alt Hacker News"Mozilla gets ripped to shreds any time they're discussed, but they keep the open internet alive."
That "keep the web open" nonsense is a myth, spread by Mozilla press releases
People who use Firefox, not all of them, "keep open internet [read: www] alive"
If Firefox exists and does the job for them, then they'll use it. These users write the add-ons to do "ad blocking", not Mozilla
If Mozilla closes the door on "ad blockers" then these users will move to another solution, maybe a Firefox fork, maybe a non-browser method, who knows
Mozilla gets ripped because ultimately they are "in it for the money", not Firefox users, and the money, they believe, is in online ad services. Mozilla advocates for having all www content supported by ads. Effectively they advocate for companies like Google
By pure coincidence I'm sure, Mozilla relies on dollars from Google to line their own (management's) pockets. Without an ad services company like Google to partner with, Mozilla's business, sending search queries and possibly other data about Firefox users to Google, cannot survive
But Mozilla communications reframes this operation as something like "we take money from advertising services companies like Google to keep the web open"
Except they will not mention the money from Google part
Then they will lead off press releases with some bizarre assumption like "a healthy online ads ecosystem is essential for the www to exist"
This might make sense to Mozilla but it makes no sense for www users who don't like ads
Replies
I'll never understand the "I hate FF for taking google money. That's why I use chrome." When something is so egregious incongruous then it should be a red flag.
With few exceptions, I do not use a browser to make HTTP requests, I use small programs to (a) make TCP connections, (b) output HTTP and (c) filter response bodies. I often consume HTML from the www as SQL or plain text
I use a text-only browser to read HTML files offline
HN replies trying to interpret a comment from me as promoting use of Chrome are delusional or perhaps made in bad faith. Quite amusing nonetheless. The comment is about the myth that Mozilla spreads, not about browser choice^1
Mozilla is pro-advertising, it supports online advertising and is supported by online advertising
Google bought Doubleclick. Mozilla bought Anonym, an adtech company started by former Meta employees
Chrome was written by former Firefox developers
Mozilla does not "keep the open internet alive". It just likes to say that. Meanwhile it's supporting the "closed internet" by sending search queries to Google
Internet users write "ad blockers", not Mozilla
1. Yesterday a former Mozilla employee's blog was on the HN front page. He just quit. The blog suggested users should look at the Vivaldi browser. It has a built-in ad blocker
I'm not a fan of "modern" web browsers. I minimise usage of them. They are a necessary evil and the source of countless problems. Online advertising depends on them and probably the income of certain HN commenters, too
That's a lot of words to leave me completely unconvinced that Chrome is better than Firefox for an open www.