[mempko]

I read the article. It frames "left-of-center" organizations as bad an inappropriate for a tech company. It criticizes Mozilla of supporting social justice causes. It questions why is Mozilla spending money on anything other than it's product.

Absolutely nothing about this reporting is unbiased. He even goes into race and looks into Action Research Collaborative about how the founder has "problems with white people".

Anyone reading this will clearly read the article as right-wing, and maybe even far right-wing biased.

[Karunamon]

Asking why a tech company whose only product of note is slowly dying, why they are spending money on unrelated advocacy, is entirely reasonable though?

All you have done is convict him conclusively of having an opinion while not liberal. Guilty as charged. I am unclear why that is such a problem.

Theres no such thing as unbiased, so lets set that impossible-to-meet standard aside.

Anytime Mozilla comes up here, the question comes up about supporting Firefox development without the pile of other stuff they do. There is no way to do so. Perhaps their lack of focus is a concern that crosses partisan lines, and ignoring those concerns simply because of tribalism is unwise?

[mempko]

The issue is that his bias creates bad reporting. There is always bias as you mentioned, but his is so bad that it clouds his judgement. There are many users who use Mozilla's products not because they are superior (though I think firefox is), but because they have a great mission. In fact, anyone supporting open source does it because of the mission, not the quality of the product. In most cases, proprietary products are better.

Mozilla is not just a tech company, and far right individuals like Lunduke can't understand that because their bias clouds their reasoning.

Lunduke's reasoning is so clouded, he is a climate denier. That enough should disqualify him as a serious person.