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
> Mozillas only sin was accepting donations via BitPay

Uhh no.

I don't care what other people do, but let's not pretend that Mozilla are entirely without fault except for this one incident. Mozilla has a plethora of other sins and this was the last straw for many people. Yeah other major browsers are shit, but Mozilla sealed their own fate.

@jbauer @me@catgirl.is You're right, Mozilla has done other bad stuff, but it doesn't compare to what megacorps do all the time. Mozilla has:
1. Terrible management and strategic planning.
2. Terrible overpayment to executives.
3. Terrible profitability and on top of that, toxic users complaining all the time about their measures to become more financially independent from Google.
4. Some bad defaults in Firefox that can totally be changed.

@avalos @jbauer @me My stance is we need an alternative to Mozilla, Apple, Google, & their "Gecko", "WebKit", & "Chromium" engines. The web's too expensive to maintain.

I'm trying to create such an alternative (Mozilla would loose what influence they still have if they took on the necessary simplifications themselves), but nothing will change overnight. So the question until then is "which of those 3 do you side with"?

@alcinnz @jbauer @me@catgirl.is An alternative backed by who? As you said, the web is too expensive to maintain. Unless we find instead an alternative to the Web (Gemini?), which is unrealistic given the huge amount of things that rely on it.

@avalos @jbauer @me That's the big question!

My answer is that HTTP+(X)HTML+(optionally)CSS is proving reasonable to implement (caveats) largely on my own, & would be a smaller jump to make. Could be maintained by it's community!

Unless ofcourse you barely use any more of the web than Facebook, Google, Twitter, Netflix, etc! Which too many do...

@alcinnz @jbauer @me@catgirl.is Me, and thousands (or millions?) more do Web development (using JS) because it's pretty much the only viable option for a single person to maintain software for, given its impressive cross-platform and accessibility capabilities, as well as its ubiquity, flexibility and versatility.

I hate the Web, but I have no other choice.

@avalos @jbauer @me My answer would be maintain software for the platforms you care about. And until something decent becomes mainstream, The Web's (with JS) an important one to target...

Don't worry too much about cross-platform!

@alcinnz @jbauer @me@catgirl.is I'm actually writing a native Android app for Traccar that will share some code with the iOS app thanks to Kotlin Multiplatform. It will also make it easier in a future to share code with the Web as well.

@avalos @jbauer @me Nice!

Also Kotlin looks nice. Like Java without what I dislike about it.

@alcinnz @jbauer @me@catgirl.is Yes. Kotlin is very promising, it might as well be the Web alternative we're talking about, thanks to Compose Multiplatform GUI framework and other amazing frameworks and libraries.

@alcinnz @jbauer @me@catgirl.is My Kotlin Multiplatform based Traccar app will of course be free-software. I'll share it as soon as it's finished!

@alcinnz @avalos @jbauer @me The time is right to develop an alternative from-scratch web browser not based on any of the existing engines.

Maybe keep html5 and css. Keep the accessibility standards. Ditch javascript. Support p2p domain names, rss, gemini, etc. Avoid inculding any blockchain stuff (no "attention tokens").

You should be able to hit "edit source" (not just view) and host a p2p fork of any website. That would be a big departure from the status quo, keeping the web radically open.

@bob Surely agree with most (all?) of this. My problem here, however: Until we managed to get such an ecosystem running, virtually everything on this planet (=the vast majority of people technically unskilled and untrained and just wanting to work with their tools) will keep using the things that work for them, and we all unfortunately know and see what these are. And as long as they do, these tools will remain relevant. 😟

@z428

yep that is a very realistic take. the days of a tiny team of people developing something like the Mosaic / Apache https pair and changing the (online) world are long gone (as in: its not longer an unoccupied ecosystem, the exact opposite)

it is still possible that a new effort that would offer a meaningful utility jump to a smaller subset of people could be a viable seed

from the looks of it, though, the security / privacy angle is not going to be that differention

@bob

@jbauer @avalos ok, but what is the point of cancelling firefox when the alternatives are much worse.
For me it's just a matter of balance between the pros and cons.

@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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon 🐘

Discover & explore Mastodon with no ads and no surveillance. Publish anything you want on Mastodon: links, pictures, text, audio & video.

All on a platform that is community-owned and ad-free.
Hosted by Stuxhost.