Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only:
1: Building THE reference implementation web browser, and 2: Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees. 3: There is no 3.
Mozilla should have NOTHING to do with AI. Nobody wants it. Stop forcing AI into every corner of every project because your VC-brained management have completely lost the plot.
Related: if a browser truly wanted to re-establish trust with end users, and make it clear that they are in fact a "user agent" rather than a tool of the adtech industry, you know what the single biggest way to speak with their actions would be?
Ship an adblocker out of the box, by default. Everyone using the browser would have it on, with a reasonable default set of rules, unless they explicitly disable it or added custom rule sets.
An open declaration of war on the adtech industry.
@azonenberg funnily enough Mozilla has one for Android, and it's called Firefox Focus. Granted, the adblocking is simplistic compared to the dedicated browser extensions, but it suffices for my day to day browsing. It's the default browser on my phone, not just because of this, but also because it clears all cookies after each session ends, which is ideal for opening random links. Of course it also means that those annoying cookie policies keep popping up, which it sadly doesn't block. @jwz
I can take or leave ad blockers. If I (miraculously) had the budget to coordinate the development of a browser ex nihilo, the design principle throughout would be making it monetization-hostile. This would be a higher priority than standards compliance, as large portions of the standards have been drafted by the IP or adware industries to serve their own interests.
Particularly, the Javascript runtime would be highly user customizable to make broadly defined categories of events loggable, bypassable, etc.
I would include opt-in telemetry, but specifically to enable users of the browser to "compare notes" (in an automated way) on the multitude of domains in the asset pipelines of the websites they visit.
I told them to be LibreWolf. Get rid of the scammy money-making "responsible ads". Ublock origin, no telemetry, no AI. I donate money because I want there to exist a libre open standards browser. Not because I want a corporate brand
Some real "begging the question" with the second option (if I understand the phrase "begging the question correctly.) (And a whole bunch of questions on AI later that do not include "Protecting the open web from AI"
I would happily pay the Foundation IFF they do those things you list. I want my browser to be my tool, not someone else's. I never mind paying for things of value. But I *won't* pay for things which victimize me to enrich someone else.
There is no #3. GET THE FSCK OUT OF THE LLM CESSPOOL!
"But everyone else is adopting AI..."
Oh, so I suppose if everyone else jumped off the Empire State Building, *you* would have to jump off the Empire State Building.
LLMs are the 3D movies of tech. A novelty. It *seems* cool, but in truth it's a *dead end.* Save your reputation. Save your *MONEY!* Get off the bandwagon before it sails off the cliff.
What to see in the future, they ask after dropping AI in nearly any line. A bit biased, so: „ REALLY: just the browser, we need 1 independent browser. No gaming, AI hype doom or cloning Mark. Just an independent browser. Let Mozilla be a Leica M3. Please. „
The only thing I would add to that list is to provide industry leading developer tools built in to the browser that allow developers to build the most robust, performant, beautiful and standards compliant web apps.
Firefox market share is <6%. Zen is trying to port the much-loved features from the now stagnant Arc, but the result so far is clunky and I've returned to Arc because it's more perfect right now for how I work and play.
Mozilla needs a mission bigger than just a standards-based browser. It should be experimenting with new UX. Not Liquid Glass UI/UX, but Arc-like UX.
Perhaps they should be experimenting with AI, with the goal of making AI invisible to the user without boiling the oceans.
What I really miss is the independence. When Firefox was first airdropped into the public domain, legions of indy websites advertised it, for free. You literally can't buy that kind of enthusiasm and loyalty, but Mozilla sure knows how to piss it away.
What is accomplished with an irrelevant Mozilla? What are FF and Mozilla in 10 years being only a standards based browser?
My original post agreed with points 1 and 2, but I trimmed them due to length. I believe those are noble goals, but you are effectively killing FF. Maybe you want EFF but for the Web.
That said, I didn't really agree with any of the question choices so I posted only a comment.
How you judge the success of a commercial product is by counting users and counting ad revenue.
How you judge the success of a reference implementation is by standards compliance and code reusability.
I guess you think Mozilla should be a company making a product rather than a nonprofit whose mission is the open web, with a reference implementation existing only in service of that goal.
I see where you are coming from. I was operating from where they are now, and you are saying they shouldn't be doing most of it? That would be fair.
At one point, as you know, people were concerned with being compatible with Firefox/Navigator. My perspective is that was because a significant marketshare used it. Right now, it seems most companies target only Chrome and hope for the best with others (while forcing excessive amounts of React down our tubes).
EFF but for the Web is basically IceCat. I like IceCat, even though it's basically unusable. IceCat is unusable because of how websites are implemented, not because of how IceCat is implemented. I like to fire it up every now and then just to update my mental friend/foe list. Privacy Badger (also supplied by EFF) is also very educational in that way. The Tor Browser has a similar but different usability/unusability pattern. Retail websites block Tor exit nodes about as aggressively as news media websites accuse tracker blockers (such as Privacy Badger) of being ad blockers (which it absolutely is not).
People speak of tools like Privacy Badger "breaking" certain websites. The message discipline I use reverses this. I describe tracker-dependent sites as "breaking" Privacy Badger. With such tools amplifying the contrast between "figure" and "ground" (breakage and non-breakage), you can practically see the outline of various business models. It's as entertaining as it is educational.
What I really want is the pre-Web Internet. Do the young people even know that the Internet is older than the Web?
@lori I date back to the before times (infinitesimally important compared with JWZ), and while there are many enticing aspects, I'm unsure I'd want to go back that far. Mostly I wish humans didn't suck so much.
But look you can run it locally on your machine, and it helps to code better and faster, and it really doesn't consume as many resources as you think, I have the maths on it that I copied off a neutral website, and why would you not use it come on, do it, do it ?
I might sound a bit underducated on this, but I also wish they could make the Gecko rendering engine more independently usable. It pisses me off that every new browser is based on Chromium. imo if we make the rendering engine more popular, it will get way more attention and people jumping in to fix issues lying around for years because of lack of staff.
I don't disagree really, but it's not necessarily clear cut. Where's the line for what just a browser is? Does that include password management? Extensions? Themes? Tabs? Translation? Developer tools? Bookmarks?
I'm saying I think what the "main mission" of a browser is can be debatable. Having a single window that just takes a single URL input and displays what's on that page is the core browser experience I guess. At what point is that 100% complete enough to add tabs, etc etc.
I'm just saying I don't think there's a clear cut line and different things could be argued to be fundamental for a reference implementation of a browser.
I'm pretty hand-to-mouth, so even the idea of even small donations is somewhat aspirational in my case. The only tech-related cause I've already donated to is Codeberg. On my short list for future donations are Hachyderm (where I have an account and feel like a freeloader), neocities (same), the Internet Archive. That last one is controversial, being maybe anti-IP enough to be considered anti-artist, but they've rescued so damn much of my OWN creative output (if I dare call it that) from the sands of time that I feel I owe them.
my response to "What do you want to see from Mozilla..."
"The complete removal of all LLM AI from all of their products, it's not a feature people want or are asking for & your CEO suffering FOMO is not a justification for foisting it on your user base
We use your products because they DON'T have LLM AI in them"
Something really annoying is that this is a survey by the *Mozilla Foundation*, not the *Mozilla Corporation* :/
The foundation doesn't develop the browser. They're supposed to "lead the open-source Mozilla project", but most of what they do is advocacy and outreach, along with some grants for non-browser projects.
Do not pay lip service to the lie that "Mozilla Foundation" and "Mozilla Corporation" are different things. That's just a tax dodge, it's nothing other than money laundering. The same person has puppets on both hands.
Attached: 1 image
Elsewhere I saw someone post this image as a *defense of* rather than *parody of* Mozilla's corporate structure. Apparently this infographic comes from somewhere deep within the comically un-navigable "stateof.mozilla.
agreed, if someone wants LLM integration in their browser - let them install it as a plugin. Or just use Comet instead. Firefox should be like the kernel, everythiing else is userspace programs
That survey was an exercise in asking us to please please let them do the AI. Here's my response:
"Please, if management want to suck at the teet of AI and the grifting engine, spin out the browser and email clients. Let the community safeguard those. I don't even mind if you keep the names Firefox and thunderbird. But we can't afford for AI to be permanently entwined in this browser. We have forks but we need more community governance clear of the current hype in silicon valley." 1/4
I sure miss they days when open source was seen as a way to stick it to the man. I'm starting to think that instead of open source we should have been asking for noncommercial.
@onepict @lori am sure you know, but I hate that earlier GPL versions suffer ‘eat nonstop, never give back’ abuses by Saas/cloud/services, including some huge brands. The Affero GPL variant seeks to close that loophole.
Oh, I'm definitely on the free side of the free vs. open debate. I would suggest taking it one step further, from source code to data. There are a lot of open data sets in circulation, but I'd like to see more. Maybe found and operate an open books business (or better yet cooperative) just to demonstrate proof of concept...production operations under radical transparency.
Andrew Zonenberg
in reply to jwz • • •Andrew Zonenberg
in reply to Andrew Zonenberg • • •Related: if a browser truly wanted to re-establish trust with end users, and make it clear that they are in fact a "user agent" rather than a tool of the adtech industry, you know what the single biggest way to speak with their actions would be?
Ship an adblocker out of the box, by default. Everyone using the browser would have it on, with a reasonable default set of rules, unless they explicitly disable it or added custom rule sets.
An open declaration of war on the adtech industry.
Lorraine Lee likes this.
FiXato
in reply to Andrew Zonenberg • • •Granted, the adblocking is simplistic compared to the dedicated browser extensions, but it suffices for my day to day browsing.
It's the default browser on my phone, not just because of this, but also because it clears all cookies after each session ends, which is ideal for opening random links. Of course it also means that those annoying cookie policies keep popping up, which it sadly doesn't block.
@jwz
Lorraine Lee
in reply to Andrew Zonenberg • •I can take or leave ad blockers. If I (miraculously) had the budget to coordinate the development of a browser ex nihilo, the design principle throughout would be making it monetization-hostile. This would be a higher priority than standards compliance, as large portions of the standards have been drafted by the IP or adware industries to serve their own interests.
Particularly, the Javascript runtime would be highly user customizable to make broadly defined categories of events loggable, bypassable, etc.
I would include opt-in telemetry, but specifically to enable users of the browser to "compare notes" (in an automated way) on the multitude of domains in the asset pipelines of the websites they visit.
like this
Markus, jack and 0xC0DEC0DE07EA like this.
n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
Nymnympseudonym
in reply to jwz • • •jon ellis
in reply to jwz • • •Lorraine Lee likes this.
jwz
in reply to jon ellis • • •Karl
in reply to jwz • • •Told them something along those lines too. Maybe they'll get the message if there's enough answers in that vein.
I don't have high hopes, though.
Raghav Agrawal
in reply to jwz • • •#?.info
in reply to jwz • • •Urgh this survey is a trainwreck:
Some real "begging the question" with the second option (if I understand the phrase "begging the question correctly.) (And a whole bunch of questions on AI later that do not include "Protecting the open web from AI"
wuffel
in reply to jwz • • •I really love firefox and it makes me cry to see, what is happening with it.
Laura
in reply to jwz • • •Jens -
in reply to jwz • • •@mozilla
makes only sense when mozilla is also addressed
@jwz
ts 🚇
in reply to jwz • • •Tariq
in reply to jwz • • •mine were like yours
except I also added
3. moving their activity away from the USA to the rest of the world (not just Europe)
Steve
in reply to jwz • • •slash
in reply to jwz • • •ewhac
in reply to jwz • • •My response in the third block:
---
There is no #3. GET THE FSCK OUT OF THE LLM CESSPOOL!
"But everyone else is adopting AI..."
Oh, so I suppose if everyone else jumped off the Empire State Building, *you* would have to jump off the Empire State Building.
LLMs are the 3D movies of tech. A novelty. It *seems* cool, but in truth it's a *dead end.* Save your reputation. Save your *MONEY!* Get off the bandwagon before it sails off the cliff.
Lorraine Lee likes this.
reshared this
Lorraine Lee and n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
Sebastian Lasse
in reply to jwz • • •jo. same
digitalcourage.social/@sl007/1…
Sebastian Lasse
2026-01-19 19:26:05
Sassinake! - ⊃∪∩⪽
in reply to jwz • • •bondolo
in reply to jwz • • •Scott Michaud
in reply to jwz • • •Lorraine Lee likes this.
sayrer
in reply to jwz • • •Servo aims to empower developers with a lightweight, high-performance alternative for embedding web technologies in applications.
ServoLorraine Lee likes this.
reshared this
Lorraine Lee and n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
Simon Lucy
in reply to jwz • • •twelvebarblues
in reply to jwz • • •I think Mozilla would do well to take note of what voters are saying about #AI over at #DuckDuckGo
voteyesornoai.com/vote
Are you YES AI or NO AI? Vote now.
voteyesornoai.comLorraine Lee likes this.
reshared this
Lorraine Lee and n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
LΞX/NØVΛ 🇪🇺
in reply to jwz • • •i will not lose my time.
They will not follow it if it does no do what they want.
Like we want your input, but only if it align with what we want to do.
Been like that for years, and it's not for nothing firefox is now so low in usage, to the point many Linux have started to drop it.
Lorraine Lee likes this.
Deborah Preuss, pcc 🇨🇦
in reply to jwz • • •Kevin McFadden
in reply to jwz • • •Firefox market share is <6%. Zen is trying to port the much-loved features from the now stagnant Arc, but the result so far is clunky and I've returned to Arc because it's more perfect right now for how I work and play.
Mozilla needs a mission bigger than just a standards-based browser. It should be experimenting with new UX. Not Liquid Glass UI/UX, but Arc-like UX.
Perhaps they should be experimenting with AI, with the goal of making AI invisible to the user without boiling the oceans.
Lorraine Lee
in reply to Kevin McFadden • •I can live without a new UX. I can even live with incomplete implementation of the standards.
astoundingteam.com/2020/04/21/…
What I really miss is the independence. When Firefox was first airdropped into the public domain, legions of indy websites advertised it, for free. You literally can't buy that kind of enthusiasm and loyalty, but Mozilla sure knows how to piss it away.
astoundingteam.com/2022/07/22/…
like this
Melvin Gundlach, Justin Myers, ShadSterling, Parade du Grotesque 💀 and Chinga la migra! 🍉🌈 like this.
reshared this
n8chz 🩎, Esther Payne and camillo reshared this.
jwz
in reply to Kevin McFadden • • •Kevin McFadden
in reply to jwz • • •What is accomplished with an irrelevant Mozilla? What are FF and Mozilla in 10 years being only a standards based browser?
My original post agreed with points 1 and 2, but I trimmed them due to length. I believe those are noble goals, but you are effectively killing FF. Maybe you want EFF but for the Web.
That said, I didn't really agree with any of the question choices so I posted only a comment.
jwz
in reply to Kevin McFadden • • •How you judge the success of a commercial product is by counting users and counting ad revenue.
How you judge the success of a reference implementation is by standards compliance and code reusability.
I guess you think Mozilla should be a company making a product rather than a nonprofit whose mission is the open web, with a reference implementation existing only in service of that goal.
Kevin McFadden
in reply to jwz • • •I see where you are coming from. I was operating from where they are now, and you are saying they shouldn't be doing most of it? That would be fair.
At one point, as you know, people were concerned with being compatible with Firefox/Navigator. My perspective is that was because a significant marketshare used it. Right now, it seems most companies target only Chrome and hope for the best with others (while forcing excessive amounts of React down our tubes).
Lorraine Lee
in reply to Kevin McFadden • •EFF but for the Web is basically IceCat. I like IceCat, even though it's basically unusable. IceCat is unusable because of how websites are implemented, not because of how IceCat is implemented. I like to fire it up every now and then just to update my mental friend/foe list. Privacy Badger (also supplied by EFF) is also very educational in that way. The Tor Browser has a similar but different usability/unusability pattern. Retail websites block Tor exit nodes about as aggressively as news media websites accuse tracker blockers (such as Privacy Badger) of being ad blockers (which it absolutely is not).
People speak of tools like Privacy Badger "breaking" certain websites. The message discipline I use reverses this. I describe tracker-dependent sites as "breaking" Privacy Badger. With such tools amplifying the contrast between "figure" and "ground" (breakage and non-breakage), you can practically see the outline of various business models. It's as entertaining as it is educational.
What I really want is the pre-Web Internet. Do the young people even know that the Internet is older than the Web?
Kevin McFadden likes this.
n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
Kevin McFadden
in reply to Lorraine Lee • • •Maria Langer | 📝💎🌵🛥️
in reply to jwz • • •oldguycrusty
in reply to jwz • • •Well said. Can't think of anything I would add or change.
But yeah, inherent AI functionality is the LAST thing I need or want. Keep it out of the core build. Make AI plug-ins for those that desire it maybe..
Cheers.
Tushar Chauhan
in reply to jwz • • •Timberwolf GRC
in reply to jwz • • •@iveyline
in reply to jwz • • •Sandip Bhattacharya ☮️
in reply to jwz • • •Anders Stenberg
in reply to jwz • • •jwz
in reply to Anders Stenberg • • •Anders Stenberg
in reply to jwz • • •I'm saying I think what the "main mission" of a browser is can be debatable. Having a single window that just takes a single URL input and displays what's on that page is the core browser experience I guess. At what point is that 100% complete enough to add tabs, etc etc.
I'm just saying I don't think there's a clear cut line and different things could be argued to be fundamental for a reference implementation of a browser.
Lorraine Lee likes this.
Urban Camera
in reply to jwz • • •Lorraine Lee likes this.
jwz
in reply to Urban Camera • • •Lorraine Lee likes this.
Lorraine Lee
in reply to Urban Camera • •like this
Urban Camera and Esther Payne like this.
n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
D2
in reply to jwz • • •Lorraine Lee likes this.
reshared this
Lorraine Lee and n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
canleaf08✅加拿大葉子 🏳️🌈⚧️🇪🇺🍁
in reply to jwz • • •Lorraine Lee likes this.
Pēteris Caune
in reply to jwz • • •Tim Zee
in reply to jwz • • •Fuck AI.
staringatclouds
in reply to jwz • • •my response to "What do you want to see from Mozilla..."
"The complete removal of all LLM AI from all of their products, it's not a feature people want or are asking for & your CEO suffering FOMO is not a justification for foisting it on your user base
We use your products because they DON'T have LLM AI in them"
kepstin
in reply to jwz • • •Something really annoying is that this is a survey by the *Mozilla Foundation*, not the *Mozilla Corporation* :/
The foundation doesn't develop the browser. They're supposed to "lead the open-source Mozilla project", but most of what they do is advocacy and outreach, along with some grants for non-browser projects.
jwz
in reply to kepstin • • •Do not pay lip service to the lie that "Mozilla Foundation" and "Mozilla Corporation" are different things. That's just a tax dodge, it's nothing other than money laundering. The same person has puppets on both hands.
Previously: "This is where the Innovation goes in." mastodon.social/@jwz/111665784…
jwz (@jwz@mastodon.social)
jwz (Mastodon)Bill Seitz
in reply to jwz • • •webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/Mozi…
Mozilla Organizations
WebSeitzMoritz Poldrack
in reply to jwz • • •Perpetuum Mobile
in reply to jwz • • •Lorraine Lee likes this.
itgrrl is looking to get #FediHired!
in reply to jwz • • •Esther Payne
in reply to jwz • • •That survey was an exercise in asking us to please please let them do the AI.
Here's my response:
"Please, if management want to suck at the teet of AI and the grifting engine, spin out the browser and email clients. Let the community safeguard those. I don't even mind if you keep the names Firefox and thunderbird. But we can't afford for AI to be permanently entwined in this browser. We have forks but we need more community governance clear of the current hype in silicon valley." 1/4
reshared this
Lorraine Lee and n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
Lorraine Lee
in reply to Esther Payne • •Esther Payne likes this.
n8chz 🩎 reshared this.
Esther Payne
in reply to Lorraine Lee • • •@lori Well it's possibly a good reason to consider choosing the GPL and Affero Licences over more permissive licences.
For some reason there's a lot of folks who love Open Source but not the Free Software side.
Code needs to be available to everyone, to download it, inspect it, learn from it, share it.
The GPL does that just fine.
Lorraine Lee likes this.
D2
in reply to Esther Payne • • •Lorraine Lee likes this.
Lorraine Lee
in reply to Esther Payne • •