684
Firefox capitulates and returns to Twitter
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
684 points (96.3% liked)
Firefox
7369 readers
1389 users here now
A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Musk bought Twitter and renamed it X, and it now serves at the semi-official fascist-international forum.
In case you've lived under a giant rock since 2022...
I just don't live in a echo chamber so closed that I would believe that any person using twitter is a fascist.
What would be next, anyone using firefox is a fascist?
You do understand where that way of thinking ends? You must understand it.
Do you understand where supporting the far-right and giving them free airtime ends?
Arguing with people about this I found out Bernie Sanders has an active Twitter account. Is Bernie Sanders also fash? Is Bernie Sanders supporting Musk?
The problem with what I criticized is that by that logic everyone is far right, including you and me, because we both surely use or buy products that are owned by fash.
And you don't see a problem with that?
Yes! That's why I have the políitical ideology I have. And why I try to boicot them as much as I can.
I'm here and not in reddit because I do want to change that.
Not every person on Twitter is a fascist.
But every person on Twitter supports fascists. Very literally. In a financial sense.
Please elaborate on how having a twitter account financially supports fascism. I'd think the opposite if used by the majority of people. I'm genuinely asking, not trying to start a fight.
Higher MAU = More companies buying advertisements = supporting twitter
The most simple, straightforward, and concise way is my least favorite word in the world: metrics. By using X, you increase the amount of activity on the platform, which the Muskrat takes to advertisers and investors and says "Look how many people use my platform, you should be paying me more money for access to the value they have as consumers/data to harvest."
This is actually why they made that ad-blocker that clicks on every single ad it blocks that I can never remember the name of. Because it financially hurts both the company serving the ads and the advertisers themselves as well by both messing with their data on you as a consumer (they can't add your interests to a group to sell to advertisers if you just click on everything) and by hurting their click-through to sales metric. Their click-through rate goes up, but because their purchase rate doesn't, it makes the metric go down and makes them less willing to spend as much on an advertising spot when they're less likely to get a return on that money.
There's also that whole thing where people go where there's a lot of people and by being part of the group that keeps people there, you're exposing them to right-wing propaganda and the various disinformation bot campaigns and whatnot, but that's a lot harder to explain/messier to get into.
Its about Musk having control of a major social platform. Just think about the implications an evil person can do i.e. mark Zuckerberg except richer
I won't argue that.
That's the reason I don't do twitter and I restrain myself for many products.
But you know what they say "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism".
It's ok to boicot things to hurt them financially as far as you are able to. But let's not demonize anyone who doesn't carry the boicot as far as you can carry it, because that's counter productive.
To be fair, there's plenty of things you can forego with no cost or negative cost. This isn't like having to buy food at a grocery store. So while you can't use the internet ethically, you can make ethical choices about which websites you visit.
That's why I don't go on twitter or reddit.
But I understand that different people have different needs. A company or a politician might need reach. They are not just someone having fun online. For them is their business.
I actually think is a bad choice, because they would have better public elsewhere. But a wrong decision like that would make them just wrong, not fascist.
OK so we agree that Firefox could forego X with no or negative cost, but we're cool with them doing it anyways because they have no choice, except in this case where they totally do.
Yes, totally agree with that. Firefox userbase is precisely one that could be more prevalent in mastodon than in twitter.
The VPS hosting of every Lemmy instance is thus unethical. Mastodon is then unethical. Buying a gun to defend yourself and your home is then unethical. Buying a child food is then unethical.
Hard disagree. The issues of life are not so cut and dry.
Fuck Twitter tho.
I meant that everything you buy in a capitalist world is putting money in hands of bad people.
You buy baby food from nestle and you are giving money to terrible people.
What I implied in the post, is that that doesn't make you a bad person. You need to live, and most importantly, you have right to enjoy your life. That would inevitably lead to giving money to bad people.
Here a corporation, Mozilla, is using a service from a bad person, twitter. Are they as bad because of it? I don't think so. There are other people, like Bernie Sanders, who still have an active twitter account. They are doing consumption that profits bad people, but in a capitalist economy that is inevitable. Thus I don't think the consumption of something should be the sole factor judging the ethics of a person.
We live in a society where is very hard or sometimes impossible to avoid it. Here, Mozilla or Bernie Sanders, haven't found another social network with enough userbase for their communication purposes. I personally don't agree with their choice, But I won't call them fash for making that choice. Because I know how limited consumption offers are in a capitalist world.
Yeah but we don’t need to defend corps that support fascists either.
That's ok. I'm all for criticize mozilla for all the questionable shit they are doing lately. Either to achieve a change on them or to promote an alternative.
I'm just agaist calling fascist people that have not shown that they are indeed fascist.
Being fascist is something very very bad. For instance, to my view, violence against fascism is justified, that's why I really try to distinguish who is actually fascist, and who is just not actively fighting them.
I would argue that their board of directors, or whatever it's called, is fash-leaning... kinda goes with the territory. Mozilla at large, probably not.
at this point i can't take anyone who says "echo chamber" seriously any more, it's only used to defend shitheads
You do realize you're proving the exact point you're criticizing... right?
There are some instances that's evident that a person haven't have a serious talk with anyone thinking different than them in a long time. And that's just looping on feedback for the same line of though.
This is pretty clear when people make so broad assumptions of the type every X is Y.
In this case we are talking about people saying "everyone using twitter is fash". In my opinion that's very hard to justify unless you are deep in some echo chamber and you have just read that a thousand times and this it has got engraved in your thoughts. Because that's not a rational or logical though. It's pretty evident that there are tons of people who are on twitter and are not fascist. Just for giving an example Bernie Sanders has a twitter account and he posted there 10 hours ago. Is Bernie Sanders a fascist?
Indeed, if that person went and said that IRL to regular people they’d be laughed at. But alas one of the biggest symptoms of echo chambers is not being able to recognize you’re in one.
Lemmy in particular is becoming more and more extremist as time goes and nobody seems to notice or care. Where people used to argue their opinions, they now just block/downvote and move on because that person must be evil/nazi/fascist/troll/a russian bot and their mind cannot be changed.
What way of thinking are you describing exactly? Twitter is owned and run by a Nazi, it is being used as a tool to promote his political ideology. We're 4 years in, anyone still there is either ignorant on the matter, or complacent about being paft of a fascist online platform
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/13/how-elon-musk-uses-x-to-support-the-far-right-and-its-financial-interests_6714673_4.html
https://theconversation.com/a-few-weeks-of-xs-algorithm-can-make-you-more-right-wing-and-it-doesnt-wear-off-quickly-276153
https://www.avclub.com/twitter-x-amplifying-right-wing-accounts
https://english.elpais.com/technology/2026-07-15/from-twitter-to-x-the-most-polarizing-social-network-still-dominates-20-years-on.html
You don't need to convince me of that.
I've been saying Musk is fash from way before be associated himself with Trump.
He is fascist because he believes in fascist ideology.
The way of thinking I talk about is thinking someone is fascist because they use a product or service provided by a fascist. Because the logical conclusions of that line of though are terrible.
There’s a saying… “If there are ten people sitting at a table eating dinner, and one of them is a nazi, you’ve got ten nazis.”
That logic leads to infinite nazi generation.
And to some incongruencies.
What happens if there's 10 person in the table, one is nazi and one is antifa. Are them all nazis? Are them all antifascist?
It doesn't seem like good logic to me.
There’s a related saying: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Now, I don’t typically like that saying as a GENERAL aphorism applied to everything, but when applied to nazis? It absolutely applies.
The reason there’s 10 nazis at the table is because the other 9 are tolerating the nazi. And tolerating a Nazi is tantamount to collaboration. All they need is tolerance to themselves, and they’ll take that and use it to not tolerate the rest of the world (see: paradox of tolerance).
As said. If you strictly follow that logic you would probably be a nazi too.
What browser do you use?
Unless you are doing curl to browse the internet you are using either chromium based of firefox based. By that logic of yours you are endorsing nazis, thus making you a nazi.
At then end you are basically saying that all the world population are basically nazis. How many people have pick up a rifle to end Trump? Have you? No? Then, by what you just said you are nazi.
As you see is completely illogical.
Once thing are nazis, and other thing is people thar doesn't fight nazis with all they have. They are two separate groups. And most of us are in the second group.
You accept the standard you walk past.
Just a question.
If firefox is a fascist company for using the product of a fascist.
Is everyone using firefox a fascist for using the product of what you say is a fascist company?
"You say hate peanuts, but by the transitive property of being a literal nutcase, you hate yourself? Curious." 🙄 (cmon..)
If the place you get your groceries starts giving handjobs to racists, despite what the staff and their customers want, would it be a place you still want to shop at
One thing is not liking/agreeing them. Other much different is calling them fascist.
I'm not a sith lord. Not all who is not with me is against me.
Maybe if I go, being antifascist, they also give me a handjob. Then what? Are they racist for giving handjob to racist, are they antifa for giving handjob to antifa?
why would they give you a racist handjob if you were antifascist...
... and I swear to god if your answer is something along the lines of "because antifascists are, like, fascist with their antifascism" then one of us needs to touch grass
They don't need to be antifascist. That's what I'm saying.
I'm antifascist.
But I do not consider everyone who does not actively do whatever they can to fight fascist (thus they are not antifascist) a fascist. They are just people, neutral, or with other ideology. Maybe they are liberal, maybe they are conservative, maybe they are other thing, IDK. If they do not believe in fascist/nazi ideology they are not that.
I disagree with them giving handjobs to fascist. But that's all, I'm not labeling them as fascist for that. A fascist is someone I believe it would be better if they didn't exist, I don't believe that about THAT MUCH people.
They are a corporation though, they don't have human characteristics. Every move is a deliberate signal to others, because they ultimately care about stock which is tied to public image
I'm glad you don't see their users (who ultimately have no say) as fascists, but you most certainly can judge the actions of the unelected leaders of their daily driver
It's okey to judge them. And to judge them harshly.
I'm just saying that I don't think is ok to label someone a fascist unless we are certain they are indeed fascist.
Once a person/corporation is a fascist, from my point of view they are to be eliminated from society. We cannot share a society with fascist. We cannot share society with Mozilla? I don't think so. I think they are on the group of people I don't agree in everything with, but I can still share a society with them.
For instance Musk is not in than group. He is a fascist, we cannot share society with him. I think there's a difference here between Musk or his companies and Mozilla.
Lot of sealions in this thread