[thomassmith65]

If we need to do anything, it's get behind Ladybird, and put up with a Firefox fork for the next 12-24 months as a 'daily driver'.

Mozilla has little enthusiasm for developing its actual web browser, and doesn't seem to like its users very much.

For the past decade, Mozilla has made one bad choice after another, and every time it blows up in their faces, their takeaway is that they failed to properly 'educate the customer'.

Mozilla should just get out of the way. If Google Legal didn't need them, they already would be out of the way.

[nopcode]

Why is Ladybird going to be more successful than all the other failed browsers?

[LightHugger]

I've been optimistic on ladybird after watching the speed of progress with tests in their monthly youtube updates, they are quite well presented.

Ladybird is also not ideologically captured by anti freedom extremists with self contradictory beliefs. Mozilla refuses to allow anyone to donate to firefox development because they demand the right to redirect funds you give them towards discriminating against people they don't like.

[from-nibly]

> Ladybird is also not ideologically captured by anti freedom extremists with self contradictory beliefs. Mozilla refuses to allow anyone to donate to firefox development because they demand the right to redirect funds you give them towards discriminating against people they don't like.

Can you expand on this? This feels wildly editorialized.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

So there are 2 Mozillas: There's the Mozilla Foundation, and the Mozilla Corporation. The corporation develops Firefox. The foundation takes donations. For reasons I don't claim to understand (IANAL, and I gather there's tax law stuff involved), the foundation apparently can't give the corporation money to work on the browser. This leads to a regular point of confusion and a complaint because people would very much like to financially support the browser, but there is literally no way to donate to it. Now I believe (again, IANAL) that there are ways they could arrange things so that people could give money to the corporation for the browser, but they have not done those things. A person could plausibly argue that that's because Mozilla Foundation wants people to donate to the foundation and not the browser, though I'm not sure if they've ever publicly said anything explicitly. (If they have, I would very much appreciate links.)

[cholantesh]

Where does this come into play?

>they demand the right to redirect funds you give them towards discriminating against people they don't like.

It sounds _incredibly_ suspect, frankly.

[LightHugger]

Mozilla's self stated mission as a self proclaimed "global crew of activists" [1] is to "more than deplatform" [2] people they disagree with. Deplatforming just means censorship in this context and they want people they don't like more than censored, they want them off the internet completely. Pretty dangerous for a company making a browser to list infringing on people's human rights as a goal, but they've convinced themselves they're the good guys.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-brand-next-era-o...

[2] https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need...

[thomassmith65]

The makers of other browser had either worse incentives, or were bad at getting attention, or couldn't execute, or offered just a reskinned Chrome/Firefox, or included too many avant-garde features that nobody asked for, or existed back when Firefox was liked enough to make them irrelevant.

[xtanx]

> If we need to do anything, it's get behind Ladybird

and servo please ...