I don't see at all how that post is forcing you to hold your nose.

It is a straight and simple denunciation of the attack on the US Capitol, and a call to critically investigate the role social media played in it. How is that controversial?

No, I absolutely agree with the sentiment of the post. It was a singular sentence that indicated Mozilla's comfort with intermediating between the user and the content they consume.

>Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

It's an innocuous sentiment, but one with significant long-term implications for the behavioral norms of web-browsers.

I've held my nose at a few decisions pertaining to the general direction of the browser, such as the by-default inclusion of Pocket - which I resented, but could understand their need to find ways to become financially independent, and the browser otherwise improved consistently.

shrug I'm not the biggest fan of the post, but unless their opinions become downright offensive or affect their product in any way I'm not inclined to drop it. Different strokes for different folks, of course.

Waterfox seems nice enough but I'm not sure how I feel about it being a fork of an older version essentially. It'd help if I had an idea about the technical stuff that goes into the browser, but I'm just not sure if I can trust it as much as I do Firefox for example.

"we need more than deplatforming" and auto-enabling fact checkers which thus far are plainly partisan hacks is a nope. They're just fine creating a political monoculture, and I can't get the taste of vomit out of my mouth. The browser used to stand for privacy and choice first and foremost. We'll see how they end up but I don't want to support shit like that.