[zzzcpan]

That's the problem with Mozilla's privacy propaganda, their funding depends on violating privacy, so they can only talk and pretend, but not actually do anything about it. Which makes them look bad, dishonest and fake, when they are talking about privacy.

[blowski]

They do some things about it, but this is the real world so they struggle to achieve perfection because of trade-offs they have to make. Firefox may be imperfect but it's still much, much better than Chrome when it comes to privacy.

[wayneftw]

You’re not allowed to say anything bad about Firefox or Mozilla around these parts without being heavily censored in case you hadn’t noticed :)

[JohnFen]

Sure you are. I often criticize both. But what you have to say needs to be based in something resembling actual fact, and it helps a lot if you avoid stating opinion as fact.

It also helps to be even-handed and call out when Mozilla and/or Firefox does something right as well as when they do something wrong.

[wayneftw]

No, this is incorrect. I was down-towned for simply pointing out that Firefox nags you to sign in. I detailed each UI measure they took. Nothing but pure facts that are easily verifiable.

[JohnFen]

My comment was tailored toward blowski's remark at the top of this thread, not anything you said. I'm not sure what comment you're talking about, so I can't speak to that.

[zzzcpan]

> needs to be based in something resembling actual fact

If you can't recognize something as a fact, it doesn't mean it isn't. I don't care about downvotes on such topics though, I didn't even know I was downvoted until someone pointed it out.