eevee"i'm mad at firefox, so instead i'm going to give google incrementally more power over the web"
ok. consider: not doing that
Wolf480pl@eevee
Mozilla would like to fuck over ita users, however, it doesn't know if they're resolved.
If the users are resolved, they will retaliate by switching to Chrome, which will hurt the users, but it will hurt Mozilla more, so Mozilla would like to avoid this.
If the users are not resolved, they will keep using Firefox, which means Mozilla can fuck over its users at no cost.
Help Mozilla decide whether to fuck over ita users or not.
Anthropy@wolf480pl what about firefox forks? same signal, less chromification of the internet
@anthropy I haven't looked into how good these are. I've heard that the ones in the past didn't have the best track record wrt security patches, but idk maybe you can sandbox the browser to mitigate that, or maybe the newer ones are better at that.
But yeah, they'd be a better move if available.
@anthropy
although now that I think of it...
They're not causing Mozilla to lose influence over the web standards. Especially because these forks follow upstream Firefox changes. So they're not as strong of a signal.
They still might be a good choice though.
@wolf480pl I'd argue that's a good thing, I'd rather Firefox-derivates than over-represented Chromium derivatives and leave it up to Google to be the benevolent dictator there tbqh, and the signal is the same strength because actual users are switching away still
@wolf480pl hard disagree, it's about their sacrifice not yours
@anthropy
It's both, but suppose it's only about how much Mozilla suffers.
How does Mozilla suffer when you switch to a soft-fork?
@wolf480pl I thought it was about the signal? shooting yourself in the foot may be a strong signal but if suffering was a degree by which to measure success we'd all be dead by now
@anthropy
It's not suffering alone. I don't understand it well enough to be able to explain, but here's an example:
1. US president says he will invade Greenland
Yeah, whatever, talk is cheap. Not a credible threat.
2. US president says he will invade Venezuela, and moves a bunch of warships there.
Moving the ships is costly - it takes a lot of time, and now they can't be doing other thngs elsewhere.
That's a more credible threat.
@anthropy
A deer grows large antlers to signal strength.
Growing large antlers is a sacrifice - they're heavy, get caught on things, and consume nutrients that could've been spent on more muscles.
But that's what makes large antlers a good signal.
If large antlers were cheap to grow, every deer would do that, and having large antlers wouldn't mean anything.
@wolf480pl .. I think the main factor you're describing there is military force and facing existential threats as means of convincing, not so much the 'effort' ..
but while I think personal suffering CAN be convincing (e.g hunger striking), I'd argue that here it compares more to something like "batteries are bad so I'll get the dirtiest diesel and suffer the consequences of global warming and polluted air, that'll teach them!" tbh 😅
@wolf480pl like, my main point (what I also started out with) is that we need to be careful with chromification, because as much as I think Google has lots of well intending engineers, they also have a lot of purely greed-driven shareholders.
In that sense I get that you're saying "but we should give a stronger signal", but then if suffering equates to signal strength, use something like Servo or even Lynx, as a means of hunger striking