Mozilla – Devil Incarnate | Hacker News Reader

Mozilla – Devil Incarnate

digdeeper.neocities.org

36 pointslemper17 comments

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

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

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

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.

or https://brave.com/ ?

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

So is Opera nowadays.

And that is a bad thing

Safari for me. No other browser implemented anything near ITP2. Btw, many valid points there, please add Cloudflare DNS to the list.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com