditch that awful fucking interface they just foisted on us...
And I'll never use it again.
Now who's being intolerant?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
mozFacePlant () {
?
}
while [ "Mozilla" = "Chrome" ]; do
mozFacePlant
done
[citation needed]
Users don't have control over removed features in Australis interface and it has not stopped Mozilla. They are just stepping back a little after all Australis backlash.
Tabs on top for example, I have seen the common answer is that url bar is linked to content and should be below the tabs, but...
Why is the hamburger menu below the tabs? Why is the search bar below the tabs?
Why are other buttons below the tabs if they are global to firefox application?
Why is the download progress button below the tabs?
Is any of those items related to the tab content? NO. They are all global items, not related to current tab content.
Some people switch tabs more often than writing new url addresses with keyboard, it makes sense that the tabs are more closer to content if they are used more often. Removing the tabs on top is either laziness from Australis coders or poor planning. The theme restorer addon is a weak patch.
Users wouldn't have control over this (Australis) or see any actual benefit (of customization options removal). But that's what happened. That's who they are at Mozilla.
Is a polished, contrast-less turd.
They need to revert at least half a dozen major revs and try again.
I hope you die as alone and unloved as you lived.
Lets be honest, they reason they're not going ahead with this is because they are not desperate for cash, Google et al are paying Mozilla hundreds of millions literally for their search engine to be prominent (Yahoo is the top placed search engine for Android Firefox).
And if this was prominent instead, it could cost them a pretty penny.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
That a conservative group was going to buy a tab with its own message.
So, just let me get this entirely straight. A man was hounded out of his job for not having the "correct" beliefs*, and when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion, he, too, is "intolerant" (and according to the downmodded post, a "closet homophobe)? This is your definition of tolerance?
Scratch a liberal or "advocacy group" and you see the same rotten core you saw in 1933.
And the terrible crime here is that the man contributed to a *successful* change to the CA constitution, after a previous *successful* propostion to the same effect was defeated by the same pack of "tolerance" bullies?
If I wanted my fucking browser to look like Chrome, guess what? I woud've switched to Chrome a long time ago. Now I get an update today and it looks like crap.. sigh. Where's the 'don't touch my old fucking settings because i'm a hating curmudgeon' button, because I think its time for it.
Bye!
Not to mention that would be the last day I would use Firefox; not merely out of protest but because as a web developer I would know that Firefox's market share would break into the single digits within 6 months.
This amazes me how companies can become so distorted in their thinking that it would make sense for them to think that this would fly. While I like and use Firefox they must understand that my intrinsic loyalty is nearly pure habit. I have switched browsers maybe 5 times and anticipate that I will switch again. I am willing to bet that in 10 years that whatever browser I am using then doesn't even exist right now. Or in 10 years something may completely supplant the browser.
I have no major investment into a browser and it would take me minutes to switch. This is not like a car, if a better car comes out tomorrow I won't just dump my existing car and buy the better one. I suspect there is an economics/business term for when people are capable of switching products and brands in a heartbeat.
And I'll never use it again.
Now who's being intolerant?
The management of Firefox, that's who.
Boycotting Firefox is no more intolerant than boycotting Chic-fil-a because you don't like their policies.
They're "intolerant bigots" because CEO stepped down over public furor regarding him being... an intolerant bigot? No, your logic is broken.
I use Chromium and it's okay... Basically just Chrome without some of the tracking features and it doesn't come prepackaged with Flash (at least not my Linux version)
Konqueror used to be a really great browser but I don't use KDE, don't want the libs, and it still isn't as functional as Chromium, tho it has a much prettier gui.
Can anyone recommend a decent alternative or set of alternatives? Abrowser and Aurora or IceWeasel are just Firefox clones. I sure miss the days of Firefox prior to Deer Park *sigh*
-pete
Firefox suck and Chic-fil-a is delicious. Big difference. You're better off when you switch browsers from Firefox.
More importantly, for contributing $1000 to a political campaign in favor of an amendment that explicitly attacked a segment of the populace, on top of repeatedly (and publicly) supporting congressmen who regularly express bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals. So yeah, he was given the lead position on Mozilla and people flipped their shit because he backed politicians that spew bullshit to demonize them.
No, this is the old "you must be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense. No one has to sit back and accept being walked over, particularly when the basis for it is entirely hollow.
Wait, what? Is this an indirect Godwin?
What does it having been successful have to do with anything?
What are you referring to?
Moar like Dick-Fil-A amirite ?
and started using seamonkey, i dont like firefox's new user interface, the stop & refresh button is now embedded on the right hand side of the address-bar and no way to move it back (i want it back to the left). and i notice now when i close firefox that artifacts stay in memory so if i relaunch firefox again a dialog pops up telling me firefox is already running.
maybe when i get some new hardware and install a newer release of Linux i will give firefox another try, but until then i got to keep this old junk working the best i can
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
has no business making a profit. Non-profit all the way. I have for the last seveal years, worked for non-profits. My political leanings don't gel well with the notion that I work for a profit-centered venture. As an IT guy, it's more rewarding to work for a non-profit, as I actually have less resources to work with and have to become more knowledgeable and crafty to work with what I do have. It's been easier to get Linux and BSD into these envvironments as well.
So, I agree with Mozilla removing the new tab monetization scheme. I almost stopped using Mozilla until I learned the plan would likely fail.
And give us Mozilla office, without the java, please...
If SeaMonkey had tab groups, I'd switch in an instant.
The reload button embedded into the url bar without the ability to move it back to the sane place next to the other navigation buttons (home, back/forward, stop/reload) is the killer for me. I mean, wth. Thankfully the classic theme restorer helps out if you can jump through the right setting hoops, as this is a terrible design in my opinion. IE does this and I can't move it. I don't use IE. Chrome does this but lets me move it. I almost switch back to using chrome as my more permanent browser because of this. Whoever thought putting a tiny stop/reload button here should be removed from making u/i decisions. We wind up with command buttons on the left, command buttons on the right, and a command button in the middle for good measure. Pffttt.
now if they can just get rid of australis and make the browser actually useable again it would be perfect.
I can reinstall Firefox.
Sorry for ruining the joke, but you are missing the "bigot" qualifier.
YEAH! Pretty clear they don't like faggots so piss off you faggots. I like faggots just fine, it's the spineless faggots that have to sqawk about it all the time so other people don't think they're fag haters that I'm intollerant of. People need to look up what the word tolerate means. firefox sux with or without you dix.
Firefox has grown to the point were it is more about money than the users. Google's dominance was the first big shot across the bow of its mission. Now this and the continued Chromification of the UI.
So it is decision time. Abandon the mission or the money. Unfortunately, I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.
Time for a fork...
I get the same cringe if some hot shot athlete or musician or politician says 'To those of you I have offended, I apologize'
That's not an apology.....
> No, this is the old "you must be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense.
I wonder how many people who defend the mozilla guy are also defending the basketball team owner, sterling ?
Mozilla guy goes beyond public speech and spends money to promote a somewhat popular form of intolerance while team owner merely says something in private that is intolerant and vastly unpopular but has spent tons of money in public to promote tolerance (dude had one, and nearly got a second, NAACP lifetime achievement award, those are not cheap).
If "tolerating intolerance" is so important, why aren't these same people standing up for sterling with 10x more vigor?
The Pale Moon browser is a better version of Firefox. Pale Moon appears to have better management than the Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.
Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version
Here are some of the advantages:
1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.
2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.
3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup, which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.
4) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.
5) Pale Moon is completely independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.
Migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.
Donation!
If more people donated Mozilla would have no need to explore such options.
when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion
You have a right to an opinion. You do not have a right to a job.
Their original announcement reads like public relations bullshit: https://blog.mozilla.org/advan...
I am sure the gay employees at mozilla have spent private funds supporting their politics, and I didn't see that new ceo hassling them for it, even if he disagrees. Who's the better person here?
Anyway, none of this should matter because work is not a place where you get to hang out with the people you want to hang out with. You're going to encounter people who have beliefs and lifestyles that differ from yours. You're all there to work, not to establish little gay (or christian, or athletic etc) cliques and then demand the rest of society shield you from it. Whining and saying "I feel offended/unsafe" just to get someone fired for conflicting political beliefs is exactly the kind of systemic oppression people like yourself claim is such a problem. Nothing kills legitimacy faster than hypocrisy.
This is yet another reason that I'm a great fan of Firefox and Mozilla as a whole. Firefox (and Mozilla) remains the only major browser that has the user's privacy, functions, and security in mind; not to mention a great example of FOSS that is equally viable and usable to the neophyte as the guru. I'm glad that they backed off their latest endeavor in response to user worries, but we users need to figure out a palatable way to support Mozilla monetization soon!
Now personally, I didn't have a problem with the sponsored starting "quickslots" as I understood them. They only existed on a completely new install, were visibly marked as being sponsored, didn't send back any sort of user data or have other privacy issue, and vanished as soon as the user visited 9 web pages to take up all the "quick dial" slots with their own content! People being worried that it could bleed into something more is understandable, but we need to avoid lashing out at ANY monetization system, because we'll end up in a much worse state.
Like it or not, Mozilla needs funds to do what they do; acting the paragon of web virtue and privacy, having full time developers etc... isn't cheap. Especially in a market where the "bad guys' are offering "FREE SHINY SUPER CONVENIENCE FEATURE HEY LOOK AT THIS" at every turn, while simultaneously selling the user's data to the highest bidder (see: Google) , it is hard to offer a competing level of service and features with a better ethical bend; its even worse when the "bad guys" offer the biggest bucks (ie the reason that porn, faux antivirus sites, other dataminers and outright malware ads pay the most per click. On the other side, those like American health insurance companies, people search slime etc.. are willing to pay top dollar for your data if Google or whomever gathers it. Atop all of this, Google has to compete with "Joe User's" preferences. Though they do an excellent job bringing their support of an open web and privacy to light, Joe User still may like Chrome Widget A or Feature B, which is part of the reason that Firefox is trying to provide "Chrome UI styles" to those that want them in recent variants.
Ultimately, I want Mozilla to continue with its FOSS, openness, and privacy-focused mission and I am willing (and do) donate to the foundation in the hopes to help them do so. However, I know I am a minority - most people aren't going to donate and/or pay for a browser. If it is true that Firefox is going to lose a huge chunk of its revenue from including Google as one of its Search Bar default engines, they are going to have to make that up somehow. Honest and innocuous attempts to do so like the previous "quickdial sponsored starting pages" idea should likely be supported. Especially the tech and FOSS geek community shouldn't be rebuking any attempt for monetization, lest we end up with Mozilla either falling further and further behind as they don't have the money to keep up, or worse abandoning their principles to pay the bills. Instead, we need to be supporting Mozilla's attempts to make money that is still in line with their mission and our desires for openness, privacy, security and the like.
P.S. Despite being one of my favorite pieces of software, recently Thunderbird really needs some support too (especially, being able to detect the new Gmail Categories etc... that's something that the clout of Mozilla should be able to sit down with Google and work out a way to handle it) . Its sad that Mozilla hasn't the resources to invest in continuous improvements and have put the project on the back burner. We don't want to see this happen to Firefox too!
The existence of harassment laws pretty much decimates your point.
I know it's offtopic, but I have one of those and it is the best large monitor I've ever used. The color quality and brightness are awesome.
1. inexorably varying and deteriorating UI
2. (huge) memory bloat
3. jerky text entry
Mozilla gets over $800,000. every day of the year from Google.
Just divide 300 million by 365 if you don't believe me.
And as for the "tiny UI changes", sorry, but removing basic elements of a web browser is totally wrong and shameful.
about:blank
Bodyline? Yeah Jardine and Larwood really destroyed the romance of test cricket. Bradman still averaged 56 for the series.
Is Mozilla not taking stability patches, or are they not being submitted?
So, just let me get this entirely straight. A man was hounded out of his job for not having the "correct" beliefs*, and when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion, he, too, is "intolerant" (and according to the downmodded post, a "closet homophobe)? This is your definition of tolerance?
Scratch a liberal or "advocacy group" and you see the same rotten core you saw in 1933.
And the terrible crime here is that the man contributed to a *successful* change to the CA constitution, after a previous *successful* propostion to the same effect was defeated by the same pack of "tolerance" bullies?
A fine twisting of words! Calling out bigotry and homophobia that uses legislation with the point of curtailing rights and freedoms is now "bullying" according to the wordsmiths like this moron. Your idiotic "change" to the CA constitution, was nothing more than telling a certain group of people to sit in the back of the fucking bus.
If anyone is harassing here, it's the gay employees who used their social and political dominance in society (at mozilla, friendly politicians and policy, and public sentiment) to get someone fired from his job. If this was flipped around, and he managed to get these gay employees fired using similar methods because he didn't like the fact they were gay, that would be harassment too. Except, oh wait, this isn't harassment, it's discrimination, a completely different concept. He was discriminated against because of his (I'm assuming) religious convictions, which are already protected rights under the law (unlike the gay marriage proposition at the time of his donation). If you expect him to respect the rights of gays (whatever you perceive them to be), then you must also demand these employees respect his. Being fired for backing the wrong politics is NOT acceptable in a free society.
So what does this say about who's the oppressed and who's the oppressor? In this particular case those employees acted despicably and hypocritically, claiming victimhood and then enabling the same kind of systemic discrimination they claim is so vile. In fact, most 'harassment' these days seems to be little more than professional victimhood (Atheism+, anita sarkesian, sarah sharp, donglegate , obama's dear colleague letter demanding lower evidence standards for 'sexual harassment' tribunals in colleges etc). The bottom line is, if you're truly being harassed by someone, you don't try to get them fired, or engage in catty little passive aggressive witchhunts. You call the police.
Good questions. I'm not certain of the answers. I have only just begun to use Pale Moon because I have complained about the Firefox memory-hogging for several years, and nothing has been done. I plan to run tests on Pale Moon using Session Manager add-on sessions that cause Firefox to crash.
.001 cent? It's easy money, from a company that makes money from having Firefox use Google as its default search engine.
The Pale Moon site owner says that there have been considerable changes. See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:
"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser - having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."
Firefox managers are apparently poor communicators and very poor managers. The subject of this Slashdot story is one example. Maybe the money Google gives Mozilla Foundation has corrupted the entire company.
Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.
Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.
See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."
Have you seen $311,000,000 of development of Firefox? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe
I would be very interested to know who gets the money, and how it is spent.
According to Wikipedia Mozilla Corp has 1000+ employees. That's an amazing amount of people for a web browser. Remember, Firefox is the only thing they do that's gained traction.
That's about 950 too much. What the hell are they all doing over there? It just smells like a huge corruption scandal waiting to explode.
More than anything, it's over-management that's made Mozilla an elephant. It can probably explain FirefoxOS as well.
They don't say they're ditching the plan.
They say 'we will experiment.' meaning:
'bit by bit we're going to achieve our goal, just so slowly that you won't all notice at the same time'.
Firefox 3.x was the apogee of runaway heap allocations. With my usage pattern and plug-ins I was losing 600 MB per day on average. I would have six FF Windows open on half a dozen different desktops, each with 20 to 50 active tabs. When I decided to restart FF because it could no longer keep up with my typing in a textarea box, my session saver would restore all of my FF windows to a pile on a single screen of a single desktop, and then there would be a tab reload storm something fierce. It was a ten minute interruption to get all my windows back to the desktop where they belonged, and FF itself sufficiently quiescent again to promptly enact GUI interactions.
My current FF leaks somewhere on the order of 100 MB/day and when I restart FF, it at least puts all my windows back on the same screen, if not the same desktop, and the tab reload storm is forestalled by lazy loading.
By that point I certainly wasn't sticking with FF because it was sleek or svelte. On the contrary, I was invested deeply enough in my suite of FF add-ons that I decided to tough it out (though rather loudly on the FF bug tracker).
I don't understand why so many outspoken voices on this thread purport to be sanguine about Firefox slipping back to the second or third tier in the absence of Google funding. Has no-one here ever read the red-hating Agatha Christie? Oligopoly, triopoly, duopoly, monopoly.
Each little Indian cut off at the knees substantially alters the political culture and calculus on Internet Island. Firefox is Piggy with the coke bottle glasses. Soon after Piggy's demise, civics aren't much discussed.
Think of Piggy as The First Samurai.
Are you using Nvidia's proprietary video drivers? If so try Nouveau instead and see if it fixes it. I speak from experience (at least with 12.04).
Just install the Classic Theme Restorer extension. A bit of configuring and you have a better Firefox than either version 28 and Australis.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Two firefox extentions I use now:
"Old default Image Style"
"Classic Theme Restorer"
All they do is restore previous behavior and give back features that have been taken away (like the statusbar). It's really sad that you now need extentions to get previous sane behavior back. And it's also a bit sad that the MemoryRestart extention is still a must since the memory leak problems that's been in Firefox since forever are still present and seem to get worse, not better, each release.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
My records show that I used FEBE in 2009. I had problems with it. Maybe it is better now. I will try it.
"catty" describes this new generation of "activism" really well.
Nope, all the other browser suck more.
I am sure the gay employees at mozilla have spent private funds supporting their politics, and I didn't see that new ceo hassling them for it, even if he disagrees.
Can you really not see a difference between someone supporting equality and freedom for themselves and someone trying to limit another group's freedom?
You might as well argue that people who buy protective sportsware are the same as the ones who go around kicking people in the nuts.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Sterling's issue was that he broke laws. Also the NAACP was hardly free from criticism when they gave a supposedly racist dude a life time achievement award. Eich did nothing wrong from a legal standpoint, and his oppinion is shared by lots of religious groups. California's proposition was even supported by black churches.
Sterling didn't get flak because he broke laws. He got flak because he told his girlfriend she could fuck black people as long as she wasn't seen with them in public. And that he didn't want her bringing black people to his games despite most of his players being black. Then he spoke about them getting material benefits from him as if he was a slave owner.
His "issue" had nothing to do with breaking laws.
1) That tries to create an adversarial issue when there isn't one. Slashdot comments are not complete examinations of all usage cases. It's a fact that most people use Windows, by far. So, not all comments consider the less common cases.
2) "Minor oddities in the UI do not make a drastic difference in how the feature works..." That misses an important point. Someone at Mozilla Foundation made a mistake. That in itself is not a big issue. What is a big issue is that there are numerous managerial and coding mistakes: a) When Google began pouring a huge amount of money, Mozilla Foundation announced that it would not continue improving its Thunderbird email client. b) In the last 2 years, Firefox has seemed to become less stable. c) See the first comment in this Slashdot story. Quoting: That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful) laugh... but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community". We need a new Firefox...
"3) Why should Mozilla focus on making a backup solution? That's not their business." What is their business? See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011." Have you seen $311,000,000 of development of Firefox in ONE year? Where does the money go? Who gets the money?
Again, the problem is not one issue. The problem is that there are a lot of issues.
"4) Yes, they would have to be crashier if Mozilla wants to replace the problematic parts of Firefox. You have to remember that Mozilla are the ones doing the real hard work in the trenches, we're just complaining about them not doing it perfectly."
That's an interesting point. Mozilla Foundation is doing hard work. However, couldn't there be better management for $311,000,000 in a year? Couldn't someone at Mozilla Foundation do better checks of the code?
"5) My point is that Pale Moon NEEDS Firefox to survive."
I agree. That's true at present. However, suppose Pale Moon eventually has 10% of the users? Will Google pay Pale Moon 10% of the money? Little by little, couldn't it happen that Pale Moon is the world's favorite browser and Mozilla Foundation slowly dies?
Why Firefox? A major reason Firefox is popular is not because it is Firefox, but because there are so many extensions. For example, consider the rapid adoption of Google's Chrome browser.
Most of this is boilerplate leftist gibberish, but now we define an amendment that conforms with the last 20,000 years of human history and doesn't mention homosexuality at all "an explicit attack"? Do you know how utterly foolish you sound? Or have we decided that making utterly non-sequiter hateful blather is automatically true regardless of the *explict* lies it contains?
Donate to the dev of this extension! It's been said before that we shouldn't *need* an extension to restore UI sanity, but here we are, and this guy deserves support. (Yes, I donated)
And yet they went ahead with Australis... At least there are independent developers that provide options to go back from that horrendous mess.
And how much did Mozilla pay you for this little advertisement? Because I want in on that deal.
"Hide Tab bar with one tab" is another extension, which was needed to restore previous versions functionality. It is sad that one needs one new extension per FF release.
Why do some sites. but not all, show only the site plan in Firefox 29.0.1? This needs to be fixed.
Am I the only one who can't wait for this bloated piece of shit garbage to actually die?
When I think privacy I certainly don't think Mozilla. These are the guys that support the advertising industry by parroting their bullshit excuses in refusing to let people opt in to do not track instead of defaulting them to opt out, or giving them a choice on install.
>Mozilla guy goes beyond public speech and spends money to promote a somewhat popular form of intolerance
52% of Californians can be wrong?
>If "tolerating intolerance" is so important, why aren't these same people standing up for sterling with 10x more vigor?
They are anti-semites?
That comment is a 5!
Sending private funds to a specific political platform that isn't friendly to gay rights is NOT equal to using pro gay systemic bias to oust someone from a job. The litmus test is role reversal: If he got them ousted because they were gay, what would you think? Right. The left has manufactured a with us/against us culture around the protected castes in 'affirmative action' that is little different than the one neocons created around christianity. Both are reprehensible and detrimental to individual liberty.
Taking a moral stand and then resorting to end-justifies-means logic in the name of 'pragmatism', even when it contradicts the moral stand, is typical these days..
Yes i Did and love it, now use palemoon on linux and windows, firefox as it is ,is now just a dumbed down Is just a google chrome clone but way slower .