I understand that argument, but to me that departs from normal parlance of the kind that would ever be used in a meme.

I think the meme is suggesting that they were literally made by "the West" but maybe I'm missing something

I've never understood the argument. It seems to have kind of been collectively hallucinated into existence by waves of internet comment sections over the years. But these aren't mutually exclusive, and nobody has made a case that the resources for these other features are compromising the ability to deliver core browser functionality.

They also seem to assume that it's development decisions, rather than Google leveraging its search dominance and financial muscle, that are tied to changes in market share. I actually think these value-adds can be good, can punch above their weight and can, if they are smart in picking their spots, do so without necessarily compromising their ability to advance the development of Firefox.

And nobody ever stops, breathes in and out, collects the evidence and makes the actual case. It's just kind of assumed, asserted, repeated, assumed again, repeated again ad nauseum. Because enough people have seen other people say it, so they say it too knowing it leads to upvotes.

The ones closest to citing evidence, thankfully understanding at least how a real argument would actually work, are also the most unhinged, which probably isn't a coincidence.

I mean there's just no way around it. And I'm the most unapologetic Mozilla fanboy you will meet. What was the point of making a server if it was going to just die a few months later.

You need to be in control of your projects and your vision at least enough to know if you can make a credible commitment to the thing you launch. And, like others here, I'm honestly kind of surprised that this, of all things, was too much for Mozilla to handle.

I see this as revisionist history. Mozilla has long been beloved for a whole host of FOSS reasons, that align with the same reasons FOSS enthusiasts like anything FOSS. I do think there are fanbases for things who think their object of adoration can do no wrong (e.g. Sneako fans probably). They are out there, but I don't see that as being true of Mozilla.

I've seen supporters of Mozilla make nuanced points about it being an imperfect but important diversification of options that prevents Google from dominating the browser space, often in thoughtful interactions with fans of (say) the Brave browser or Opera browser over the fact that they rely on Chromium which is sustained by Google.

Those convos have more going on than uncritical adoration, and imo it's important to let those nuances breath so that they, rather the oversimplifications, can be our primary takeaways.

Interestingly, while talking in mournful past tense about Firefox's having lost their way, in this same thread there are people a few comments above denying that criticism of Mozilla is prevalent here. You guys should scroll up (or down) and say hello to each other.

Here's one example of a mega-upvoted post that is critical of Mozilla:

https://lemmy.ml/post/13081759/9195853

I think it's indicative not only of the prevalence of the view but also the quality (or lack thereof) of the arguments backing the view.

For a second I thought you meant you don't use Signal, so they all went there on purpose to avoid you.

and go to collage.

This is who I want telling me reading is bad

It is a nice PR but for me I am not impressed. Rolex is also a non profit organization in Switzerland and and mostly help hiding there finance.

Okay but Rolex is Rolex. There are uncountably many non-profits, and many (most?) do good work. I don't think Rolex is representative of your usual non profit.

So I'm not a fan of guns but, "marketing guns" is not per se illegal nor unique to video games. Yet the lawsuit separates out video games specifically. So I am not sure I agree that it's less crazy at the end of the day.

So I did read the article, and.... I'm not understanding a word you are saying. The families are suing a video game company for a gun in their video game. Also the article is not at all making the emphasis that you are making between marketing a specific game and video games writ large (the article kind of speaks to both of those at the same time and isn't making any such distinction), so I don't know what you are talking about. As far as the article is concerned this has everything to do with the fact that the gun was in a video game, and even Activisions statement in response was to defend themselves from the idea that their video game is a thing that pushing people to violence. So even Activision understands the lawsuit as tying their video game to violence.

I'm not saying I agree with the logic of the suit, but I literally have no idea what you think in the article separates out video games from the particular model of gun because that is just not a thing the article does at all.