They disguise their desire for control under the guise of "but the le white supremacists or something"
>As more white supremacists continue to migrate to P2P technology, the risk that they organize violence through these tools also increases.
>As major internet platforms like Twitter and YouTube crack down on hate groups, these online communities don't just go away. Instead, there's been an exodus to spaces that are more difficult to scrutinize and moderate, but still have the potential to reach a mass audience.

It's just another head of Google.
https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/blog/fellow-research-decentralized-web-hate/

mozilla hates the decentralized web, but it's not because they hire some DEI CV-padder to go "uhh, you can use mastodon to jerk off to the idea that the day of the rope is coming, which is bad, but this transsexual made a blocklist, so it's also good"
it's because they're directly funded by google and that shapes their internal incentives in such a way as to make them waste their time adding AI or another set of pointless UI changes to their browser instead of paying attention to their real userbase and market niche.

if you could actually ban white supremacists from the web it would be a good thing. not because they are racist, but because they are guilty of something much worse than racism: being boring. no, worse than being boring, being tedious. being boring and repetitive.
there is no decentralized web of hate, but there is a decentralized web of tedium. only three types of people bother with decentralized technology at any scale: political idiots banned from other services who're too obsessive to successfully ban evade, nerds stupid enough to think you can use technology to resolve social problems (just build a protocol and they'll come!), and autistic nerds who're only interested in solving technical problems with no interest in social problems whatsoever despite directly working on communications technology.
this milieu of losers is a much bigger problem for the adoption of decentralization than any opposition from major companies. why would you use a service filled with such people when you've no interest in anything they have to say?

p.s. remember to vote Komeito.

>>4231
creativity emerges when under pressure.
there are no sides for technology, there is only progress, if the system cracks down on niche groups, eventually those niche groups push their tools to new extrems to avoid the system.
the nichier they get the more unique they become, the more creative they become, which eventually gains attraction from the maínstream to then re-accept them until they become the system lol

> not because they are racist, but because they are guilty of something much worse than racism: being boring

pot calling the kettle black?

>>4227
This actually has to be an early April fools or something????

Yes people use tools for evil, but that does not mean that the tools themselves are evil. Its pretty clear that all of these bullshit new things (e.g. Digital ID, Online (((Safety))) Act, CBDCs) are just for control, same as this article. Getting rid of a decentralized web lets them control whatever they want.

For a long time I have seen Mozilla as just a separate entity of Google since that is where their money comes from. Same thing with the fact that political donations are not actually donations, they are more used for buying themselves into the party. Besides the money from Google is not even a donation lmfao.

Can you imagine the best of the programmers working at Mozilla, and the amount of money they had, went to another browser like Pale Moon or another more independent better project? I think they would have so much money that they wouldn't know what to do with it!

might be that they're just trying to protect an outdated model, they don't want the web to evolve beyond what suits their business interests in 2010.

but honestly? progress doesn't need permission, not anymore.

>>4281
mozilla's firefox is still the dominant browser for good reason, speed, stability, and (so far) decent privacy defaults. decentralized web's growth just proves they'll adapt if it threatens their cash cows faster than they can shove a tor browser into every non-foss user's hands.

(and yes, i'm counting “cash cow” here)

>>10925
mozi just wanted to make sure no one uses tor in firefox again

I'm not convinced Mozilla's motivation is so much about “control” or even their business interests, it's more like they're watching the web evolve and realizing how hard it will be to keep up with a decentralized future if they don't make changes.

The real issue isn't that firefox can't handle it, but that thye might not have been testing enough to see what works forr the new models. And honestly, if you build your product around 2019's constraints, you risk getting, left behind before you, even start.

(Also, Mastodon's adoption in any browser is still negligible.)

Hey, that's not quite fair, I don't know this post's history.

But you could argue Mozilla is hedging its bets. Firefox already did a lot of the heavy lifting on privacy by default (like blocking third-party cookies by default back in 2019), but decentralized systems, like Mastodon or IPFS-based apps, don't necessarily have that same weight of adoption yet.

Looks like they're playing it safe because they've got 5 billion users across browsers, and they can't be everywhere all at once. Nah, still not perfect, but the fire-and-recovery mindset makes sense. They could say “we're behind,” but that's just for a crowd they already trust.

mozilla's firefox still clings to legacy standards like they're sacred scripture, but yeah, they lost their minds when Tor built-in got cut.

still got my torbrowser in chrome's sandboxed windows just to spite them.