3 ms·

I don't know why Mozilla thinks it's okay to politically align themselves. Shouldn't they stay neutral if they want to make a browser for everybody and all of t

by ghba66 8y ago

I don't know why Mozilla thinks it's okay to politically align themselves. Shouldn't they stay neutral if they want to make a browser for everybody and all of that? Reminds me of the Tor project calling themselves a "human rights project"

jageen 8y ago
It is not only mozzila remember a long time ago youtube also show it's icon into red to show that they are against net neutrality. Another thing is it is their domain (Internet) they are not fight for global warming or wars in syria or anything else.
colejohnson66 8y ago
While I agree with you on companies aligning themselves, net neutrality isn’t a partisan issue. The only people who make it partisan are Congress
- ghba66 8y ago
  I am not from the US so I don't know if it's a partisan issue, but I don't agree with NN, so them implying everybody agrees on that because it's the common good is completely bonkers.
  - Jonnax 8y ago
    A company is free to align themselves with any goal they wish to have. They see that their strategy aligns with the majority of their users and the user's they wish to attract. You have the freedom to not use their product if you don't align with them. If you're not from the US what country are you from that would have a benefit from eliminating net neutrality? What are your reasons for not supporting it? The argument is whether net neutrality is for the common good or not. Are you saying the only companies that can take a stance are ISPs? And they can lobby governments but an independent company cannot?
    - ghba66 8y ago
      >A company is free to align themselves with any goal they wish to have. They see that their strategy aligns with the majority of their users and the user's they wish to attract. You have the freedom to not use their product if you don't align with them. They are just virtue signalling. >If you're not from the US what country are you from that would have a benefit from eliminating net neutrality? What are your reasons for not supporting it? I am from a country in the EU. I don't support NN because I want to have access to zero-rated services. As a consumer, they make my life easier and my bill lower. I want to have the freedom of choosing whether I want NN in my connection or not. I don't want the government to take that freedom away from me. >Are you saying the only companies that can take a stance are ISPs? And they can lobby governments but an independent company cannot? They surely can. I was just surprised because Mozilla pride themselves so much in diversity and the common good. I suppose their diversity does not include diversity of thought.
      - Jonnax 8y ago
        >They are just virtue signalling. They've filed court cases against the FCC. They're activly trying to change legislation. If that's virtue signalling then it's a stupid phrase that means nothing. >I am from a country in the EU. I don't support NN because I want to have access to zero-rated services. As a consumer, they make my life easier and my bill lower. I want to have the freedom of choosing whether I want NN in my connection or not. I don't want the government to take that freedom away from me. An ISP zero rating facebook, Netflix or Spotify just entrenches a big player in their dominant position. That's bad for the market and shouldn't be encouraged. How can a new entrant into a market compete when the ISP or mobile operator is giving the major player preferential treatment. As a consumer sure you don't care but these are exactly the scenarios that a government should ensure a level playing field in. Even in the sense of if a mobile operator is Zero rating a music provider then the operator must allow a choice and all music vendors must be able to easily join the programme. Hacker news is quite focused on startups, creating barriers for market entry isn't very startup friendly. >I suppose their diversity does not include diversity of thought. LOL. So a company can't stand for anything because they might upset someone? Have a bit of self awareness. Having a persecution complex when you're on the winning side is pathetic.
devwastaken 8y ago
Mozilla as a website, and as a service, can be completely effected by NN, so why can't they advocate for or against? It's like saying to anyone else effected laws 'Why are you politically aligning yourself?'. Because laws, and the lack of laws, has effects. We can agree or disagree on those effects, but the argument should not be discussing some merit of opinion.
Vinnl 8y ago
Mozilla's mission is not to make a browser for everybody and all of that, it's to make the internet open and accessible to all. See https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
wwweston 8y ago
So... people who are lobbying for a neutral infrastructure supporting their browser for everybody are not being neutral? Every software project has values, even if they're only implicit in the idea that the function of the software will have value for people. So even if there were something wrong with a non-profit having a set of other values (and I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Mozilla having such values any more than there's anything wrong with the EFF having such values), it'd be perfectly consistent for someone making software to facilitate a given activity to also have a position about what kinds of legal, social, and economic policies facilitate that activity. Mozilla makes a web browser based on a vision of the web. Net neutrality is a policy that serves that vision of the web, and there's a boatload of well-considered argument that vision facilitates a lot of economic enterprise and personal freedom better than the alternatives.
Mononokay 8y ago
> Reminds me of the Tor project calling themselves a "human rights project" It fundamentally is a human rights project.
- ghba66 8y ago
  It was a technical project with the goal of proxifying your stuff via the onion network. They made it about human rights. Accessing forbidden websites is just one of all the things you could ever use Tor for. You could also use it to buy drugs or hire a hitman or troll online or watch child pornography. Why not call it a "hitmen for everybody" project?
  - Sylos 8y ago
    ...because that's not their goal. It's a side effect that they think is worth living with.
  - Mononokay 8y ago
    The goal is to make an uncensorable method for everyone to send and receive information with. Without it, thousands of people in authoritarian regimes would be disadvantaged.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
> I don't know why Mozilla thinks it's okay to politically align themselves. Being pro equal access to internet for every party is not politically aligning themselves anywhere else in the world, but in the U.S. where the right-wing has been successfully co-opted into thinking that every bit of regulation is a communist plot to take over Nebraska.

by ghba66 8y ago

jageen 8y ago

It is not only mozzila remember a long time ago youtube also show it's icon into red to show that they are against net neutrality. Another thing is it is their domain (Internet) they are not fight for global warming or wars in syria or anything else.

colejohnson66 8y ago

While I agree with you on companies aligning themselves, net neutrality isn’t a partisan issue. The only people who make it partisan are Congress

ghba66 8y ago
I am not from the US so I don't know if it's a partisan issue, but I don't agree with NN, so them implying everybody agrees on that because it's the common good is completely bonkers.
- Jonnax 8y ago
  A company is free to align themselves with any goal they wish to have. They see that their strategy aligns with the majority of their users and the user's they wish to attract. You have the freedom to not use their product if you don't align with them. If you're not from the US what country are you from that would have a benefit from eliminating net neutrality? What are your reasons for not supporting it? The argument is whether net neutrality is for the common good or not. Are you saying the only companies that can take a stance are ISPs? And they can lobby governments but an independent company cannot?
  - ghba66 8y ago
    >A company is free to align themselves with any goal they wish to have. They see that their strategy aligns with the majority of their users and the user's they wish to attract. You have the freedom to not use their product if you don't align with them. They are just virtue signalling. >If you're not from the US what country are you from that would have a benefit from eliminating net neutrality? What are your reasons for not supporting it? I am from a country in the EU. I don't support NN because I want to have access to zero-rated services. As a consumer, they make my life easier and my bill lower. I want to have the freedom of choosing whether I want NN in my connection or not. I don't want the government to take that freedom away from me. >Are you saying the only companies that can take a stance are ISPs? And they can lobby governments but an independent company cannot? They surely can. I was just surprised because Mozilla pride themselves so much in diversity and the common good. I suppose their diversity does not include diversity of thought.
    - Jonnax 8y ago
      >They are just virtue signalling. They've filed court cases against the FCC. They're activly trying to change legislation. If that's virtue signalling then it's a stupid phrase that means nothing. >I am from a country in the EU. I don't support NN because I want to have access to zero-rated services. As a consumer, they make my life easier and my bill lower. I want to have the freedom of choosing whether I want NN in my connection or not. I don't want the government to take that freedom away from me. An ISP zero rating facebook, Netflix or Spotify just entrenches a big player in their dominant position. That's bad for the market and shouldn't be encouraged. How can a new entrant into a market compete when the ISP or mobile operator is giving the major player preferential treatment. As a consumer sure you don't care but these are exactly the scenarios that a government should ensure a level playing field in. Even in the sense of if a mobile operator is Zero rating a music provider then the operator must allow a choice and all music vendors must be able to easily join the programme. Hacker news is quite focused on startups, creating barriers for market entry isn't very startup friendly. >I suppose their diversity does not include diversity of thought. LOL. So a company can't stand for anything because they might upset someone? Have a bit of self awareness. Having a persecution complex when you're on the winning side is pathetic.

devwastaken 8y ago

Mozilla as a website, and as a service, can be completely effected by NN, so why can't they advocate for or against? It's like saying to anyone else effected laws 'Why are you politically aligning yourself?'. Because laws, and the lack of laws, has effects. We can agree or disagree on those effects, but the argument should not be discussing some merit of opinion.

Vinnl 8y ago

Mozilla's mission is not to make a browser for everybody and all of that, it's to make the internet open and accessible to all. See https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/

wwweston 8y ago

So... people who are lobbying for a neutral infrastructure supporting their browser for everybody are not being neutral? Every software project has values, even if they're only implicit in the idea that the function of the software will have value for people. So even if there were something wrong with a non-profit having a set of other values (and I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Mozilla having such values any more than there's anything wrong with the EFF having such values), it'd be perfectly consistent for someone making software to facilitate a given activity to also have a position about what kinds of legal, social, and economic policies facilitate that activity. Mozilla makes a web browser based on a vision of the web. Net neutrality is a policy that serves that vision of the web, and there's a boatload of well-considered argument that vision facilitates a lot of economic enterprise and personal freedom better than the alternatives.

Mononokay 8y ago

> Reminds me of the Tor project calling themselves a "human rights project" It fundamentally is a human rights project.

ghba66 8y ago
It was a technical project with the goal of proxifying your stuff via the onion network. They made it about human rights. Accessing forbidden websites is just one of all the things you could ever use Tor for. You could also use it to buy drugs or hire a hitman or troll online or watch child pornography. Why not call it a "hitmen for everybody" project?
- Sylos 8y ago
  ...because that's not their goal. It's a side effect that they think is worth living with.
- Mononokay 8y ago
  The goal is to make an uncensorable method for everyone to send and receive information with. Without it, thousands of people in authoritarian regimes would be disadvantaged.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

> I don't know why Mozilla thinks it's okay to politically align themselves. Being pro equal access to internet for every party is not politically aligning themselves anywhere else in the world, but in the U.S. where the right-wing has been successfully co-opted into thinking that every bit of regulation is a communist plot to take over Nebraska.