Illustration of overlapping browser windows with Ecosia's logo, a tree graphic, Firefox's logo, and the text "Together for a better web," alongside a search bar with a green cursor.
Your tech choices matter more than ever. That’s why at Mozilla, we believe in empowering users to make informed decisions that align with their values. In that spirit, we’re excited to announce our partnership with Ecosia, a search engine that prioritizes sustainability, and social impact.
Did you know you could choose the search engine of your choice right from your Firefox URL bar? Whether you prioritize privacy, climate protection, or simply want a search experience tailored to your preferences, we’ve got you covered.
Ecosia goes beyond data protection by addressing environmental concerns. Every search made through the search engine contributes to tree-planting projects worldwide, helping to combat deforestation and regenerate the planet. Ecosia planted over 215 million trees, across the planet biodiversity hotspots, making a tangible difference in the fight against climate change. Just like Mozilla, they are committed to creating a better internet, and world, for everyone.
Together, Mozilla, Firefox and Ecosia are contributing to a web that is more open and inclusive, but above all — one where you can make an informed choice about what tech you use and why. Your tech choices make a difference.
As Firefox and Mozilla continue to champion user empowerment and innovation, we invite you to join us in shaping a web that makes the world better. Together, let’s make a positive impact — one search at a time.
Indeed, this is just the pragmatism-vs-idealism debate.
I am a pragmatist, you are an idealist. In my view, by asking for everything you are more likely to get nothing. It's not worth it. It's irresponsible.
Yes, and excellent arguments they were. What a different world we might live in today if just a handful of idealists had decided to suck it up and vote for the Democrat instead of the third-party purist who made their heart sing.
Because history shows that "radical solutions" are almost always a mirage. We already have an excellent browser made by a flawed but generally admirable company. If there are problems, the solution is to fix them, not to burn it all down.
If they are so few why does their vote matter that much? Futile attempt to undermine those who disagree with oneself on the basis of statistical sums.
This arguments goes both ways. You say I suck it up, I say you suck it up, I don't put my friends' life/well-being on the line, for the sake of some half-baked moderation bias one considers self-evident truth.
This is not what happened. All analyses point to that Harris failed to mobilize progressive voters. But this is not a discussion we are having right now, I have made my point very clear in this post including the contributions of others underneath.
So this is a dishonest ad hominem argument, that contradicts itself. I expect it to be thought of as refuted, and one should not resurrect it as per the anti-sealioning policy.
We have LibreWolf, Mullvad, TorBrowser, which are all Firefox forks of course. If we are talking about possible extinction of the gecko engine perhaps we could have this discussion anew, but because these other projects exist, not because we have to support any ill advised move Firefox makes that time and again alienates this community.
To further this argument, there is, well, open source in general, which many people frame by the same "moderate-biased" arguments you propose. Nonetheless it exists and thrives, and it is well shown that the GPL licenses are better for developers. All this happens because of what you dismiss as "idealists", from the era of Creative Commons, Independent Media Center, and the Internet Archive, to the Tor Project, Tails, SciHub and all other good things the internet has to offer comes from ideologues. Even Lemmy that you are currently using.
So whatever is outside the centrist's tunnel vision is just non-existent. That makes the centrist an extremist naive empiricist, lacking non only object constancy but also the intellectual sophistication to stipulate configurations of the world outside his immediate and temporary surroundings.
The blithe centrist happily leeches off to preach ad nauseam that middle ground with spooks, fascists and advertisers is a universal truth we must blindly succumb to. Then it is shown that the centrist is not just naive or misguided but actively hostile and dishonest (see first section of this comment for evidence of your logical inconsistency and dishonesty) with people of different opinions, so they prove themselves not to be centrist at all, but diet fascists.
To sum up, in this post I have shown that:
Combining common terms from the above propositions: Centrists are tactically motivated, intellectually dishonest, intolerant to difference of opinion, indifferent to the rights of others, immoral and undemocratic apologists of exploitation and discrimination, extremist in their empiricism and conservativism.
Centrist? Better call them sentries of the status quo. Disclaimer: I hate centrists with a burning passion.
The angry vituperative tone here just makes me disinclined to read closely. Seriously, if you want convince people, this is not the way to to do it. It's a shame because you seem to have some valid points.
Browser choice and presidential vote are so different from one another as to have no value in their comparison.
If you insist on crapping on third-party US American voters, please do it in the politics community in Lemmy.world.
To spare you the trauma of hearing an opinion you don't agree with? Contemporary US politics in a microcosm!
It was not me who made the comparison.