[textgel]

Some in the world are capable of working without being emotionally incapacitated by the thought that those they work with don't agree with all that they believe in.

Mozilla is there to build browsers. Politics should have been left at the door. Instead it wasn't and so Firefox happened and then Brave happened.

[Thiez]

> Mozilla is there to build browsers. Politics should have been left at the door.

I think you misunderstand Mozilla. Just have a look at their mission statement[0], and their manifesto[1]. Mozilla's goal is not "build the best browser and get the most market share". Their goals are inherently political, and building a browser is just part of how they try to achieve their goals. To expect that the people working for such a political organization with such a strong ideology is pretty bizarre to me.

0. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/

1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

[textgel]

Perhaps it would be better for me to say ostensibly there to build browsers (and other software).

In response to the manifesto I'll ask how recent that manifesto and mission statement is? Surely they weren't always a politics first, software second organisation? They must have started out as free software and then morphed into what they are now at some point.

Or was it that case that the politics was there but it was that that changed?

[whatever_dude]

It's not "politics" when the leader of a company is fundamentally against your existence.

It's only politics when it's "other people's problems I don't care about", it seems.

[approxim8ion]

Would you say the same about iFixit backing right to repair, or the FSF/EFF etc fighting for privacy and software freedoms while also developing their core products? I feel like "politics" has a very selective definition in this forum.