I agree with the sentiment but for all intents and purposes, pretty much any organ within a State is run like a for-profit corporation. Their "income" is taxation, fines, etc.
> Science and Nature effectively exist because they are Science and Nature.
Right, the perception of being associated with authoritative and knowledgeable publishers which follow certain formalities (in other words "the proof you as a scientist belong to the Club") has been an important part of academic career progression, even if in the last few years the reputation of peer-reviewed papers in general has taken a dive.
Companies like Facebook are as big as Nation States.
Any positives that come out of this for the author are just a Facebook PR move. If they did care about users, their support system wouldn't be so anti-user.
It's really great how the world changes to accomodate those of us who are less fortunate in some physical capacity - for example wheelchair access to buildings and transportation where everyone wins.
In other cases the drive for equality means everyone has to be equaly harmed, like when institutions of higher education remove online courses from public access due to lack of captions [0]
I hope we are mature enough to accept someone who experiences reality in a different way [1] is not necessarily dimished by that and that being supportive of them in their uniqueness is the sign of a healthy society but also that being supportive isn't the same as bending over backwards.
Personally I prefer to use open source software rather than closed source and official closed source rather than torrented files but realistically the difference may not be that big, when the hardware where the code runs is not open / not possible to be checked.
In World War 2 the Allies didn't win because they had the best tanks and airplanes. They won because they - the US, really - could build them much faster than Axis. It's a numbers game.
Edit: One could argue this isn't what the news article is about but what's losing 50M in a market of billions? A device, specially a smartphone, is a delivery mechanism for services and in this day and age when internet access (apps) has become massified, having "choice" is irrelevant as far as browser marketshare goes. I do hope Firefox continues because I quite enjoy using it but if they do fold someday I won't be surprised.
Most people seem to automatically dismiss the link between the military and the civilian world - which is to be expected because when one thinks of the military it's usually planes, tanks and men in uniform that comes to mind...
I found thought-provoking how US officially recognizes the "electromagnetic spectrum" and "information space" as part of its pursuit for unqualified dominance. I'm sure other powerful nations have similar goals.
In the last decade, the proliferation of smartphones led to billions of newly "connected" people using the default browser, not knowing or caring about what a "browser" is. Firefox doesn't ship its own hardware so...
For many people - when they already have a lot of money - it becomes boring. That thing billions spend their daily lives chasing after is boring for those who have so much of it they don't know what to do with it. For them, what gets them out of bed in the morning is the prospect of using power in fun or interesting ways. In this case, perhaps the power to change the world.
Is Google honestly acting following economic interests? Is it to avoid liability from hosting damaging content? Is it acting to protect us?
Google, which isn't event the most valuable company in the world, is worth above all but - give or take - the top 36 countries in the world.
A company of this size wields immense power while simultaneously remaining unhampered by all the dead weight governments have to haul around to get anything done.