> It's worse than selling users off. Pocket was integrated for free and Mozilla later bought Pocket. In essence Mozilla paid to sell it's users.
Maybe I have reading comprehension issues, because it seems to me like it isn't worse than selling users off. Mozilla sold its users... to itself. That's really bad, right?
More accurate than others I have seen that try to do simple name matching. I am looking for announcements by mod teams before adding entries to the list.
> i cannot save bookmarks to automatically open in set containers (personal gmail to open in one container, work gmail to open in another container, etc.).
> But I don't think you can dispute the basic point here - there is a huge honeypot here to attract people with bad intentions, and they have failed to use it to promote any useful aims given the magnitude of the amount involved.
They may attract people with good intentions as well - or do you have to be starving to be pure of heart?
PS: I don't see how they haven't promoted "any useful aims" - Firefox continues to exist, Rust exists, Let's Encrypt exists, and they are healthy. Those seem like promotions of useful aims.
>The foundation is failing at its goals, they shouldn't be trying to make a profit.
Profit is just what is left over after what needs to be paid for is spent. Would you rather they have no money left at the end of every day? How do you imagine that that works?
They had Yahoo! as a default for a decent amount of time. The got out because promised quality improvements didn't materialize, according to court filings.
>Mozilla restructured its security functions "to better ensure the security of Mozilla and its users," Mozilla said of the cut. "Some positions were eliminated as a result of this effort, but the teams responsible for the security of the Firefox browser and Firefox services were not been impacted."