- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
Edit: As @bdonvr@thelemmy.club points out below
You must log in or # to comment.
By the way this is NOT a new Firefox logo. It’s just the fox mascot drawing that may be used in other parts of the UI like the welcome screen after a new install, or on social media.
The actual logo remains unchanged.
On top of that nowhere in the announcement are the supposed pronouns mentioned: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/meet-kit/
Actually the whole thing may be bullshit. Literally the only Mozilla reference I can find to Kit’s pronouns is a statement given to like one or two blogs, and it says that any pronoun is acceptable.
Kit (he/she/they/them/it) is the user’s constant companion. Wherever they choose to roam, Kit will accompany and guide them with clever, playful encouragement and support — giving the user the confidence to run free.
That’s attributed to Mozilla here: https://www.neowin.net/news/firefox-has-killed-its-old-mascot-heres-what-the-new-cute-one-looks-like/
All other references seem to be chuds on X claiming that it’s explicitly they/them and acting like Mozilla is making a big deal about that. As if it matters either way.
If you had some kind of reaction to this post you’ve fallen for culture war bullshit propaganda, congratulations.
Solid sleuthing there. Edited the post to include your context.
they do make explicit mention of non-gendered pronouns in their branding guidelines for kit. the intro blog post is an expression of those guidelines
but every announcement by mozilla makes it clear that kit isn’t about taking a stance on gender: it’s simply explicitly about not taking a stance on gender
Its to funny how whenever a Mozilla brand related thing happens its clarified that the firefox logo is not being changed. In no other context of a product receiving a new mascot would a clarification be needed that the logo is still the same.
Not on topic but sure do wonder why they silently pulled the Dino 2 years (I think?) prior and made the browser look boring. I guess it was apart of the master plan to shove a new mascot there and make media attention, + furry bait.
The dino represents Mozilla, not Firefox itself. And yes, for a while, Mozilla didn’t have the dino in its official branding, but it’s now back in there. The flag is a dino head. As per usual, significantly more drama was made about them “removing” the dino than it was worth.
I meant that there was a different dino on the error pages in Firefox.
but that was again not about removing the dino as much as as it was about differentiating mozilla from firefox by taking the mozilla identity from firefox because mozilla is more than firefox and behaves differently to firefox, and giving firefox its own identity which is more friendly
Firefox is now exclusive to ternary computers.
No, Mozilla has seen the future of computing. (CS/CE/IT, don’t watch if you don’t want to be frustrated.)
What if… hear me out… what if we remove the focus on gender altogether? What if we stop engendering things that don’t have genders? Like logos… and behavioral attributes…
Since Mozilla actually didn’t and the post is based on a lie, I’ll say congratulations, your reaction is almost certainly what they were hoping for
You don’t think people childishly over-anthropomorphize a lot these days? Cause I do, and that’s what my comment was about.
I mean, if you can provide data which shows that anthropomorphisation - specifically the unwarranted attribution of gender to things which are genderless - is on the rise and can demonstrate, or even articulate what the real-world harm of this is, then maybe I will agree that ranting about it in response to a tweet from an anti-woke twitter user lying about it in order to stir up tired “culture war” arguments isn’t silly
Perhaps we should also rant about the erosion of male-dominated spaces into spaces which are “lame and gay”, given that there are now women who play Warhammer?
Why would I have an issue with women playing warhammer?
I’m explicitly saying that I think assigning things like warhammer (a genderless concept) as being for either men or women is stupid.
The issue I have is everything being put into one of two categories that are essentially irrelevant.
Gender is far less relevant than people make it; its emphasis is a long standing sociological trend that I hope can die as people feel more accepted and secure.
Again, the question is can you demonstrate that this is actually something that is increasing?
The relevance of the second tweet is that it’s from the same person. They’re trying to get an angry reaction from people to help fuel culture war bullshit. And you provided exactly the reaction they were after
There ** was** no “focus on gender”. They just pretended there was so that people like you would amplify the signal. You fell for it without first stopping to check whether or not it was true
I understand. I’m not trying to win an argument or write a thesis.
It’s a mascot, not a logo. So it having a gender isn’t strange.
Also, since its pronouns are (quoting the announcement blog post) “he/him, they/them, she/her, and it” that is very open and not rather post-gender, in my opinion. The focus in the announcement is not on thee mascot’s gender in fact.
Any and all other identities as well. It’s a never ending ad nauseam non evidence based, non measurable and inconclusive debate.
Like we’re in The Beasts’ castle. Sometimes a candleholder is just a candleholder.
Waterfox needs to catch up with a gender-fluid fox
Wait, there is a Waterfox? Is there also an Earth and Air fox? Then we could have an AvatarFox!
Waterfox used to have a fox in the logo but Mozilla didn’t like that so waterfox removed the fox after many threats from Mozilla
That’s stupid, it was genderless before until they brought it up.
Mozilla didn’t bring it up. The story is made up by right-wing trolls.
Isn’t the old mascot/logo completely non-gendered already?
There was nothing like that with the old fox-that-is-on-fire, so I guess mozilla is making a statement by pointing it out.
Except there’s basically nowhere that Mozilla actually does. The post is misinformation
in both the intro blog post and the branding guidelines mozilla does bring up the new (complimentary; not replacement) mascots pronouns as explicitly non-binary
Except it’s not pointing it out, OP is
I kinda wish that they had pointed it out, but they didn’t.
Maybe it’s meant to run on the old Soviet Setun platform.
It’s a fox. I like the fox.
Its actually a red panda iirc
Firefox is another name for the red panda, but the Firefox browser has always used foxes as logo/mascots. Before that it was called Phoenix, maybe that’s why they decided to just use another fire-related animal name without thinking about it too much.
the firefox is explicitly (in the case of mozilla firefox) neither fox nor red panda
https://brand.mozilla.com/d/5UkPdpbtt8LS/visual-elements#/-/mascot-1
Our mascot is a Firefox — not a fox, not a red panda. It’s not a real-life animal, it’s Firefox’s own unique creature.
I never knew or thought about the old one’s gender.
Has anyone even thought about the gender of the original?
Everyone knows the original was a hetro white male.
Why would you even bother?
It uses qubits sorry. Get a quantum computer loser
Non-binary PC is just a quantum computer innit?
No, ternary exists. We could have built computers with triodes.
I feel that you’re stringing us along with that theory.
There’s also analog computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
Alas, they got largely displaced by digital computers…
Quantum computing yes, with qubits. But also tenery computing with trits, and probabilistic computing with p-bits. Analog computers probably fit in this category too.
Probabilistic computing will probably become big before quantum computers, because it’s a natural fit for probabilistic LLMs. Lots of work being done in this hardware field with photonics, neuromorphic and thermodynamic chips.
I have a friend IRL called Kit, who also happens to use they/them pronouns.
Kit looks more she/her than the OG icon.
Hmm… …the silliness continues.
Kit looks more she/her than the OG icon.
NBs don’t have to be androgynous.
I didn’t ascribe a he/him/her/she/them/they to an icon.
It was just that… it… …and it is fine.
The rest just strikes me as so much marketing.
At risk of being abrasive…
I see blue checkmarks, I downvote. Nothing personal. But I don’t want to support that even indirectly.
Good instinct. Pirat_Nation is a grifter/ragebaiting account. No one should be giving him visibility.
I mean, yeah… It’s a blue checkmark account.
At this point, if you’re paying for extra engagement on Twitter, that is beyond “benefit of the doubt.” It seems safe to assume its some kind of attention farm.
Eh at this point I’m just sick and fucking tired watching sexuality become nothing but marketing bait. People’s sexuality and gender are becoming nothing but a two cent market gimmick and it’s fucking insulting.
This isn’t cool representation! It’s hey lgbtq people your stupid and fucking easy. Look we can use the right words. Trust us and buy our shit.
It’s just the fucking corporatization of rainbows in June all over again.
It’s not just corporations. It’s influencer-grifters like Pirat_Nation.
…And, to be blunt, reposters who further spread the ragebait, like OP.
The platforms, ultimately, are what facilitate “marketing bait.” But I dunno what to do about that, as human being simply cannot help themselves once they see stuff like that. It works, apparently.
Yeah agree
It’s a fucking fox, why does it need to have a specific gender? It was genderless by default they don’t need to announce it one way or another, other than to pander to people.
