9 ms·

>$100,000 to RiseUp, a coordination platform used by activists across the political spectrum, to improve the security of their email service; However, RiseUp h

• throwawayjava 9y ago
  > but I expect Mozilla to be neutral politically Why? > except when something related to free software is at stake in politics. They're the Mozilla Foundation, not the Free Software Foundation. The free software movement has always been intertwined with more or less radical political movements to lesser or greater extents over time. It's only relatively recently that "open source" is primarily the thing you do so you have a GitHub profile that will land you a 100k paycheck.
  • sandov 9y ago
    Because there are people of various political ideologies that contribute to Mozilla and to free software. If tomorrow Mozilla decided "we support X ideology", then the organization would lose credibility and support from a lot of people. If the Mozilla CEO wants to do that, then fine, we'll find another organization to support and to look up to. >And requesting the latter to be politically neutral is... well. I don't see any incompatibility between free software and any political ideology.
    • throwawayjava 9y ago
      > I don't see any incompatibility between free software and any political ideology. My point (now edited into the comment) was that political activism has been intertwined with free software for a long time. Just think about the absurdity someone complaining about leftist politics at Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation. This intertwining isn't some new thing, and it shouldn't be surprising. > I don't see any incompatibility between free software and any political ideology. But for many of the original strong advocates for free software, there was an enormous link between larger political issues and free software. You can argue that those links aren't fundamentally necessary or have eroded over time, but to deny them is an anti-historical understanding of the free/open source software movement. > then the organization would lose credibility and support from a lot of people. If the Mozilla CEO wants to do that, then fine, we'll find another organization to support and to look up to. Open source wasn't always so mainstream. My money is that the people who have been around for decades aren't fased by these sorts of threats.
      • cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
        The difference is back then it was OK to be political about American politics because it only affected Americans. Now technology touches every part of the world and information travels in seconds via social media. There are a lot of software developers I used to respect and followed on Twitter whom I stopped following because I got sick of their American politics tweets. I'm sure it's the same dynamics with American celebrities tweeting about Donald Trump. Most of the world don't care about Donald Trump nor want to hear about some privileged rich Americans complaining about their politics. They havre their own shit to worry about and don't have time to be force-fed all the American political propaganda. I can understand individuals being political, but if you're an organization like Mozilla, you have a clear goal, and that is NOT left politics. They should aspire to be as neutral as they can.
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
        • Retra 9y ago
• fyrstenberg 9y ago
  Agreed. Mozilla as a tech company should stay out of politics IMO. "Picking" a political side will alienate at least 50% of the users (if not more as the left typically is < 50%). As a loyal user for years and contributor to Firefox I will start looking for tech somewhere else. The tendencies in the US of tech companies coming out of their political closets is disturbing, at best. It worries me that this is being normalized and that it starts to lean toward corporatism as well in some cases.
  • mischov 9y ago
    > "Picking" a political side will alienate at least 50% of the users (if not more as the left typically is < 50%) Source?
    • fyrstenberg 9y ago
      Knock yourself out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Socialism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Socialism_by_country
      • stemcc 9y ago
        Leftist != socialist, especially in the United States where in context someone like Justice John Roberts is seen as a moderate, and most politically mainstream democrats (pre Bernie) would be considered if not rightwing, at least centrist leaning toward conservative in many other Western countries.
        • forapurpose 9y ago
          I generally agree, but Roberts is certainly considered to be conservative, just not all the way to the right like Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
      • King-Aaron 9y ago
        Yeah wow. Today I learned that the Red under the Bed fear is still real, even on HN.
• chuckharmston 9y ago
  Mozilla isn't neutral politically, though there isn't a specific political alignment that is endorsed. That is, it's issue-focused, rather than partisan. We have a strongly-worded manifesto that lays out what we believe: https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/ Mitchell Baker, the chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, talking about how the current political environment in America might overlay that manifesto: https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2017/03/13/the-worldview-of-mozilla/ https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2017/03/13/the-worldview-of-... I'm an employee at Mozilla, though am trying to set personal politics aside to present public explanation of our institutional viewpoint.
  • sandov 9y ago
    Maybe I didn't word my comment correctly. But I thought of politically neutral as not left-wing nor right-wing, not openly supporting capitalism nor being openly against capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised by Mozilla pushing privacy, free speech and copyright related political agendas, but I am surprised by it supporting a left wing organization.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • kirillkh 9y ago
      There is nothing new in Mozilla's leftist political stance, unfortunately. Remember what happened to Brendan Eich, former Mozilla's CEO? Back in 2014 he was forced to resign (and Mozilla was quoted to "believe it should have acted faster") over the fact that he donated $1000 to a campaign against gay marriage in California in 2008. The self-proclaimed liberals ousted him for holding a political opinion, nothing else. And no, he didn't write a memo about it, he just donated the money, that's it. When you recall that story, there is no wonder whatsoever that Mozilla feels great about having a political agenda and pushing it down its users' throats. Now don't get me wrong, I love what Mozilla stands for in the software world and I respect their achievements. But why do they have to be so politically biased?
      • 9y ago
• phjesusthatguy3 9y ago
  >I expect Mozilla to be neutral politically Then you misunderstand what a 501(c)3 is and what it can do politically[0]. I expect Mozilla to get right up to the line of what is acceptable for that type of organization and probably cross it multiple times, because it appears no one is actually held to account unless the violations are flagrant. Donating $100k to an email service that claims to attempt to keep the US Government from snooping your email[1] doesn't even come close, IMO. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization#Limitations_on_political_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization#Limitat... [1]https://riseup.net/en/about-us https://riseup.net/en/about-us
  • sandov 9y ago
    >Then you misunderstand what a 501(c)3 is and what it can do politically I'm not saying that they did anything illegal. I said that I would not expect it of them.
    • phjesusthatguy3 9y ago
      You don't expect people to exercise their rights?
      • sandov 9y ago
        Do you expect Microsoft to open source their operating system?. I mean, it's their right to do it.
        • phjesusthatguy3 9y ago
          No, but that's not what we're talking about. Mozilla giving money away is totally expected. You may not like who they gave the money to, but that's totally within your rights. If you look at what RiseUp says they do[0], it's that they run an email system that they attempt to keep the US Government out of. I am being led to believe that you don't agree with their reasons why, which is fine by me. [0]https://riseup.net/en/about-us https://riseup.net/en/about-us
• tareqak 9y ago
  I think focusing on the right vs. left continuum both detracts from any good that Mozilla desires through their contribution. To be more specific, I think this continuum is actually too restrictive, misleading, and not a sufficiently accurate representation of the political views of individuals and organizations. In my opinion, the best model that I have seen for discussing politics actually focuses on the expansion or contraction of freedoms across the three dimensions: personal, economic, and political. By focusing on policies, we avoid using labels to describe one another, and evaluate actions based on outcomes (both consequences and outcomes). In this model, more freedom along an axis is not necessarily a good thing if it results in a loss of freedom along another axis e.g. slavery could be described as an economic freedom of one demographic to restrict the personal freedoms of another. Through this lens, Mozilla might be funding a cause that they believe preserves personal freedoms of all individuals against the encroaching economic freedoms of corporations with respect to computer security, privacy, and whatever other choices an individual can make in the growing digital world, which is consistent with my understanding of Mozilla's stated mission. This model is not of my making; I came across it here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=create_nation https://www.nationstates.net/page=create_nation , and I find it very surprising that model came from what is essentially an author's conception and implementation of a game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationStates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationStates .
• dbcooper 9y ago
  From their about page: https://riseup.net/en/about-us https://riseup.net/en/about-us >The Riseup Collective is an autonomous body based in Seattle with collective members world wide. Our purpose is to aid in the creation of a free society, a world with freedom from want and freedom of expression, a world without oppression or hierarchy, where power is shared equally. We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression. x We value, support, and engage in struggles for human liberation, the ethical treatment of animals, and ecological sustainability. We join in the fight for freedom and the self-determination of all oppressed groups. We oppose all forms of prejudice, authoritarianism, and vanguardism. x We organize on the basis of autonomy, mutual aid, resource sharing, participatory knowledge, social advocacy, anti-oppression work, community creation, and secure communication. x We work to create revolution and a free society in the here and now by building alternative communication infrastructure designed to oppose and replace the dominant system. x We promote social ownership and democratic control over information, ideas, technology, and the means of communication. x We empower organizations and individuals to use technology in struggles for liberation. We work to support each other in overcoming the systemic oppression embedded in the use and development of technology. They seem like revolutionary socialists. Also: https://riseup.net/en/about-us/politics https://riseup.net/en/about-us/politics >Economy — In a free society the means of production should be placed in the hands of the people, empowering communities to organize meaningful employment, and provide a responsible and sustainable standard of living which tries to meet the needs of all people.
  • jpetso 9y ago
    While I agree with your statement in general, I take issue with your italicizing of "ethical treatment of animals, and ecological sustainability" as either revolutionary or socialist. These are political issues but do not intrinsically belong on a left/right scale. Animal treatment is about drawing boundaries on what's considered humane vs. inhumane. Animal activists define that boundary so that it mandates humane treatment not just for humans but also for animals. Ethical stance, yes. Political, yes. Socialist/revolutionary, no. Ecological sustainability is about whether you take a short-term vs. long-term view on profiting off nature and survival as a species. If you believe this is a "socialist" position to take, you have been successfully brainwashed by U.S. party propaganda that has coopted a legitimate issue and transformed it into partisan identity politics.
• dingo_bat 9y ago
  Not surprised. After all they fired a guy for having political views not matching Mozilla.
• Ar-Curunir 9y ago
  Tor regularly does stuff (conduct studies, update UI and censorship circumvention methods, etc.) to help people in oppressive regimes. Mozilla has donated to Tor. Are you against that? If not, then consider that Mozilla is taking a political stance in that situation too by deeming those oppressive regimes as something to be bypassed. It is not unlikely that capitalism is oppressive to certain groups of people (poorer groups everywhere in the world), and RiseUp has a mission to help alleviate that oppression. Again, not different from what Tor has done.
  • sandov 9y ago
    The difference is that we've always known (or at least assumed) that Mozilla is anti-censorship, but can't assume it's anti-capitalist. Not everyone agrees that capitalism is oppressive, but anyway, that's a technical discussion. They haven't stated "Mozilla is against capitalism because it's oppressive blah blah blah". From the principles that they've declared one can infer that they would help people in totalitarian regimes (any decent organization would).
• djrobstep 9y ago
  There is no such thing as politically neutral.
• forapurpose 9y ago
  > There's nothing wrong with RiseUp being leftist There's something wrong with injecting ideology into everything, that is, dividing everything in the world into what supports your ideology and what doesn't, making all judgments based on it, and shunning all who don't share your ideology. All must prove their purity and loyalty or be excommunicated. It's a very dangerous approach, and a quick glance at history books will tell you what's at the end of this path. There are other priorities and issues in the world. Many who don't share your ideology do important things, deserve support, and in fact it's important to all of us to have a diversity of opinions in the world. Personally, I'm not so sure in my beliefs that I would rule out all the others.
• redthrow 9y ago
  More importantly, aren't we settled that email is fundamentally insecure? https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/giving_up_on_pg.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/giving_up_on_... Shouldn't they be funding projects like Signal or Wire?
• ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Possibly things have changed since the article you linked to was written, but the article they refer to as being by RiseUp is currently credited to an anonymous antifa supporter. From a skim it wasn't clear to me why it was being attributed to RiseUp.