This derogatory treatment of Mozilla by hivemind consensus emerging from opinions of a vocal minority is a curious phenomena and a indicator of the increasing ideological rift in open source community. It can be roughly summarized as a conflict between deontological and consequentialist ethics. User privacy, "meritocracy", freedom from DRM/EME, etc above all else vs strategical trade-offs that strengthen competitive positions against Chrome, Edge and Safari.
How exactly destroying user's trust wrt privacy and including extensions no one wanted does strategically strengthen against competition? I would say it weakens Mozilla's position.
Comments
This derogatory treatment of Mozilla by hivemind consensus emerging from opinions of a vocal minority is a curious phenomena and a indicator of the increasing ideological rift in open source community. It can be roughly summarized as a conflict between deontological and consequentialist ethics. User privacy, "meritocracy", freedom from DRM/EME, etc above all else vs strategical trade-offs that strengthen competitive positions against Chrome, Edge and Safari.
How exactly destroying user's trust wrt privacy and including extensions no one wanted does strategically strengthen against competition? I would say it weakens Mozilla's position.