> Yes, as a non-profit, we should be held to higher standards, but not impossible standards.
> OTOH, sometimes it just seems unreasonable and absurd. Stuff like, to paraphrase, "Look at the corporate doublespeak in that press release. Fuck Mozilla, I'm switching to Chrome."
If you think that Mozilla not using "corporate doublespeak" is an impossible standard, I am left speechless.
> Excited to share the launch of @mozilla @firefox Tiles program, the first of our user-enhancing programs
To call advertisements "user-enhancing" is an affront and betrays values like privacy that Mozilla claims to espouse. There's no reason to believe, after missteps like embedding cliqz tracking or using update channels to push booking.com ads, Mozilla actually appreciates those values. At that point, it's no better on a privacy front than Chrome.
> If you think that is a reason to abandon Mozilla
I have made no statement about abandoning or not abandoning Mozilla for corporate doublespeak. You're the second Mozilla employee that is putting words in my mouth in this thread. I think that is suggestive of what Mozilla has become.
Actually I think all the political BS is more than enough for me to give Mozilla the cold shoulder. I mean some of the stuff they fight for like mozilla's stop hate for profit (Cooporating with ADL to bully companies into censorship), yearly donations to riseup are actively seeking to undermine my ability to speak freely and demonstrate peacefully.
I will never donate a penny anymore. I won't even test end products in FF!
This is what you get when you use a supposedly race neutral tech NGO as a guise to do race politics! I am not giving an inch to an organisation that seeks to stiffle public debate in any way what so ever "hate" or not.
These days, being against demographic replacement, against globalism and corporatism is considered hate-speech. Racial, political and religious critique is selectively considered hate speech regardless of the format and tone.
I agree that there is a need for browser alternatives, mostly so one company doesn't have all power over the future and shape of the web. Secondly because I would PREFER a political neutral organization to do my critical software, and Google has shown time and time again to have party affiliations. The US software landscape is so dystopian that it makes the chinese vendors look good and fair! If a US vendor isn't in cahoots with intelligence agencies, then its corporate and elite sponsored NGOs with even more sinister end goals;
Like the ADL who spent almost a century to get a child rapist and murderer exonerated post-humorously, because he didn't manage to walk free from his crime by blaming his black employee (For once a major community effort didn't turn out with a poor BLACK man hanging from a tree, but a rich kid). ADL who wants us all to talk about US slavery, but not about who owned the slave ships, and who managed the supply chain.
English is neither a programming language nor a formal logic. When we see an "if" statement that would otherwise seem irrelevant, it is common to interpret it as an insinuation.
@hu3's misunderstanding is entirely understandable.
You're implying OP intends to abandon Mozilla based on their criticism towards corporate doublespeak.
If not then your comment makes even less sense.
Let me phrase it clearly to anyone reading this: It is perfectly fine to criticize corporate double speak and people should not be confronted for that.
I like Mozilla as a product forge, but i really don't see why you should have that massively overpaid Management, Marketing yes, Developers for sure...but management, more and more Mozilla smells like yahoo. But still great Product and the only Browser i use!
> OTOH, sometimes it just seems unreasonable and absurd. Stuff like, to paraphrase, "Look at the corporate doublespeak in that press release. Fuck Mozilla, I'm switching to Chrome."
If you think that Mozilla not using "corporate doublespeak" is an impossible standard, I am left speechless.