The legal structures that mandate what power google actually has over mozilla still presumably exist though. Pretending that we are in full blown dictatorship is, in my view, still cynical.

Though of course there’s no telling how far we will eventually go in a trumpworld.

> Pretending that we are in full blown dictatorship is, in my view, still cynical.

Could you please point to what I said that implies I'm pretending a "full blown dictatorship?" I apologize if that's somehow what I indicated. It certainly wasn't my intent.

”[…] the times I was so naive and idealistic.”

”[…] I envy the worldview it's possible someone can take money from another and still maintain independence.”

Do you believe relying on our legal system is naive and idealistic?

What would be the non-idealistic view other than no structures can be trusted and that we live in a dictatorship?

You’re mixing up funding with control.

Mozilla Corporation takes money from Google for search placement. That doesn’t turn it into a subsidiary. Google doesn’t own it, doesn’t run its roadmap, and doesn’t ship its code. Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control.

On telemetry: you’re overstating it. Firefox ships with telemetry on, but it documents what it collects, lets users turn it off, and exposes most of it in about:config. Google Chrome ties into a much broader account system, sync stack, and ad network. Chrome doesn’t operate in isolation; it plugs straight into Google’s data ecosystem. Firefox doesn’t own an ad network to feed.

“Almost comparable” needs evidence. Comparable how? Volume? Type? Identifiability? Retention? Without specifics, the claim collapses into vibes.

The bigger difference sits lower in the stack: engine independence. Firefox runs on Gecko. Chrome runs on Blink. If you care about web monoculture, that matters more than marginal telemetry deltas. When one engine dominates, web standards start drifting toward what that engine implements. We watched that happen in the IE6 era.

As for uBlock Origin: yes, it’s a major reason people choose Firefox. But browser architecture shapes how long powerful content blockers survive. Chrome’s extension model changes (Manifest V3) restrict what blockers can do. Firefox kept the older, more capable API. That choice signals priorities.

If your argument reduces to “both collect some data, so it doesn’t matter,” you flatten meaningful differences. The question isn’t purity. The question asks who controls the engine, who sets extension policy, and who benefits from surveillance at scale.

If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur structural distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.

That is not a mix-up though. Mozilla became dependent on the Google money - everyone sees this.

Feel free to provide Mozilla with a better funding stream. They've tried quite a few things.

I'm hoping the Europeans fund development to provide an alternative to Chrome.

Still better though right?

> Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control.

Google search revenue represents about 75% of Mozilla's total revenue.

Google search revenue represents about 4% of Apple's total revenue.

If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur financial distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.

It should be at a minimum stored safely. How and why are the environmental effects not a factor for you?

Regular trash is already stored safely.

The great pacific garbage patch disagrees.

As mentioned in the other thread, ocean plastics have nothing to do with landfill-disposed trash. They're mostly fishing nets waste, and at that, mostly from mismanagement by a handful of poor countries.

I'll assume good faith here and that you were simply unaware of the origins of the so-called great garbage patch, but in future discussions I think it would do your arguments some credence not to bring up ocean plastics in response to discussion about landfills.

How and why are the environmental effects not a factor for you?

Sure, and of course the elephant in the room is overconsumption and planetary overload, which get unlocked too on a bigger scale as a result of similar thinking. Which ends does unlocking potentially endless ”experiences” serve? Our personal disconnect from nature is not separate from our collective disconnect from nature.

Or Meat, if they were completely honest about their users’ role in the equation </compulsory matrix reference>

And you could argue the competition is about creating meaning and orchestrating a story rather than individual words.

Even if you use AI to actually produce the individual words and still edit the text afterwards to match your meaning, first of all it might be more work than just writing it yourself, and second, it's basically like having a partner to throw around ideas with.

So sure, you might be cheating yourself, and at the end I don't think AI is going to produce anything of such enormous original value that it would in itself threaten the value of, say, literature.

At the end of the day the results are what count to me. If you're using AI in a disciplined way to help you learn to write better, then all the best to you.

The goal of the competition is to show that disciplined and consistent work can turn an idea into a finished first-draft of a story. You are competing against no one but yourself (and the clock), and if you cheat by using AI to write for you, then you are cheating no one but yourself.

> first of all it might be more work than just writing it yourself

I mean, that sounds like a great reason to not use AI, and if true, kind of defeats the purpose of condoning its use in the first place.

You're making this weird assumption that the only use of AI is to literally write the story for you, but 1) that's wrong and 2) nobody is actually suggesting or encouraging that for NaNoWriMo.