Does it? TIL I always thought it meant “official” or some such, but had no bearing on whether they were elected or not

Yeah, you were clear. I thought I was being clear when I said that I don’t want to fund the “open web” as Mozilla defines it. I only want to fund Firefox development.

“…you’re funding the foundation itself…”

But that’s what I don’t want. I don’t care about the foundation, as it doesn’t share my values.

“I’m sure if more people donated, they could actually be incentivized to make such an option available, but they barely get any donations compared to the revenue they make from the Google subsidy, so it’s just unreasonable to expect them to put in that additional effort, especially when the primary thing the vast majority of the money goes to is Firefox staff, development, and related server hosting anyways.”

This is the problem though. How many people don’t donate because, like me, they don’t want to pay for a bloated CEO salary, or unrelated projects? I don’t find it unreasonable at all, rather it would help them focus on what their base actually cares about. They have a lot of fat to cut, and this would point out where their resources should be spent, compared to how their resources are currently spent.

Are they going to make as much money from donations as Google gives them? no, but that’s a good thing. It’ll help them focus.

I feel like my point was pretty clear, but to spell it out: Mozilla is mis-managing their resources. I want to make sure the resources that I give to them only go towards what I consider to be worthwhile projects.

But I don’t want to donate to the “open internet” or the non-profit, I want to donate directly to Firefox. How can I ensure that the money I spend gets spent on that and only that?

But that’s not donating to Firefox, that’s donating to Mozilla, which I don’t want to do, because they seem to be wasting their money.

Yeah, donations. And yes, more cost-cutting measures. They need both, to gain more revenue, and to cut costs. They seem pretty bloated to me.

Sure, but can I spend money on just Firefox? or does it go to unrelated activities? I’m OK spending money on FF, I’m not OK paying for the CEO.

“They already take in donations…”

Where can I dontate to Firefox? Not Mozilla, and not a fund that goes to CEO-pay or other expences, but straight to Firefox

2 options:

1. Ask their users for money. It’s a tried and true system that works for a lot of projects.
2. Stop spending their existing money on dumb things that nobody is asking for. A good start would be to cut out the CEO’s pay.

Well, we don’t know that, because we didn’t let him try. He did originally poll better than Trump in texas.

Of course she’s to blame. She had an easy win, against the lowest approved president we’ve had and chose genocide and billionaires over winning.

I always find it telling when people blame those who couldn’t stomach voting for genocide, instead of blaming the Democratic leadership for running on a platform of genocide.

You can, but the last time I did that the instructions were incomplete, and you still had to auth through Mozilla. That was a few years ago, so things might have changed since then.

If you liked vimperator, you might like https://qutebrowser.org/

I’m not sure what a “consequential” is, but I’m not a Trump supporter, nor am I a conservative. I proudly voted against him.

The disconnect is obvious to me, but to spell it out: They were terrible candidates that the majority of General Election voters didn’t want. Those voters made that quite clear before the primaries, and were ignored. Then the Primary Election voters got behind the bad choice anyway.

But General Election voters had already abandoned the Democrats, and rightfully so. The Primary Vote was only among those that were willing to vote for whatever terrible candidates the DNC pushed on them.

And how did that work out? Did people come out to vote for the Dems?

Maybe if they had listened to the polls, the Dems would have had a candidate that people were willing to vote for in the main election

Voters were saying it very loudly, the Democratic leadership just ignored them. Polls were very clear that nobody wanted either of them to run, and they both had a low approval ratings. The ticket wasn’t his to give, it was up to the voters. The Democrats chose to skip the voters, so the voters abandoned them.

I don’t see why anyone would expect voters to stick with a party that treats it’s base so disrespectfully.

I feel like your missing that many people do see the Democrats as the bad guys, and I can’t say that I blame them. We recently asked them to say “Genocide is bad, and we won’t support it” and they wouldn’t. They are the baddies

Maybe the Democrats should prove the complainers wrong. The Democratic leadership has had plenty of opportunity to build trust amongst the voters, and decided to ignore them instead. They’ve spent years letting their voters down, which is why they aren’t trusted.