4 ms·
> The CEO is meant to represent the organisation. Denying rights to individuals goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals. This implies
by dsacco 9y ago
> The CEO is meant to represent the organisation. Denying rights to individuals goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals.
This implies Mozilla is intrinsically a political organization, because that’s an explicit stance on a political topic. I can buy your argument here about a CEO’s personal views being incompatible with their position, but it means we need to accept that the reason for that incompatibility is the organization must have political opinions.
Does Mozilla describe itself as a political organization anywhere? I can’t immediately find a statement of its principles/values.
- rmc 9y ago> This implies Mozilla is intrinsically a political organization ... Does Mozilla describe itself as a political organization anywhere? I can’t immediately find a statement of its principles/values. Basically yes. Look at the "Mozilla Manifesto" ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ ), some of which are quite political: > 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible. > 4. Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. > 9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 9y agoAll organizations are political.