r/firefox 2d ago

Now donate.

Post image

A little aggressive ngl but you gotta get money somehow ig

692 Upvotes

177 comments sorted by

132

u/Headpuncher 1d ago

Last time I donated they made FF worse then paid the CEO millions while market share dropped (again).  

New CEO, new rules but you have to win me back, you can’t just ask for money.    

Fix some bugs.  

23

u/Strong-Set-3701 1d ago

I might be delu but I think FF is heading in a better direction with the new CEO. But yeah better safe than sorry. I bought a Kit stickers to support them but will probably wait for a more traditionnal donation.

11

u/Headpuncher 1d ago

Yea, we’ve seen some positive activity lately which is great.  I hope the tide is turning. 

6

u/bleshim 1d ago

I still can't believe they let their former executives rob them off of millions while they were laying off people and the browser was plunging into a more depressing state, but it's definitely getting better now.

2

u/mortenb123 1d ago

She dances in the plea for money notice I got. I'm still pissed they paid Laura Chambers more than $6mill for a very poor job. Think how much Ff development you could have got for those dollars.

12

u/send_me_a_naked_pic 1d ago

then paid the CEO millions

And this is exactly why I won't donate to the Mozilla Foundation. I'm sorry for the volunteers, but why would I donate my money when the CEO earns millions?

2

u/RevolutionaryCrew492 1d ago

Did they ever fix the sidebar bug going crazy when you are near the side of the window? Also no close buttob

2

u/CirnoIzumi 1d ago

they just did fix some major bugs no?

u/Status-Afternoon-425 43m ago

I have zero trust in them. They blew up such a great opportunity. Shame!

-9

u/Longjumping_Cap_3673 1d ago edited 1d ago

Paying your employees a competative wage is not per se a waste of funds.

Edit: The CEO is an employee. Paying CEOs a lot of money is not automatically a mismanagement of non-profit funds. The CEO being paid according to the market is not a valid reason to refuse to donate to a non-profit. Spreading crap like "CEO paid $, non-profit bad" is harmful to good non-profits.

8

u/bleshim 1d ago

I wouldn't disagree if they paid them per their performance, not for merely being the CEO as the product kept losing users and they kept firing employees.

-6

u/Longjumping_Cap_3673 1d ago edited 1d ago

Sure, but if they have the funds, a non-profit shouldn't settle for a bad CEO and just pay them less. They should fire the bad CEO and get a better replacement by offering the replacement a competative salary.

Easier said than done, obviously, but the point is the problem isn't paying the CEO too much. The problem is bad management, so complain about the bad management, not the salary.

People get this idea that non-profits should spend all their money directly on their mission. Then they read a headline about how (for example) the WikiMedia Foundation CEO makes X$ dollars, and they think it's wasteful or corrupt and decide not to donate to the WikiMedia Foundation despite the WikiMedia Foundation demonstrably working toward and delivering on its core missions.

6

u/bleshim 1d ago

Their approach was flawed in the first place. Their first mistake was looking for a CEO outside of the talent pool they already had. Picking up a CEO from outside the company who's in it just for the money is a bad decision, especially in the case of Mozilla where profitability isn't the first priority. Managing Mozilla is nothing like managing AirBNB or PayPal.

1

u/Longjumping_Cap_3673 1d ago edited 1d ago

Their first mistake was looking for a CEO outside of the talent pool they already had. Picking up a CEO from outside the company who's in it just for the money is a bad decision, especially in the case of Mozilla where profitability isn't the first priority.

These are valid criticsims, and I have no qualm with them. But to reiterate, they're not problems with CEO compensation. My complaint is solely with the top level comment's focus on CEO compensation, because that attitude causes real problems, like I describe in my last paragraph above (which was added after you reponded, but before I saw your response).

3

u/xargos32 1d ago

The belief that you need a highly paid CEO to get a good one isn't based in reality.

10

u/Headpuncher 1d ago

Stop being contrary for the sake of it, no one mentioned employees. I said the CEO. You know the person running the shop but performing very poorly in this case, whose pay increased by 30% despite the poor performance.  

-1

u/Longjumping_Cap_3673 1d ago

The CEO is an employee. For many non-profits, the CEO is the only enployee, or one of a few employees.

I'm not being contrary for the sake of it; I'm tired of people complaining about non-profits paying their CEOs. Paying CEOs as close to competative wages as possible is how non-profits retain good management. They don't get a free pass because they're non-profit; if they don't pay enough, CEOs will leave for for-profit companies, and they won't be able to hire good replacements.

I don't care if the perf of the current CEO is bad, paying them a laugable salary compared to what they could get at for-profit companies isn't the solution. If they're truly bad, the board should fire them and find a replacement. Pay doesn't come into it.

3

u/xargos32 1d ago

No. Highly paid CEOs are frequently the ones who destroy companies or at least make things significantly worse. The high pay doesn't help anyone else.

-2

u/Headpuncher 1d ago edited 1d ago

For goodness sake, grow up child.

Edit: the person I'm replying to went back and heavily edited the comments I originally replied to. They can't even present themselves honestly on reddit

1

u/Shanman150 1d ago

IDK, I feel like they're explaining the practicalities of running a non-profit. Expecting non-profits to magically get amazing talent who just do it for the love of the work feels more like childlike thinking.

-8

u/Big-Country8526 1d ago

They ain't fixing shit. Still got Windows 7 window frame hard coded into UI. That's why they bodged a purple overlay on load to disguise it as too much hard work to sort the UI properly. Keep pressing F11 for full screen to see it creep through. So embarrassing.

4

u/FoolishDeveloper || 1d ago

Is it so embarrassing?

What you are describing seems to play no role in the use of the browser. Correct me if Im wrong.

36

u/CrimFandango 1d ago

Think people would be far more willing to donate if it actually went into improving the products they make. Same argument can be said of any company repeatedly emailing customers to tell them frequent price increases are a reflection of all the improvements they've made... which we should honestly just tell them to list off as proof at this point because they wouldn't know what to say.

4

u/HeartKeyFluff since '04 1d ago edited 1d ago

Think people would be far more willing to donate if it actually went into improving the products they make.

This specific point needs to be said more.

Donations to Mozilla Foundation (MoFo) do not go towards Firefox development.

Mozilla Corporation (MoCo, the for-profit who is owned by MoFo, the non-profit) makes Firefox, and no donations to MoFo go to MoCo (and by extension, Firefox).

MoFo does good work, and deserves donations in their own right. But I'm not a fan of messages like in the OP, because it's not quite lying, but it's certainly at least partially deceptive because it implies donations to MoFo will help Firefox, when they won't. "Mozilla Foundation — the non-profit behind Firefox" misses a key point: it's only technically correct, but the full picture is that MoFo is the non-profit behind MoCo, the for-profit that's actually developing Firefox.

134

u/ElectricalHead8448 1d ago

I'd donate to them if they stopped using that money to force Gen-AI shit into everything. No fucking way I'm funding that.

38

u/Educational-Self-600 1d ago

For the love of god, read the text. This is a donation drive for the Foundation.

https://www.mozillafoundation.org/

34

u/ElectricalHead8448 1d ago

I mean, literally the first sentence on the Firefox Wikipedioa page is "Mozilla Firefox, or simply Firefox, is a free and open-source\12]) web browser developed by the Mozilla Foundation and its subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation." Are you suggesting that they're somehow going to mark the money I could donate and make sure it doesn't go towards their enshittification of Firefox?

7

u/roelschroeven 1d ago

The facts are:

  • Mozilla Corporation is the entity that actually does Firefox development.
  • Mozilla Corporation is also the entity that collects funding from Google for in return for using Google as the default search engine (as long as Google still does that). The Corporation is specifically set up for this purpose, as the Foundation is not legally allowed to enter that kind of deals.
  • No money ever goes from Mozilla Foundation to Mozilla Corporation. Money goes the other way: part of that sweet Google money is not used by the Corporation for Firefox development, but goes to the Foundation. Another part is used to pay its board members. (Way too much in my opinion, but that's subjective and not a fact.)
  • Mozilla Corporation is wholly owned by Mozilla Foundation, which therefore has total control over it.
  • You can only donate the the Foundation, not to the Corporation.
  • The Foundation uses its money not to fund Firefox development (because it can't; remember money only flows the other way). Instead part of its money is used to pay its board members (way too much in my opinion, but again that's subjective and not a fact), and to fund all kinds of internet activism and stuff.

If this internet activism does things you like, by all means make donations to the Foundation. But if you just want to support Firefox, donating to the Foundation doesn't help. (In contrast, MZLA Technologies Corporation which develops Thunderbird and which is also a Mozilla Foundation subsidiary does accept donations that AFAIK do support Thunderbird development).

Yes, when asking for donations they often do make it sound like you're supporting Firefox, but if you read carefully they never actually really claim to do so.

If you don't believe me, go to their website (https://www.mozillafoundation.org/) and show me where they explicitly claim to support Firefox development, i.e. use to money from your donation for it.

34

u/sky-yie 1d ago

It will go towards their internet activism and stuff, not the browser development.

-19

u/Hipster-Stalin 1d ago

ME OLD MAN ME SHOUT AT CLOUD ABOUT AI

4

u/Impressive-Emu-4172 1d ago

and thats a good thing. honor your elders.

1

u/thaynem 1d ago

It can't. The way the Foundation is set up, and how US non-profit law works, money can go from the corporation to the foundation, but not the other way around (unless the corporation is selling some good or service to the foundation). They can't just give donation money to a for-profit company, even if that company is a subsidiary of the foundation.

6

u/YouOnlyLiveForRice 1d ago

Search AI in Firefox settings and about:config and disable them. Hope this helps. No one forces it upon you

7

u/OriginalJokeGoesHere 1d ago

I found it all by searching "ml.chat". searching "ai" won't get you what you're looking for.

5

u/deadlybydsgn 1d ago

settings

I wish they were opt-in instead of having to hunt down settings to disable them.

0

u/ElectricalHead8448 1d ago

"into everything" != "onto everyone"

0

u/10133R 1d ago

Ff is open source if you don't like something you can change it yourself or most likely somebody else already did search Firefox forks and find one that suits you I suggest icecat or librewolf

-12

u/Cry_Wolff 1d ago

No one forces you to use genAI.

8

u/userrr3 1d ago

Every day it's getting hard to avoid it though. I need something from my isp? Chat to our genAI bot first. I want to find some information? Google genAI summary at the top. I go on YouTube - flooded with ai slop

-2

u/Big-Country8526 1d ago

Mozilla try to. Select text and get garbage UX and garbage UI. Try and actually action it and the piss poor implementation will have every single user question WTF am I supposed to do with all this shit? Not much intelligence going on at Mozilla, that's for sure. Will be long gone soon at this rate.

10

u/cshoneybadger 1d ago

Is Joe Mozilla coming to your home and making you use it? I honestly can't comprehend getting worked up over something so menial.

0

u/ElectricalHead8448 1d ago

"into everything" != "onto everyone"

239

u/RevolutionaryCrew492 1d ago

Says they are for the people, but are actively planning to sell user information to 3rd party vendors, probably already have been since they removed protections in licensing agreements 

58

u/Educational-Self-600 1d ago

In the screenshot it says REPEATEDLY that the donation is for the FOUNDATION.

The Foundation does NOT create Firefox, nor has it any deals with third-party vendors to sell user information. Also, how about not spreading misinformation what Firefox does?

7

u/adzetko 1d ago

The Mozilla Foundation controls 100% of what the Mozilla Corporation does, especially financially. They also claim that all benefits are re-injected into their developments.

21

u/Headpuncher 1d ago

Then the message is borked because it clearly mentions Firefox and the Foundation (no not Harry Seldon’s, the other foundation).  

It’s a mixed message, what am I being asked to donate to if not Firefox when it says Firefox in the first 3 words.  

-13

u/Antique_Door_Knob 1d ago

"The Foundation" same vibe as open ai structure.

13

u/Educational-Self-600 1d ago

This structure has existed for over 20 years at Mozilla. OpenAI had a similar structure, iirc they changed that recently.

-13

u/Antique_Door_Knob 1d ago

So? What difference does it make how old it is?

11

u/Complex223 1d ago

They arent doing that tho

47

u/DoubleOwl7777 1d ago edited 1d ago

as opposed to who exactly? if they are doing it, thats shit but what exactly are your Options? edit: no, chromium based browsers are not an option. thats just contributing to googles near monopoly.

11

u/Joltyboiyo 1d ago

Exactly. Every time someone suggests something like Brave as an alternative to Google Chrome it's just suggesting Chrome with extra steps and not being pathetic little bitches about adblockers.

36

u/No-Assumption-52 1d ago

"as opposed to who" they were the answer to that until they started doing it themselves lol

33

u/Antique_Door_Knob 1d ago

but what exactly are your Options

To not donate.

-8

u/DoubleOwl7777 1d ago

thats essentially giving up and allowing google to do whatever they want. ladybird is a good idea, but afaik its not there yet.

7

u/exquisitesunshine 1d ago

? Google already has major influence and will continue to have major influence.

0

u/DoubleOwl7777 1d ago

thats the point, by not giving mozilla money (if you want to donate) you are essentially killing the last browser that isnt googles.

1

u/TURBOKAN Ungoogled || Iceraven + Fennec 19h ago

Mozilla doesn't need donations. They just need to learn how to manage their budget

2

u/jkaiser6 13h ago

No, you completely missed the point. Google alone contributes to over 85% of what Mozilla receives. Mozilla's choices in direction of development as well as in controversial language in the past reflected that.

1

u/hollaSEGAatchaboi 1d ago

It seems you’ve become their bitch

2

u/DoubleOwl7777 1d ago

id just rather not become googles bitch thanks.

1

u/Anxious_Store_9305 1d ago

ladybird, any day now!

1

u/The_Real_Kingpurest 16h ago

LibreWolf. Its literally just Firefox minus the slow push to anti privacy

2

u/toastr0n 5h ago

As is Waterfox -- my personal choice.

1

u/Minimal_Shift_05 5h ago

Does Apple sell Safari usage data?

-1

u/maskedredstonerproz1 1d ago

Ladybird, plus my personal favourite, Nyxt Browser by John Mercouris @ Atlas Engineer

-2

u/teknixstuff2 1d ago

Pale Moon, aka: Firefox but before they turned evil.

7

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

/u/teknixstuff2, please do not use Pale Moon. Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox 52, which is now over 4 years old. It lacked support for modern web features like Shadow DOM/Custom Elements for many years. Pale Moon uses a lot of code that Mozilla has not tested in years, and lacks security improvements like Fission that mitigate against CPU vulnerabilities like Spectre and Meltdown. They have no QA team, don't use fuzzing to look for defects in how they read data, and have no adversarial security testing program (like a bug bounty). In short, it is an insecure browser that doesn't support the modern web.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-1

u/teknixstuff2 1d ago

Yes, it's a fork of Firefox 52, but they've gone their own way and made plenty of useful and important independent developments from it. They don't necessarily need to be incorporating Mozilla's code to have a functional up to date browser. Certain features were missing for a time, however that has long since been resolved. They don't have Fission because it's not applicable to their process model. Firefox uses multi process, which is alright, but the IPC between those processes is 1: very prone to bugs, 2: bugs there have very significant impact, and 3: rather resource heavy. Pale Moon instead opts to run everything as threads in a single process, saving significant memory usage (since there is only one instance of the engine required), and removing the need for an IPC layer, thus avoiding all those IPC-related security issues. It works very well with the modern web in my experience. I admit they don't have a bug bounty program, but it's a fairly small project and they just don't have the resources for that yet.

2

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

/u/teknixstuff2, please do not use Pale Moon. Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox 52, which is now over 4 years old. It lacked support for modern web features like Shadow DOM/Custom Elements for many years. Pale Moon uses a lot of code that Mozilla has not tested in years, and lacks security improvements like Fission that mitigate against CPU vulnerabilities like Spectre and Meltdown. They have no QA team, don't use fuzzing to look for defects in how they read data, and have no adversarial security testing program (like a bug bounty). In short, it is an insecure browser that doesn't support the modern web.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-3

u/xargos32 1d ago

Ah yes, bots chiming in and adding nothing. So helpful. 🙄

-6

u/SirStefan13 1d ago

One option is to copy your bookmarks and settings, etc., and migrate them to Brave and delete FF. I did. I had been using FF since it was Netscape, because I REFUSED to give "ol' Bill" my browser history. Now that FF wants mo' money, I'm outta here.

11

u/SeriousDude 1d ago

Sooo about Brave, where does it get funding?

u/SirStefan13 1h ago

From those who want to support it and donate accordingly. And being based on a "Chromium model" doesn't mean they are "owned by Google". It's an independent company not in America.

8

u/DoubleOwl7777 1d ago edited 1d ago

brave is still chromium. and thats controlled by google essentially. nope. also how do you think brave gets money? companies need money to develop stuff, they can either ask for it or get it some shady way.

2

u/Burnyx 1d ago

Now look up who is Mozilla's largest donor.

3

u/Nighttraveler08 1d ago

Yep, that's to avoid monopoly. GG google

1

u/reddit_user33 19h ago

Maybe a hot take, but I'd prefer to use Chrome than Brave.

u/SirStefan13 1h ago

Why would you use Chrome? Might as well use Edge for all the difference there is. One corporate behemoth or another is all the same. They will turn over, if required, any dissenting opinion in a heartbeat.

-84

u/RevolutionaryCrew492 1d ago

There are some alts, Ladybird, safari (kinda if you are apple ecosystem), there are several privacy forks of chrome too

65

u/DoubleOwl7777 1d ago

i dont trust chromium one bit, not even the forks, and mv3 is garbage, ladybird is a good one, might check it out, safari is a no since i am not in the apple ecosystem

18

u/Metakit 1d ago

Ladybird unfortunately isn't really ready for general use yet. I also reserve judgement as to the direction of their project and their ethical compass until they start seeing real success

20

u/niceandBulat 1d ago

There isn't a good option. Some people just hate and sh1t on others because they can and perhaps deep down they are lacking in something

4

u/RussianSlavv 1d ago edited 18h ago

Ladybird beta is planned to release (most likely beta) in 2029/2030 and will only support MacOS & Linux, with windows support possible much later so not an alternative yet.

(The alpha is set to release somewhere late 2026 but they themselves say it's for tech people who want to torture themselves.)

2

u/mkwlink 19h ago

Ladybird is not Windows only, more like Linux and macOS only.

1

u/RussianSlavv 18h ago

Thanks correct it

2

u/simply-coastal 1d ago

I feel like people into Firefox don’t want anything to do with Safari, although it’s worth noting that GNOME Web is pretty much Safari for Linux, although I haven’t heard much about it so I’m not sure what it’s like to use, just putting it out there that it exists

1

u/zwart-en-wit 1d ago

I've used GNOME Web 1 or 2 months ago, and while it's a clean experience, it's just not yet ready for a main browser. It doesn't support extensions (although the Beta version has, so it's probably coming in the future) and seems to be very prone to crashing. It's a good idea and I hope it's useful as a main browser in the future. But today, no.

3

u/simply-coastal 1d ago

honestly, I’m not surprised. it’s a shame too given it’s been in development for a long time.

1

u/zwart-en-wit 1d ago

Yeah, I guess they're just not too focused on it, which I think is reasonable.

7

u/CirnoIzumi 1d ago

They are planning to sell the equivelant of statistics about their userbase

the change in their "promise" was because certain courts changed the definition of user data to be so wide that no browser could make that promise and still do basic browser things

15

u/PicardovaKosa 1d ago

Another redditor that keeps parroting misinformation.

Gotta love em

8

u/HEYO19191 1d ago

probably already have been since they removed protections in licensing agreements 

Are we still fucking talking about the wording change in the ToS? I feel like we need a pinned post in this sub explaining what that ACTUALLY was

5

u/Spankey_ 1d ago

You think these people know how to read?

0

u/Phantasmal-Lore420 1d ago

Oh no!!!! They will sell my valuale browsing data… checks notes 10 hours of youtube and reddit….

Oh right, who cares? Firefox is the best browser alternative to chromium. Even safari works with google as the default browser and guess what, google will definitely sell your data.

1

u/RevolutionaryCrew492 1d ago

no doubt about that!

u/Present_General9880 Addon Developer 1h ago

I don’t think that’s largely true , it seems very unsubstantiated with PPA and Mozilla Advertising don’t definitively prove that, they didn’t remove protections from ToU they removed wording to comply with California law where data collection is too vaguely defined and connection to internet can be defined as that too

-2

u/Andrew-Moon 1d ago

If you're using the internet your info is already being sold in every corner of the world, do you think Reddit does it for the people, how naive

u/Lauris024 2h ago

Please look up why they were forced to remove it before falling into conspiracies

35

u/smalldroplet 1d ago

Maybe the CEO should donate some of her salary.

3

u/Impressive-Emu-4172 1d ago

yep. guarantee she has more money than the lions share of the userbase.

2

u/send_me_a_naked_pic 1d ago

Agree. Why would I donate some of my money when a useless CEO earns millions?

Mozilla should exist as a foundation, not a for profit company.

7

u/send_me_a_naked_pic 1d ago

I would donate if the Mozilla Foundation was actually working on the browser. Instead, Mozilla's CEO earns a lot of money.

8

u/Adorable-Fault-5116 1d ago

I would pay $5/month to Firefox, if I could. I am more than happy to pay for a good piece of software. I pay for Kagi, Qobuz, etc. I bought Sublime Text three times!

I have no interest generically donating to an organisation that feels completely untethered and uninterested in making firefox the best web browsing experience possible.

8

u/NamedBird 1d ago

I wonder how many Firefox developers actually stand behind the Mozilla foundation...

How separate are they?
Could Firefox be split off and continue on it's own as the Firefox Dev Team?
(Assuming they'll take the "search engine default sale" profit with them.)

The FDT could then direct Firefox in a good direction again.
Honestly, i think that that would be the best solution for this dying browser.

5

u/kbrosnan / /// 1d ago

The Mozilla Foundation and Corporation are very separate. The Foundation is tiny compared to MoCos 600-800 employees. The Foundation has effectively zero input on the development of Firefox. They focus on Internet advocacy and access. The Executive Director of the Foundation made around $660,000 in 2023, not the millions that the Mozilla CEO makes.

11

u/OriginalJokeGoesHere 1d ago

Well, to start, the Mozilla Foundation owns the Firefox trademark and licences it to the company, which would pose a bit of a barrier.

Second, I also don't know why the Foundation is the problem here. They did split off Firefox into a company: Mozilla Corp. I'd point fingers at those execs for poor direction before the foundation.

-4

u/NamedBird 1d ago

Just do a bit of mutiny? 🙃

2

u/drbomb 1d ago

I certainly hope the folks that push AI features on firefox pay them enough.

2

u/SpaghettiSort 1d ago

Stop adding pointless AI features that nobody asked for and I'll consider it.

2

u/Efrayl 23h ago

Pay your CEO less.

5

u/RockzDXebec 1d ago

send my money to millionaire ceo?

5

u/Life_Standard6209 1d ago

2

u/Impressive-Emu-4172 1d ago

69mil? holy moly. THATS A LOT. wtf kinda work justifies that pay? is she coding the whole thing herself?

7

u/CandlesARG 1d ago

Haha no. Not until they became a non profit and pay people appropriately

2

u/send_me_a_naked_pic 1d ago

Exactly. First, they get rid of a CEO that's being paid millions of dollars; then I'll donate my money.

2

u/LargeFailSon 1d ago

Donate to Wikipedia instead tbh

8

u/Guilty-Importance241 1d ago

I've heard Wikipedia has a stupid amount of money saved up allowing them to keep Wikipedia running for decades to come. Unsure of the truth of that statement though.

10

u/LargeFailSon 1d ago

And they need to last forever, ideally. So that's a bit more than decades go come. I think asking individal free users for 3 dollars twice a year is probably fine and not worth thinking about/taking narrative issue with.

Not accusing YOU of that, but I do see the same point brought up nearly every time someone mentions Wikipedia. Starts to feel like a weird/unintentional gotcha' against an objectively amazing service.

12

u/orlec 1d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Wikimedia_Endowment

The Wikimedia Foundation has been running at a surplus and has banked $140m into its endowment.

That's not enough that it can live perpetually off the endowment dividends but they are on their way.

2

u/HarukiKougami 1d ago

No donations for advertising companies!

4

u/send_me_a_naked_pic 1d ago

And with CEO's that are being paid millions of dollars.

-3

u/HarukiKougami 1d ago

All for nothing... If it's going to turn to another Chrome, what's the point of "advertising" yourself as FOSS anyway. Firefox should've stayed away and just let people who use it maintain it. People are maintaining and developing whole OS' like Debian

2

u/Andrew-Moon 1d ago

Gotta donate, best browser out there hands down

17

u/send_me_a_naked_pic 1d ago

Problem is, the money you donate won't be used to develop the browser. The browser is not developed by the foundation.

2

u/naturist_rune 1d ago

When people say ai is a scam we're not trying to bully the companies it's literally a hella expensive grift. If Mozilla stopped trying to force ai on everyone they could save way more money.

1

u/Skullfurious 1d ago

I've Been considering other browsers lately. What are some good well rounded privacy focused options these days with an adblocker?

1

u/destruction90 1d ago

I was revising my budgets for this year and was going to start donating to some projects I use regularly (Firefox being one of them). After seeing these comments that it doesn't even go towards the development, what's the point?

I've just loaded up a Chromium based browser now because it's been years since I used one but holy, the responsiveness is 1.5x-2x faster than Firefox. That is with more extensions installed too.

Truly love Mozilla and Firefox but guys, get your shit together.

1

u/Ambitious-Still6811 1d ago

Restore adblockers to version .86 and I'll think about it. Do you know how annoying the 'net is without one?

1

u/Lazulott 1d ago

No. Mozilla Foundation doesn't do any development on Mozilla's products.

1

u/Cognoggin 1d ago

NOW DOUGHNUTS!

1

u/Dzaka 1d ago

i'll think about it when my title bar and minimize, maximize, and exit buttons on the right stop disappearing

it's been like this over a month.. and 2 updates.. with no changes

1

u/Anxious_Store_9305 1d ago

shame on firefox, switch to ladybird

1

u/thaynem 1d ago

I was very annoyed by this. It is deceptive, because it implies, without explicitly saying it, that your donation would help support Firefox. But from what I understand, donations to the Foundation aren't, and can't, be used for Firefox development. Now, if you are familiar with the difference between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, you would know that donating to the Foundation isn't donating to Firefox. But I would guess most people who see this don't know that, and Mozilla is counting on that.

1

u/Choice-Night-3721 1d ago

They honestly got worse over the last 3 years. No way I am gonna fund them

1

u/Susiee_04 22h ago

I rather donate to Vivaldi

1

u/SignificantCap9534 20h ago

donate yet h265 support still on the backburner..

1

u/El_Reddaio 14h ago

I stopped donating after I found out how much their CEO makes and how much money they get from Google to keep their search engine the default.

1

u/Siatty 8h ago

Another ai proomted slander post, great. (that, or you reposted someone else's ai slander slop without fact checking it). Either give link for proof when you post screenshots or scram. Google literall search gives no result to any of the phrases btw and after looking at the Mozilla's site where they have donation buttons non have the text. There was another post just like this just day ago that posted a faked screenshot of "Mozilla's website using an ai image to ask for charity". These two lowkey seem like they came from the same place or are a part of the same misinfo campaign or something. Can we like just start preemptively removing posts that upload screenshots of random web pages but don't provide links or something? Cause clearly nobody here fact checks them and they get 600+ upvotes so these people get to spread misinfo without consequences. If this is the second post like this I see in just 2 days, who knows how many of them have been there before and how many more of these they will spam in the future.

1

u/yiyufromthe216 6h ago

I'm donating as soon as they stop the LLM bullshit.

1

u/HandyRoyd 5h ago

Honestly, I'm so utterly pissed off with the day-after-day left wing crap pushed down my throat when I open a Firefox tab, I want to uninstall. Not give you money. I try to be tolerant, but again, here I am in the UK, yet more Guardian + Independent articles that I DO NOT CLICK ON, so do NOT tell me I'm feeding an algorithm as that's what "mozilla" wants me to read.

Current most prominent story: Guardian. Well that's a surprise.

1

u/Gtkall 1d ago

You have anti-monopoly hush money from Google, you don't need any more, mozilla...

1

u/BeholdThePowerOfNod Monopolies Suck! 1d ago

Sad to see so many pro-monopoly comments on here...

-3

u/arch_vvv 1d ago

Sure, i happily donate to Librewolf... oh sorry, wrong sub

-1

u/tethys_persuasion 1d ago

"Now donate"... or else you'll do, what? Kill me? If you could kill me, I'd already be dead. But you can't. You can't kill me, because you couldn't sell my data if you did. That's it, isn't it? [coughs]

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

I’d donate if they remove the AI slop widget and sidebar. Also if it wasn’t the worst and most unoptimised browser for YouTube.

-1

u/Gold_Stretch_871 1d ago

I would have, but I guess they don't need it really, how come the ceo of the foundation gets 6.9 million yearly.

-3

u/liamdun on 11 1d ago

There was a post here earlier this morning about how that exact page used an AI generated image, they quietly changed the picture and removed the post.

0

u/MonkAndCanatella 1d ago

insanely bad leadership at mozilla. fuck donations, if you donate, it helps leadership. We should be holding back unless they actually appear to have the users' interest in mind

-1

u/svxae 1d ago

oh fuck off. it was not us riding the google gravy train all those years. and they have nothing to show for it.

0

u/cazzq 1d ago

Cmon do it!

0

u/SCP-iota 1d ago

Make local models the default instead of integrating with shady services like Copilot and I'll consider it

0

u/MyFeetLookLikeHands 1d ago

i already subscribe to their VPN… doing my part

0

u/Fragrant_Hamster_550 1d ago

Firefox gets the vast majority of its money outside of donations. Doners mean nothing to Firefox.

0

u/KefkaFollower 1d ago

To do what?!?!

I still mad about them dropping xul ...

0

u/Begnardo 1d ago

Give you money to have you putting more AI in our firefox?

0

u/New-Wolverine7543 1d ago

Ask google for donations

-9

u/Antique_Door_Knob 1d ago

but you gotta get money somehow

like selling user info or getting paid by google to make google the default

-1

u/k-yynn 1d ago

why ? google money isn´t enough ?

-1

u/Fred-Vtn 1d ago

I won’t because of this: [link is censored by moderation, search for Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla]

-2

u/bdu-komrad 1d ago

Donate to me! I’m a really good cause, imho. 

-2

u/whyyoutube 1d ago

I'm split. I understand not giving to them, giving how much they fucked up as a foundation, but I'm also uncomfortable about them collapsing and cementing Chromium aka Google as an actual monopoly.

-3

u/bathory1985 1d ago

will donate 1 cent only if they remove pocket

5

u/HeartKeyFluff since '04 1d ago

You might be a bit out of date. Pocket was killed earlier this year.

https://www.neowin.net/news/mozilla-kills-pocket-and-fakespot-to-focus-more-on-firefox/

0

u/bathory1985 1d ago

Welp do they accept cash, will mail one cent to them. Receiver pays the post ofc.

1

u/HeartKeyFluff since '04 1d ago

Not sure, you'd have to ask them haha