Users may have preferred Google at some point in the past. But more and more I hear not so tech-savvy individuals talking up and recommending other search engines. I don't think Google has nearly the defense they think they have in Mozilla. Mozilla has placed their own pockets above user preferences too many times to count.
Mozilla was always like a total oxymoron, like claiming to be pro privacy and stuff but getting paid and being literally in bed (the devs love Google devs, and they work together all the time) with Google.
Mozilla would be a company that should be the first to strike a deal with a privacy respecting search engine and do more for privacy. Something like the Mullvad Browser should basically be made by Mozilla themselves 10 years ago. Their approach was always so half-ass. Why not have what the Mullvad Browser is doing inside Firefox simply by flipping a switch. Selling a VPN and partnering with Mullvad is great but like 10 years too late, they should have started their own VPN or just make the browser even more privacy focused without VPN. Instead, they send all the users to Google, they can leech their data.
Mozilla invented Rust, they are capable of so much, yet they managed to lose all the Browser share somehow. Of course because for a large part people are dumb and do not give a fuck about privacy.
Mitchel Baker totally lost me when she fired Bendan Eich for like donating to an org for traditional family values or something that was smeared as "anti gay" or whatever like 10 years ago, so fucking pathetic and woke. And most Mozillans were actually AGAINST firing him.
I am using Brave (Eich founded it) these days, just by somewhat of a coincidence. I am a web dev and it makes no sense to use a Browser engine nobody uses anymore, It's also faster and has more privacy features and most importantly an Adblocker right build in. Furthermore, I do not use BAT and I think it's a scam actually, but I can remove the icon and never use that shit. The insane irony to claim you are for privacy and then let advertisers leech off the browsing history of Brave users is insane. I know It's not exactly that, but it's basically what it is, it's connecting interests in categories and shit, and they try to sell this shit as privacy respecting because they do not connect it to your real name, advertisers do not give a fuck about your name, they want to know about you and your interests, so they can sell you shit. BAT is basically copying what Google is doing. Google does not need your real name to sell ads, they just want to sell all your interests. Of course name is more intrusive. But get this Brave knows your name when you sign up for the BAT scam payouts, so what is really the difference? It's such an oxymoron!
Baker actually started to lose me when I heard her talk about ads and how she supposedly likes "some ads that match her interests" or something like that. These are the worst ads because they get you to buy she thinks you need. But that made me understand why Mozilla would never put in an Adblocker by default. They had campaigns clinging on to the outdated and stupid model of how the internet is monetized through ads instead of coming up with something new and revolutionary.
They also said that the tech giants are not censoring enough, typical fucking woke Silicon Valley corp in almost every way, I somehow always assumed they matched my opinions more for some weird reason. I always connected privacy with not liking ads and also free speech and stuff. I mean, could Mozilla even exist without Google? Maybe not that, why I always thought of them a bit of like using the enemies' money against them. When in reality that of course was never the case and the only helped Google to do their evil thing that they are supposedly against, cut out the competition and then come out with their own Browser to cut out the last bit of privacy protection Mozilla was offering. And she still shills for them, it's unbelievable.
Ok rant over, WTF am I doing.
He donated to the campaign for a proposition to ban gay marriage. That's a lot more "anti gay" than you make it sound. It wasn't about promoting "family values" but about preventing other people from living their lives as they wish.
And the pushback wasn't just from the employees, also some board members and some websites were encouraging users to drop Firefox.
Mozilla presents itself as an inclusive diverse organisation and no, in that case your leader can't do that. His job was to represent the organisation.
I also think Baker is very bad but I think Mozilla lost the plot anyway. They're still trying to appease the mainstream user that doesn't even remember that exist, while glancing over the wishes of the power users who are their only remaining supporters.
