Surely, the mission of "looking good on twitter" is as noble as any. They probably have enough money from Google anyway, why would they need any other?

> They probably have enough money from Google anyway, why would they need any other?

If I was in charge of Mozilla's finances (which I'm not), I would be perpetually anxious about Google yanking their money as soon as its lawyers are sufficiently convinced that another browser vendor's marketshare sufficiently deflates any accusations of monopoly.

If Google yanks their money, they're dead anyway. Unless they make similar arrangement with Microsoft or such. I don't see how they can exist and finance themselves as an independent entity.

Hence the fundraising. I don't personally find it surprising that "you're dead anyways" isn't an acceptable conclusion to Mozilla's leadership, regardless of whether it happens to be likely.

What’s uninformed is caving to a blanket rejection of all cryptocurrency despite there being many eco-friendlier alternatives to Bitcoin, and many ways to offset approximate carbon footprints. If you’re a “privacy company,” you better learn about privacy coins.

They’re essentially saying “PuppyKicker Inc. is a stock. Therefore, all stocks are bad.”

What’s the carbon footprint of accepting a large donation from Google? How many flights, full time staff are involved with ensuring this?

Their decision is short sighted for many reasons, including the unpopular truth that in the long term they will need to natively support cryptocurrency “Web 3” features to survive as a competitive browser.