3 ms·

A "public utility" has very specific meaning, being an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service, that is subject to forms of public

A "public utility" has very specific meaning, being an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service, that is subject to forms of public control and regulation and for which you pay taxes. Is Mozilla subject to forms of public control and regulation? Do you pay taxes for Mozilla's existence? If not, then Mozilla does not qualify. My problem is actually twofold. On one hand bashing Mozilla is like bashing a charity and most people doing it have never donated or contributed anything. But also I don't understand what's the freaking deal with that Pocket button, which is nothing more than a shortcut that consumes nothing, that can be easily removed and for which Mozilla got nothing in return for the deal. This is why Free Software will never happen at scale. Far more aggravating than the problem of the business model is all the shit these people have to put up with.

toyg 11y ago
The problem is that Mozilla really really would like you to believe that they're doing a public service. "We keep the web open! We defend your privacy! Donate now or Bad People will win!" That's their message. So yeah, it's a charity, but they make it sound like it's a charity that must exist, so it borders on being a utility. > most people doing it have never donated or contributed anything. Since when, in order to criticise something you use, you have to join it first? > But also I don't understand what's the freaking deal with that Pocket button I'll bite. Two issues: 1) Pocket is basically a centralized service to keep track of your reading. This goes quite clearly against Mozilla's own message of placing privacy and users' rights above everything else. Shipping such a feature as opt-out and fundamentally un-removeable is just bad on every possible level; it could have been worse only if Mozilla had started routing all your traffic through Microsoft servers. 2) There are umpteen services like Pocket, always have been, and none of them ever got a button in Firefox. So why Pocket? Why not one of the bazillion other services? Who chose it and why? Does that mean FF's toolbar is now open for business? Who do I bribe to get a button? ... That's a very opaque and fundamentally corrupt process, in an organisation constantly preaching openness. You can ask a priest how it feels having to constantly adhere to a higher moral standard; it's the price you pay for getting people to listen to you, trust your judgement, and give you free labor. At any time you can just stop preaching and go do your own thing, but then you can't expect other people to still follow you. > This is why Free Software will never happen at scale. Lol. Newsflash: it's already happened.

toyg 11y ago

The problem is that Mozilla really really would like you to believe that they're doing a public service. "We keep the web open! We defend your privacy! Donate now or Bad People will win!" That's their message. So yeah, it's a charity, but they make it sound like it's a charity that must exist, so it borders on being a utility. > most people doing it have never donated or contributed anything. Since when, in order to criticise something you use, you have to join it first? > But also I don't understand what's the freaking deal with that Pocket button I'll bite. Two issues: 1) Pocket is basically a centralized service to keep track of your reading. This goes quite clearly against Mozilla's own message of placing privacy and users' rights above everything else. Shipping such a feature as opt-out and fundamentally un-removeable is just bad on every possible level; it could have been worse only if Mozilla had started routing all your traffic through Microsoft servers. 2) There are umpteen services like Pocket, always have been, and none of them ever got a button in Firefox. So why Pocket? Why not one of the bazillion other services? Who chose it and why? Does that mean FF's toolbar is now open for business? Who do I bribe to get a button? ... That's a very opaque and fundamentally corrupt process, in an organisation constantly preaching openness. You can ask a priest how it feels having to constantly adhere to a higher moral standard; it's the price you pay for getting people to listen to you, trust your judgement, and give you free labor. At any time you can just stop preaching and go do your own thing, but then you can't expect other people to still follow you. > This is why Free Software will never happen at scale. Lol. Newsflash: it's already happened.