Comment by nonrandomstring
1 year ago
I don't think the analogy is weakened by bringing numbers/quantity into it. The dynamics work for any number of principals. Take a 3 player game, where Alice trusts Bob but is better off with Bill, however Bill is not visible to her because of chaff/disinfo/noise broadcast by Bob or Bob's confederates.
It's not what Mozilla does, it's about what Mozilla says/claims.
Mozilla is a deceptive/defective entity here.
The numbers matter because they affect whether there actually is a better option.
What happens when Alice is with Bill, but Bill is also abusive to a lesser extent? And "don't have a browser" is not an option.
You only need one better browser to switch to. I guess you're getting at a Hobson's choice [0], that there really is only one browser and all others are copies of the same harmful set of properties, so moving isn't worth the overhead (switch cost is a factor in this that we often ignore). To my mind, there must be at least one browser out there that is "less undesirable" than that case. Just iterate your way into your comfort zone.
So often arguments on this axis come down to how much convenience are you going to give up for the trust relation you desire. We get stuck if we mistake convenience for necessity thereby bringing absolutes into a continuous trade-off problem.
I wouldn't say there's only one, but there are two main clusters for anyone not on a mac, and a handful of teams large enough to do a solid job of running their own variant. There's precious little iteration to do.
1 reply →
So, where is the better Bill of browsers that Mozilla is preventing me learning about?