The author of the article is a COVID denier if I remember correctly.
I figured my comment was more dismissive than helpful so I'll elaborate a bit. I was following the website a year or so ago and noticed they were constantly updating their articles so I subscribed to their RSS feed.
Then I saw a lot of conspiralogical weirdness, enough to quickly retaliate and unsubscribe.
They also have an article about forum software where they praised some imageboards while dismissing raddle because it's leftist.
There's another website about web browser privacy called privacy watchdog or something, it's partially based on the DD's articles but with no conspiralogical BS in it (unless they're added it recently).
So many downvotes..
I'm only about 10% in (and just skimming), and it's a rant but it's coherent and well-reasoned.
Starts off as a dive into Mozilla's rank hypocrisy and doublespeak around privacy.
It's all about presentation.
Hyperbole like "Devil Incarnate" is such a turnoff that I don't think it'll be worth the time. Things like this are why I also don't read "Weekly World News".
Now, a title like "Mozilla's Problematic History" is a fox of a different species altogether.
I'm also uninterested in someone's rant.
Oh, I agree. I don't think it's a particularly useful reference page -- more of a biased agglomeration on a substrate of preconceived opinion, but the initial pile-on of downvotes without comments felt a bit like the usual Mozilla-fanaticism.
I tend to upvote posts not because I agree with them, but because I'm interested in people's responses to the ideas within them.
What do you suggest for browsers then? Do you think they should be written from the ground up?
