@aral I would be a lot more tolerant of Firefox's obvious conflict of interest if they at least recognized it instead of constantly pretending to be "the champion of the Free Web"(TM) in an obnoxious way. 😉
@boilingsteam (But if they did that, they’d be no use to Silicon Valley. As The Champion of the Free Web ;) ;)™ they are invaluable for defending Silicon Valley’s interests when push comes to shove (see how they’ve behaved over the past decade or so whenever regulation was proposed in the EU). It’s exactly because they are perceived to be “the good guys” that they are able to legitimise Google, etc. by association. “After all, if Google was really that bad, Mozilla wouldn’t be funded by them…”
@praveen It’s unusable for me as I’m running GNOME (Elementary OS) – the font sizes, etc., are all wrong. But I guess my point was exactly that it’s not necessarily about alternatives to the browser (Firefox is a good browser with terrible defaults for privacy) but about being able to differentiate between the product and the company and criticise the latter without necessarily making it all about the former. Does that makes sense? :)
I don't know how effective that strategy is for long term sustainability. If you want usability and values from a project and you start with usability, it is unlikely they will have values in future. But if you start from values and more people start caring about values, you are likely to get usability some time. But then its also about choosing your battles. I did not find a lot of issues with falkon, I moved from epiphany, just happy to get jitsi also working (epiphany did not).
I think your arguments about mozilla are legit, makes sense and i agree.
On the other hand i think about people who care about privacy and people's rights (included me) and use hardware (smartphones, computers etc.) that are build by companies that intrude these rights or harm the environment dramatically.
Isn't this hypocrisy for us who care about these things? Is my toot written by a mobile which is built in a factory with "slavery" conditions for its workers?
@LinuxNomad If all the sidewalks were made using slave labour we’d still have to use them to protest slavery. If someone tells you that if you don’t agree with how the sidewalks are built you should stay home, you know they’re just trying to shut you up. So will we build and use alternatives where we can? Yes. Will we use the existing infrastructure against the grain to effect positive change? Again, yes. What we won’t do is partner with or legitimise those who built those sidewalks in that way.
I agree, it's just that i could use the same arguments to support mozilla by thinking they fight for privacy from within the system of non-privacy by taking money from it and those who condemn them is for shutting this privacy option down.
Ofc though there are other alternatives which we should move forward to, more ethical and decentralized. I'm just thinking if we all stop supporting mozilla tomorrow would it be good for privacy "war" or is it useful in the spectrum?
@LinuxNomad There’s a difference between using the sidewalks to protest and being paid a half a billion dollars by the people who made the sidewalks. What would you think of Greenpeace if you knew they owed their existence to half a billion dollars a year from ExxonMobil every year?
@aral Also sry for the spams..it's just my inner thought cause i care.
I believe all alternatives are good if they contribute to the evolution of something better for humanity. Ofc we must choose wisely..anyways..thanks for the efforts and the work you do with small tech foundation
@LinuxNomad That’s the big if. If we cannot differentiate the doctors in the cigarette ads from actual doctors, we have a problem. If the people who caused the problem are peddling the solutions (and capturing the narrative around the solutions), we have a problem. If someone tells you they’re a pacifist and yet they get paid by the military, trust their salary, not their words.
@aral @LinuxNomad I really like your guidance here. Very well put. I bristle at the idea of having to abandon a system completely just because it is not built according according to the ultimate set of values.
By the same token, it's important we keep an unrelenting eye on the risk-reward of said system(s). Sometimes it does make sense to withdraw from it completely.
This is how I look at Google phones. I get tremendous utility from their systems. May have to deGoogle my life one day tho...
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!