
Mozilla – Devil Incarnate - lemper
https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html
======
andridk
It reads like an angry boyfriend writing to his ex. I'm sure there are some
valid points there. But it is ruined by the presentation.

Also, align: 'left', please

~~~
clouddrover
Switching to Reader View in Firefox makes the page easier to read. I'm not
sure if that undermines the author's message.

------
grenoire
Although the author makes some good points, it genuinely reads like a...
proper Geocities conspiracy page. Wow, blast from the past.

------
mothsonasloth
I'll take a less evil Mozilla over a more evil Google.

For the points that the author makes, if you knew and cared about them already
then you'd probably be using Opera already.

~~~
mattsouth
or [https://brave.com/](https://brave.com/) ?

~~~
slenk
That's built off of Chromium right? Ultimately, that is still part of the
Google ecosystem.

~~~
yellowapple
So is Opera nowadays.

~~~
slenk
And that is a bad thing

------
cyberjunkie
As is our attitude of Mozilla's criticism of other browsers and practices,
it's only rational for us to read and understand this author's views with an
open mind.

Invalid ones can be dismissed, but any valid criticism only helps towards
progress.

~~~
apatters
It's not worth my time. Signal-to-noise ratio is too poor. The guy can go talk
out his anger issues with a therapist, and when he's done, if he wants to
write out a succinct post that compares Mozilla's issues with those of the
other browser vendors, I'll be the first in line to read it. I will be very
surprised if they turn out to be the worst of the lot.

------
t0astbread
Ten minutes into the article now and I stopped reading. I'm sure the author
has some good points and I'm glad people take a closer look at Mozilla but
this post is a bit... questionable.

As far as I can tell now (correct me if I'm wrong) there's lots of claims
without further explanation or proof, the author makes harmless things sound
like a big deal (the deprecation of XUL extensions in favor of WebExt for
example) and sometimes the author words things in such a way or cuts out
important details just to make Mozilla look bad (for example the Google
SafeBrowsing thing, which you can afaik turn off from the settings).

I'm always interested in the "dark sides" of the companies I trust and I'm
grateful people are researching this but this post "ain't it". I'm not saying
the author has an obligation to improve the post and I'd guess the author
doesn't care about my opinion anyways but I think it would reach more people
(and therefore fullfil its goal better) if the author worded it in a more
unbiased way, removed the false claims and maybe outlined their "threat model"
(in this case, what they consider a threat to their freedom/privacy) before
they go on to rant about things that others would classify as harmless.

------
auslander
That flagging puts me off HN most. People upvoted, commented.. No, no soup for
you!

Can we vote to get rid of Flagging 'feature'?

------
pndy
The idea is good but the presentation simply sucks and reminds more of
conspiracy theories pages rather than attempt of providing criticism, a
critical view of Mozilla and its actions.

------
antisthenes
Sure, the author's presentation is a little rough, but his points are valid.

Every time someone decides to censor it because of that is a step backwards
against reason.

------
gizzlon
Author makes several good points. I don't think this should be flagged, HN
mods :'( >(

------
nukeop
Mozilla is almost fully financed by Google. Any day now, Google can retract
its funding and effectively fully consolidate its iron grip on the fate of the
Internet.

