You obviously do not understand what am saying.

I don’t think you understand at all what being political actually means.

You clearly dislike this person because your and their political positions are at odds, and you seem to want to make that a priority. That is fine! I do that all the time.

I just thought it is absurd that you would think that this decision (or your argument) is not political, because it is.

I just tried to illustrate the obvious by quoting some of the many political things you’ve written before saying that what you write isn’t political.

Like… why would you think that?

So what’s preventing those people from using bookmarks as “check this out later” tool?

Bookmarking a page does not give you control over its content. So if you bookmark something and the host deletes it, you are screwed.

If you instead clip the content or save it as a PDF, you retain access regardless of the original host.

For example, I save every good article I read as a PDF, which I cloud sync to a folder. I have a second folder for stuff I don’t want to keep open as a tab but still want to read later. There are probably far better services out there, but I like the lack of technical dependencies and lock-in.

CEO is a homophobic shithead. … Privacy is important … Privacy is good … Society is toxic … calling out people who specifically want to legally control how others (harmlessly) live their lives is not itself toxic … His opinion is that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I think this is rather invasive. … My point is that someone who is willing to donate thousands to homophobic lobbyists doesn’t seem to care about gay people’s rights to Privacy …

And then:

I am not sharing political opinions

Brilliant.

Although I am not sure whether it is art or delusion.

Yeah, just create an entirely new, incompatible extension engine from scratch for this one feature specifically!

This is absolutely not how any of this works.

While Mozilla implements the WebExtensions API based on the W3C standard, they are not bound to a 100% verbatim implementation. Like other browser vendors, Mozilla has the flexibility to extend or modify the API as needed, as long as they maintain compatibility with the core standard. Adding new APIs or features to the extension system does not require creating an entirely incompatible engine. Browser vendors often add non-standard extensions to APIs, which can later be proposed for inclusion in the next version of the standard if they prove useful. So, Mozilla can certainly add new APIs to their extension system without making it incompatible with the existing WebExtensions ecosystem. This is not difficult to understand.

Mozilla isn’t in charge of the extension API, it uses Chromium’s WebExtensions API

No. They are basing their implementation on that of Chrome, but nobody is forcing Mozilla to do this … So yes, Mozilla is responsible for all the APIs they integrate. Of course.

Like yea, it’a technically a levie, not a tax. This whole “it’s different because it does not go through the budget” is such a learned talking point. We have it in Germany as well with our state funded public media houses. You say something about their bias, count to five and suddenly some retired teacher appears and tells you that same story of fictional independence through funding through levie.

What happened to the Mozilla Manifesto?

It actually got a DEI update in 2018 and now it’s weirdly American.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-marks-20th-anniversary-commitment-better-human-experiences-online/

The extension APl doesn’t have enough access for this.

If that’s the case, then it’s pretty great that Mozilla is also the exact company in charge of the extension API.

I have only one extension, and I use it longer than I use Firefox. I also trust the developer a lot more than I trust Mozilla.

Wenn man sich erst mal daran gewöhnt hat, der Willkür eines Milliardärs ausgesetzt zu sein, fühlt es sich vielleicht ganz heimelig an.

Das Verbot führt ja zum Verlust der Sitze.

Ist das so? Höre ich zum ersten mal. …kann ich mir eigentlich nicht vorstellen. Die sind dann halt einfach kein Teil der AfD mehr & müssen ggf. eine neue Fraktion gründen.

Aber die AfD hat vermutlich gar nichts gegen ein Verbotsverfahren im Wahlkampf. Immer lieber im Wahlkampf als nach dem Wahlkampf - weil so ein Verfahren ja vermutlich gut Stimmen & Aufmerksamkeit bringt.

Naja BSW muss jetzt einigermaßen schnell profilbildend in der Presse bleiben, sonst überlebt die Marke ihre erste Krise nicht.

Das geht halt nicht, wenn man nichts dramatisches macht.

Die Linkspartei z.B. ist ein sehr schönes Beispiel, wie man durch moderate on-the-fence Positionen trotz Bundestagsfraktion innerhalb von ein paar Jahren einfach in Vergessenheit geraten kann. Kein Mensch weiß heute, wofür die Linkspartei im Bund eigentlich steht.

Diese Rede stand gerade an und der Boykott hat zu ein paar wütenden Kommentaren in den Zeitungen geführt; hätte rein aus der Diskursperspektive für BSW gar nicht besser laufen können.

Wenn der Verbrenner eh verschwindet, ist ein Verbot doch unnötig. Also da steht ja nichts davon, einen sterbenden Verbrenner-Markt künstlich am Leben zu halten.

Wieso das allerdings gerade jetzt ein Thema sein soll… keine Ahnung.

edit: mehrere im Thread behaupten, es gäbe kein Verbrenner-Verbot. … Aber klar gibt’s das, denn die Nummer mit den efuels ist ein Hirngespinst.

Zu behaupten es gäbe deshalb kein Verbrennerverbot weil eine extrem teure, quasi nicht verfügbare Substanz weiterhin verbrannt werden darf ist einfach ein unaufrichtiges Argument.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator