Follow

After Mozilla recently began accepting donations via BitPay, many people started being vocal about cancelling Mozilla and Firefox and switching to other browsers.

I know crypto sucks, but don't y'all realize that the other browser engines are developed by megacorps that are LEAGUES ahead in terms of ecologic impact, and that are almost entirely built on top of evil business models?

Mozilla's only sin was accepting donations via BitPay. Please let's stop being so toxic about everything, and boycott BitPay and Bitcoin rather than Mozilla, shall we?

@avalos Agreed. Mozilla has certainty become more (or just more obviously) aligned with its corporate side, but fighting the chromium monoculture is more important, and for people that want a completely functional, non-experimental browser, firefox (or a derivative) is still the only real option.

@powerofzero Mozilla has aligned a bit more with its corporate side, necessarily so, because it needs money to sustain Firefox and reduce their reliance on Google's financing in this capitalistic society.

Granted, executives are overpaid (maybe for a reason??? maybe so they don't leave??? honestly not sure) and some of their decisions have been catastrophic; but either way, we can't just expect them to magically make money out of thin air. Donations to Mozilla Foundation are probably not enough, they need alternative sources of income.

@avalos It's not the only thing. They repeatedly make decisions to piss of their users. Screwing with UI every bloody release, achieving exactly nothing; firing their development team, but the managers get a raise. Honestly, fuck Firefox and fuck Mozilla.

I've read a blog post a while back, that outlined what Mozilla did to lose their users, I can't find it though.

@snaums There are tons of more important issues other than something as trivial as the UI, that can totally be changed using userChrome.css. Regarding the other things, I'm aware: mstdn.social/@avalos/107566617

@avalos There it is. news.itsfoss.com/firefox-conti

The UI is the thing where you gain nobody and lose everyone, who dislikes the new UI. But there are other factors listed in the article.

Honstly, I want a browser, that doesn't change every bloody release, removing old options, adding colours for 2 versions, that doesn't stop working when I run an upgrade, done by a team who know the resources they have and on what front they should be working on.

(1/2)

@avalos Videoconferencing is still (afaik) not on par with chrome. Firefox loses, because in every bloody manual you read "please use chrome for best video/audio/gubbins", and they are right.

And maybe I can try and revert some UI changes back to what I liked, but they will break it again next release. And they will tell me, that this firefox is now the most secure, even more secure, than the previous one.

Are Mozilla the devil. No. Of course not. But they are not the good people either imho.

@snaums Mozilla is clearly not targetting picky geeks like you with the recent UI changes. They're targetting picky regular people who want something beautiful out of the box.

@avalos but the "picky regular people" are already using firefox or chrome. And having blocky huge tabs will probably not bring them to firefox.

But yeah. Mozilla will never beat Google in technical things, they also will need to be the good people. Currently, only their marketing says that, not their actions. At all.

Anyways. Mozillas problems are bigger than UI and bigger than bitcoin. The earlier they lose every user, the earlier they might change or just go under. Both are fine for me.

@snaums Believe it or not, the picky regular people are more likely to migrate to Firefox if it looks pretty to them (really). Recently, there has been more awareness about privacy issues, which makes it more likely that at some point, more people will start looking for alternatives, and Firefox has to be ready to be chosen over others.

Also, Firefox is not too far behind Chromium technically.

@avalos @snaums

Distros need to be putting alternatives in their repositories to make them easy to find / install, maintainers are also going to have to keep up with the updates etc.

@avalos @snaums There was nothing wrong with the previous UI, even to regular users

@avalos I do feel like it is somewhat misdirected anger, as much as I myself dislike cryptocurrency. The Free Software Foundation accepts cryptocurrency donations, too—that was how I got rid of the last of mine when I soured on even playing with it.

@tejr @avalos there is the part where mozilla took george soros money and subsequently blogs about how cancel culture is good and we need more censorship because bogeymen.

@icedquinn @avalos Mozilla do a lot of stuff I do not like. What I mean is accepting cryptocurrency as a donation method is not what I would make the centrepiece of my case for why Mozilla has lost its way. I think maybe the absurd excesses of NFTs have set people on edge about it, even more than usual.

@tejr @avalos mozilla takes money from actual surviving nazis and attacks free speech by calling fedi et all "distributed web of hate" and says literally "we need more than deplatforming." they fired their CEO who basically founded the project because of his personal (not related to mozilla) voting record.

they do actually reprehensible things. this is just some shit-op.

BTC threatens bankers so they're throwing every narrative at the wall to get one that sticks. then they press that one hard. it used to be that you could buy drugs with it; now its the ocean boiling meme.
@icedquinn @tejr @avalos I was about to bring up their past. Mozilla has done plenty of shit in the past, the CEO is drunk

@avalos excuse me, why does crypto suck? I assume you have easy access to banking? No problem to transfer money to other people? No transfer fees that sometimes exceed 5%+? Haven't waited 7-14 days for a SWIFT transfer? Haven't had your money confiscated from your bank account because your govt is broke? Aren't under sanction?

Well, I'm really happy for you! I'm not sure the rest of the world, has the same experience?

@categorille @avalos so you're saying, that we should have stopped using light bulbs when they were using 50W instead of innovating to come-up with LED's that use 4W? I mean, I totally agree with you - whatever we are doing right now, may be unsustainable but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it.

@franz @avalos idk i feel like every time i interact with anyone who pulls out an argument like this they just have no concept at all of the DEEP SHIT we are in ecologically. Not interested by further interaction bc it makes me feel horrible about the future

@categorille @franz If you're so mad at people who, according to you, have no idea of the “DEEP SHIP” we are in ecologically, then explain it to them. That's a lot more effective than cancelling browsers.

@avalos @categorille no, I was just wondering whether you face any of these issues? I'm sure there's plenty of people that have never had any problem and never a reason to look for an alternative.

@franz I was replying to @categorille especifically. This whole ecological mess with cryptocurrencies is not a matter of issues affecting individuals, but rather about issues affecting the whole world population.

@categorille I'm not sure what you're implying but I still believe that if anything is going to save us, it's innovation. I don't think we're going to convince 7 billion people to change their habits.

Aside from that, we haven't even figured out how-to properly harness power. If we weren't so satisfied with ourselves, we might come-up with a power generator the size of my coffee-cup, that can supply the whole world with energy.

Computers once barely fit into a house.

@categorille frankly, I'd be curious about your idea. How do we convince enough people to make sacrifices in their own life, to get us out of the "deep shit"?

I mean, this whole debate did not start yesterday... it's been going on for 50+ years.

@franz @categorille The problem is that cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are excessively power consuming *by design*, so as to avoid control of the network by few. The issue here is not innovation. Also, Bitcoin and other proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies take energy consumption to another level, compared to light bulbs, for example.

@avalos @categorille I cannot argue with you on that but wouldn't proof-of-stake based currencies be a first attempt to solve this problem? I mean this technology is literally brand new. Who knows what this evolves to in 10 years?

@franz @categorille Proof-of-stake currencies introduce another set of problems, such as those with more tokens having control over those with less tokens, and you know how wealth tends to behave under capitalism. Though, I haven't studied proof-of-stake algorithms, so I might be wrong.

Stellar has a different consensus algorithm (SCP [1]) that is worth taking a look at. It has some centralization issues[2], that hopefully can be addressed with further iterations of its consensus protocol, but other than that, it seems really promising.

[1] stellar.org/papers/fast-and-se
[2] ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8

@avalos @categorille yeah, you're right. I'm aware of this problem. Almost a law of nature this thing ...

Incidental I have some Stellar. They did a few air-drops. I never looked at their tech though. I'll check it out. Thanks!

@franz @categorille I received all of the Keybase airdrops, that's how I got into Stellar actually.

@franz @avalos @categorille if and when cryptocurrency that doesn't suck exists, I will happily revise my opinion about it being trash

But until then: cryptocurrency is trash. For every problem it solves (and mostly it only slightly improves some things, solving very little), it creates at least two worse problems. I'm not going to pretend it's not trash because there's a hypothetical future where someone fixes enough of the problems with current coins that it actually becomes a net benefit, because it's not inevitable or even particularly likely

@calcifer the internet was pretty "trash" in it's early days compared to what it is now, and I'm not sure if social media solves more problems than it created. I guess we'll know in 20+ years?

Overall, it sounds like your banking solution meets your needs. Again, I'm very happy about this, for you.

@franz I’d argue the internet and social media are trash now, and actively worse than 20 years ago, so I’m not sure you think you’re making as compelling an argument as you think

And no, my banking system doesn’t work very well for me. The thing is I want something better, not something that merely moves my banking problems around while introducing whole new downsides. Using crypto to solve banking edge cases is like burning down apartment buildings because some people don’t have housing access. The cure is worse than the disease

Crypto is making all the same mistakes that other currency systems have made, because coins are generally based on naive ideas of how money works. The community has learned almost nothing from history.

@calcifer I use the internet to collaborate with others on open source software. It works pretty well - I suppose your view of things depends entirely on which parts of the internet you associate with.

You might need 1000 terrible ideas before you hit a feasible one, but at least it's moving - after years of stagnation, it certainly made people aware that there's another way. Maybe it will promote change elsewhere. Maybe crypto is the spark we needed, for something better?

@franz ok, but your argument is basically “cryptocurrency isn’t trash because someday it might not be trash”. That’s silly. Things only get better if you’re honest about them sucking. No amount of “but sometimes trash things improve later” makes a whit of difference to whether they’re trash right now

And the unwillingness to distinguish between “there are parts that are good” and an overall assessment of the whole is disingenuous. Almost nothing is ALL bad. But having some good things doesn’t mean it can’t be trash on the whole.

@calcifer I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

Crypto solves a number of problems that prior solutions could not - or only at significant cost, or difficulty.

I'm not saying it's the best, or particularly green. I'm not even saying that it will or should appeal to everyone but it is a first-generation technology, and it does help people today.

If we weren't all so political and colonial, we might not even have the problems, crypto is trying to solve.

@avalos Accepting donations via cryptocurrencies doesn't *have* to be bad.

Addressing the "crypto community" like they did is.

I don't mind Firefox becoming more financially independent, but I won't give them a free pass to do everything they want to earn money.

Let's not forget that Firefox only needs this much money to keep being supported because Mozilla never opposed any additional web standards. They could have. It's entirely their fault.

@waweic The thing is, they can't just oppose new web standards. Had they opposed additional web standards implemented in Chrome early on, Firefox wouldn't have lasted for long. It's not their fault, they did what they had to in order to stay relevant and keep fighting for their goals.

@avalos When they still had relevant market share, they probably could even have done that.

I was more thinking about resistance in the Gremiums though. Mozilla was proactive in inventing new web standards

@avalos
I agree that criticising is necessary, but boycott seems no good idea.

However, does your "crypto sucks" go out to every currency? What do you think about MobileCoin (the cryptocurrency that @signalapp has integrated in some countries): anonymous and far less energy consuming as they say? mobilecoin.com/

@MissBehave @signalapp I believe MobileCoin was a shit move by Signal, because now the privacy-focused app is prone to governmental regulations that will potentially make Signal not private at all.

MobileCoin does consume a lot less of energy because it's based on a different consensus algorithm (based on Stellar's), but the problem is its absolute reliance on Intel's proprietary technologies that are full of vulnerabilities.

@avalos Absolutely. It's not as though they Incorporated crypto into the core product or anything. I was disappointed when I heard this news, but I'm not up to "torches and pitchforks" levels yet.

@avalos
and for science we still have to find the ecologic footprint of classical banks (which are used for FAR MOST payments worldwide) before saying one way of payement is having more impact than an other.
and yeah, that is not a reasonable reason to cancel mozilla and Firefox. which is also mostly living from Google's money

@avalos What is wrong with accepting donations via BitPay?

@avalos "crypto sucks" You don't use HTTPS? :-)

(I assume this was a typo and you meant "cryptocurrenty sucks"?)

@avalos Going and switching browsers will not have any impact, especially considering Mozilla's recent track record shows pretty clearly they don't really concern themselves with browser market share.

But you know what they do care about is funding, and so that is why I recommend ceasing all donations to Mozilla until they reverse their decision to accept unethical forms of donation.

Furthermore asking people to personally boycott bitpay and other forms of bitcoin payments is the least effective way to affect change. It is far more effective to send the message to those that accept funds via such services that it will impact their revenue. Bitpay's success ultimately comes from the Mozillas of the world, not the end users.

@msh No, financially boycotting corporations is not effective, it's just toxic and ridiculous. The most effective way of “sending the message” is publicly advocating against the use of proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies and other environmental threats.

See what the founder of Mozilla and developer of Gecko did on Twitter? They used their “credentials” to shame Mozilla hard. That's the way to go.

@avalos I mean "only sin" is a bit of an understatement, but yes, the point is clear.

I'm currently undecided whether Mozilla still exists besides the scandals or due to the scandals. Any other question for donations would probably have reached less people than this one. If that also translates into actual donations, I don't know.

@avalos There was also taking Google's money (and the strings that came with it) but otherwise, your point stands.

@avalos @Gargron people made it sound like Firefox was running a miner in your browser or minted their own ugly NFTs or started their own crypto currency scheme. There’s so many scammy operations under crypto that people forgot that hosting companies and private torrent trackers have been accepting Bitcoin for a long time.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon 🐘

A general-purpose Mastodon server with a 1000 character limit.

Support us on Ko-Fi Support us on Patreon Support us via PayPal