Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Adblockers, User Value, and “Off‑Mission” Concerns

  • Many commenters say the only strong remaining reason to use Firefox is support for powerful blockers like uBlock Origin (including on Android).
  • Blocking or weakening adblockers is widely seen as “instant suicide”: users say they would immediately switch to Chromium forks, Brave, Safari, or Firefox forks (LibreWolf, Waterfox, Zen, Helium, etc.).
  • Several note ads are now both a UX and security issue (malvertising), so adblocking is framed as a safety feature, not a luxury.

Financial Dependence, CEO Pay, and Governance

  • Firefox’s revenue is described as overwhelmingly coming from Google search placement (hundreds of millions per year; numbers like 75%+ of revenue are cited).
  • Some argue this makes Mozilla a “client state” or “controlled opposition” to preserve Google’s antitrust optics.
  • CEO compensation in the multi‑million range, while market share shrinks, infuriates many; some see Mozilla as a failing “non‑profit” with a for‑profit behavior pattern.
  • Confusion and frustration persist over the split between Mozilla Foundation (advocacy, no Firefox funding) and Mozilla Corporation (browser development, Google money).

AI in the Browser and Product Direction

  • Strong pushback against “AI everywhere”; users don’t want chatbots or nag pop‑ups in the browser and see them as bloat and distraction from core browsing.
  • A minority finds specific local-AI features (on‑device translation) genuinely useful and compatible with user‑first values.
  • Some argue Mozilla pursues AI and ad/“data deals” because incremental browser work “doesn’t impress investors,” even though it would better serve their stated mission.

Business Model Debates and Alternatives

  • Recurrent suggestion: Mozilla should “be a real non‑profit again,” cut management/side projects, and focus funds solely on Firefox.
  • Ideas floated:
    • Direct donations earmarked for Firefox only (similar to Blender or Thunderbird).
    • Paid/supported privacy browser or “consumer web security product” with bundled blocking.
    • Government/sovereign or EU funding, or a public fork funded as infrastructure.
  • Others are skeptical a paid browser model can succeed (Netscape’s history, user reluctance to pay, tendency of companies to “double dip” with fees and ads).

Firefox Quality, Ecosystem, and Market Reality

  • Some insist Firefox is still technically excellent (extensions, containers, privacy posture, adblocking) and mostly standards‑compliant; others report real‑world issues: performance, RAM usage, YouTube slowness, banking/gov sites blocking Firefox via UA checks.
  • Several note Firefox’s desktop share around low single digits and near‑irrelevance on mobile; some claim it’s “already dead,” others argue even 2–4% is strategically important as the only major non‑Chromium engine.

Forks, Successors, and Survival of a Non‑Corporate Web

  • Many pin their hopes on forks (LibreWolf, Mullvad, Waterfox, Zen) or new engines (Ladybird, Servo), though some doubt new projects can reach full web compat/performance.
  • There is strong sentiment that if Firefox follows Chrome on adblocking/enshittification, the remaining power users will consolidate around such alternatives, even if they’re small or Chromium‑based.

Interpreting the CEO’s “$150M” Adblocker Quote

  • The original quote (“could block ad blockers… bring in another $150M… feels off‑mission”) splits the thread:
    • One camp reads it as a serious option being costed and implicitly offered to advertisers (a “negotiation price”), revealing misalignment with users.
    • Another camp sees it as a clumsy but genuine statement of what won’t be done, taken out of context by media and over‑interpreted.
  • Many criticize the phrasing “feels off‑mission” as extremely weak for what should be a core principle; they wanted an unequivocal “we will never do this.”