Mozilla's marketing annoys me. They aren't freedom fighters, and they aren't actually protecting the web. They aren't big or powerful enough to protect the web, so their desire to protect it makes no difference.
That kind of marketing is an admission that their browser is not as good as its competitors. If Firefox was the best, Mozilla would drop the freedom-fighter baloney and simply say "Choose Firefox because it has the best features and user experience."
Firefox was launched at a time when web browsing was dominated by IE. [0] It is open-source in a world where browsers are either completely (IE/Edge) or somewhat (Chrome) closed source.
People say that IE didn't adapt fast enough, and that's why it died. But imagine how behind we'd be today if Firefox had never come along!
In a world where almost every piece of software you run (from your OS to your favorite toolbar) and every site you visit, tries to gather as much information about you. Mozilla's open-source stance and mission to improve privacy is protecting the web, by protecting us.
Perhaps privacy is not your favorite feature, perhaps it does not enhance your user experience, but for many others it does. It serves an important niche, and I hope that it succeeds and continues to disrupt what could otherwise be a browser monopoly.
Firefox was released in 2004. It did a great deal to break up IE's market share at that time. I remember it very well, and I liked it a lot back then.
But it is now 2017, and when I decide which browser I should use, I choose one that is good today, and I don't care about the blows its parent company struck for or against freedom 13 years ago.
I also disagree with the assertion that Firefox is better for security or privacy than Chrome is. They are comparable in their security and privacy features.
Security and privacy isn't only prevalent on browser frontend features. There are battles happening within every standardized Web specification. Without more than one major player, one company would be allowed to dictate the level of security and private within every API. There are also initiatives that push the Web forward in security like with Let's Encrypt or Do Not Track. Mozilla also advances into new areas of technology to try to ensure they remain open.
It's totally fine to prefer one browser or the other. It's great to have an actual choice. But the ideals and values aren't just for show.
Ideas and values don't matter if you don't have enough power to make a difference in the world.
What has Mozilla actually done in the past few years to push the web forward in security or ensure that a web specification protects user freedom?
Things that Microsoft or Google or Apple were also trying to do don't count -- what good things did Mozilla succeed in doing that the other browser companies opposed?
That kind of marketing is an admission that their browser is not as good as its competitors. If Firefox was the best, Mozilla would drop the freedom-fighter baloney and simply say "Choose Firefox because it has the best features and user experience."