I never said anything like that. I‘d like to have an open discussion and would like to either know to distance myself or how to respond to this. I don’t know why it is hard to ask a community dedicated to this to browser to help with decisionmaking besides technical arguments.
One is a product and the other is an entity. You can use one without liking the other. But I‘m talking about the community here. They can distance themselves from the actions of mozilla if need be and just support the browser and post news.
But if anyone has the means to disprove these allegations or put them in the correct light/discuss them and maybe talk to a mozilla representative, a firefox focused community has a better shot than individuals.
Also, I assume the goal of this community is to expand the reach of firefox, make it a better product and support it. That would be a way of doing so.
Fair enough. If the controversies, allegations, rumors and gossips are about firefox though it definitely is important.
For example the huge chunks of money firefox gets from their biggest competitor and the fact that the massive privacy eating moloch google is the default searchengine being against firefoxs core values. That’s just bad precedent.
I completely agree with all you just said. But its not only the CEO. It‘s also paying firefox a shitton of money per year, their not so transparent privacy policies (just check the videos on youtube that are critical to mozilla and firefox). I‘d like to have this stuff addressed so that people know if they actually can use firefox while being privacy focused.
First of all, firefox is politically active and on the correct side too. Fighting for equality, against discrimination and for a fairer world for us all is the only cause that actually makes sense atm imo.
I‘m not totally sure if I like the fact that they don’t actively talk about their „new“ focus more but I‘m not actively researching that either, but I digress.
Besides that, they‘re asking to amplify factual voices (instead of the extremes) which I find baffling that someone has to actually suggest this. People thinking any other way would make sence are definitely high on something.
There is no design evil enough that not some braindead joke of a person will step up and fight for their favorite company… I really can understand thanos these days.
That’s a disturbing but interesting take. Thank you very much.
The funny thing is that you can sell stocks. I know that a billionaire does not have dagoberts vault at home (maybe some do).
But their net worth is calculated somehow and in selling all assets above 999 mil, you get exactly what I‘m talking about.
I get that this is a long undertaking but we are still on the way up. This needs to stop now so we do it now. Use the money to stop the gravest polluters first and by the time you run out of money, you‘re a lot better on the scale.
Btw the estimated cost to 2030 to stop climate change is 90 trillion. So this does part of it.
Just wanted to put that out there. It’s surely gonna be a big job since most of us lack vision.
Not like we could start working only on that since we need to make stuff nobody needs to impress people we dont like./s
Also, my personal favorite in idiotic ideas is telling citizens to just not buy and suv. Just outlaw the production you maggots! We saw with covid how well voluntary behavior helped.
Yes, I blame governments for not doing what needs to be done to save the fucking planet. A mass of humans is easy to manipulate if you’re rich and can not be given this much responsibility. We elect people for this.
I‘m not interested in watching youtube vids and no, games dont need to get more expensive. This just imposes other limits.
The most important oversight „more cost!“ argumenters always make is that game companies (same as movie companies) produce a game once that can rake in profits forever.
Minecraft for example, the most played game ever, is 30 bucks. It’s a wonder that microsoft hasn’t made it 60 after buying the company and starting the enshittification of minecraft but maybe it is around the corner.
The point is, game companies are not people, they are companies. They don’t need out pity. If they make a good game, they make millions, real easy calculations. Some make games with shitty loot boxes, others without. They still both make money.
Just keep your pro corporation arguments to yourself.
The interesting part are those who still don’t write letters to their congressmen and still vote for climate deniers. I just can’t.
It would be insanely easy to solve: Not one of the billionaires out there would recognize if they only had 999 mil left and neither would anybody else. That‘s a cool 10 trillion to pay towards climate change. You‘re welcome.
That money was earned using earth, so to saving earth it goes back (because no earth, no money and our billionaire overlords suprisingly havent saved us yet.)
I mean, it depends on your design of the fines. If you ask for a days revenue per day of violation, this stuff will never happen again (since this is no mistake, it is totally fair price). A month of this and their yearly profit is in the government hand.
I never said anything like that. I‘d like to have an open discussion and would like to either know to distance myself or how to respond to this. I don’t know why it is hard to ask a community dedicated to this to browser to help with decisionmaking besides technical arguments.