4 ms·

It's simple: $$$$$. Every one of these actions is a short-term cash grab. The real amazing part is how privacy advocates let these transgressions, or what Moz

It's simple: $$$$$. Every one of these actions is a short-term cash grab. The real amazing part is how privacy advocates let these transgressions, or what Mozilla calls "experiments", slide.

agwa 8y ago
Is there anything to suggest that this violated people's privacy? If not, I see no reason why privacy advocates should have a problem with it.
- claudius 8y ago
  Phoning home by default, necessary to display such "snippets" of course violates people’s privacy. That this is done not to pointlessly wish a happy new year but with commercial motives makes it even worse.
  - agwa 8y ago
    It's already phoning home to retrieve vital security updates, without which your privacy would be at much greater risk than Mozilla learning that a certain IP address uses Firefox.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  People use privacy to also mean "you violated the sanctity of my mind by beaming propaganda onto my retinas".
  - zaarn 8y ago
    I don't think that's a proper meaning for privacy. I consider privacy to be that it is my choice how much of my personal data I reveal to a third party not directly involved with any of the parties I am doing business with. Showing privacy-conserving ads doesn't violate what I consider privacy, some people might object to ads in general but there doesn't seem to be a better funding model (considering Mozilla doesn't want to continue being 90% funded by deals with search engines and donations being a drop in the bucket). Open Source needs to figure out a funding model and Mozilla seems to be making positive headway into the realm of privacy-sensitive ads. Google and Chromium on the other hand is making headway into privacy-violation ads.
x0x0 8y ago
Here's reality, though: The minimum annual cash burn to have a high quality browser engine, js runtime, and UI seems to be several hundred million dollars. FF is now utterly dependent on google for cash (and to be fair, google really needs FF to exist to pretend chrome isn't close to a monopoly). But who knows how long that will last and if/when google will exert control. One of the best things for Mozilla to do as an org is to figure out a non-google-dependent revenue stream. Privacy respecting ads are a good compromise.
- mprev 8y ago
  Yes but Mozilla does a lot more now than produce and maintain software. For example, in 2017 it spent $24m on its internet health project [1]. I’m making no judgement about that but there are two sides to fiscal longevity: getting more money is one, the other is to focus spending. 1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/
  - kbenson 8y ago
    If Firefox proved they could survive with less money, they would likely be given less money. What's their incentive to do that? Firefox exists partially outside the regular market, so normal strategies may not apply quite the same way.
  - x0x0 8y ago
    Oh, don't get me wrong: Mozilla wanking about with firefox phone from 2011 to 2015 while watching their browser marketshare crater from 30% to 15% is infuriating. However, they're the only alternative we've got.
  - metajack 8y ago
    Those are entirely different buckets of money. Money the foundation spends on things like the IHR, do not come out of the revenue from the Google search deal. Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp are two different entities (though MoFo owns MoCo). In the same way, donations to MoFo do not pay for browser developer salaries.
- 8y ago
PaulHoule 8y ago
Well there is "privacy" in the sense of people not accumulating dossiers on you and then there is "privacy" as the "right to be left alone". I see pop up messages that have to be dismissed as harassment, pure and simple. Firefox has a chance to show it is different from Google but it harasses me just like Google and refuses to hire developers in the same 99% of the world that Google won't hire developers, why should I expect Firefox to be any different from Chrome? Long-term the answer for us is a migration away from "The Google Platform" and towards Gopher, telnet BBSes, and anything else where hipsters fear to tread.

It's simple: $$$$$. Every one of these actions is a short-term cash grab. The real amazing part is how privacy advocates let these transgressions, or what Mozilla calls "experiments", slide.

agwa 8y ago

Is there anything to suggest that this violated people's privacy? If not, I see no reason why privacy advocates should have a problem with it.

claudius 8y ago
Phoning home by default, necessary to display such "snippets" of course violates people’s privacy. That this is done not to pointlessly wish a happy new year but with commercial motives makes it even worse.
- agwa 8y ago
  It's already phoning home to retrieve vital security updates, without which your privacy would be at much greater risk than Mozilla learning that a certain IP address uses Firefox.
tedunangst 8y ago
People use privacy to also mean "you violated the sanctity of my mind by beaming propaganda onto my retinas".
- zaarn 8y ago
  I don't think that's a proper meaning for privacy. I consider privacy to be that it is my choice how much of my personal data I reveal to a third party not directly involved with any of the parties I am doing business with. Showing privacy-conserving ads doesn't violate what I consider privacy, some people might object to ads in general but there doesn't seem to be a better funding model (considering Mozilla doesn't want to continue being 90% funded by deals with search engines and donations being a drop in the bucket). Open Source needs to figure out a funding model and Mozilla seems to be making positive headway into the realm of privacy-sensitive ads. Google and Chromium on the other hand is making headway into privacy-violation ads.

x0x0 8y ago

Here's reality, though: The minimum annual cash burn to have a high quality browser engine, js runtime, and UI seems to be several hundred million dollars. FF is now utterly dependent on google for cash (and to be fair, google really needs FF to exist to pretend chrome isn't close to a monopoly). But who knows how long that will last and if/when google will exert control. One of the best things for Mozilla to do as an org is to figure out a non-google-dependent revenue stream. Privacy respecting ads are a good compromise.

mprev 8y ago
Yes but Mozilla does a lot more now than produce and maintain software. For example, in 2017 it spent $24m on its internet health project [1]. I’m making no judgement about that but there are two sides to fiscal longevity: getting more money is one, the other is to focus spending. 1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/
- kbenson 8y ago
  If Firefox proved they could survive with less money, they would likely be given less money. What's their incentive to do that? Firefox exists partially outside the regular market, so normal strategies may not apply quite the same way.
- x0x0 8y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong: Mozilla wanking about with firefox phone from 2011 to 2015 while watching their browser marketshare crater from 30% to 15% is infuriating. However, they're the only alternative we've got.
- metajack 8y ago
  Those are entirely different buckets of money. Money the foundation spends on things like the IHR, do not come out of the revenue from the Google search deal. Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp are two different entities (though MoFo owns MoCo). In the same way, donations to MoFo do not pay for browser developer salaries.
8y ago

PaulHoule 8y ago

Well there is "privacy" in the sense of people not accumulating dossiers on you and then there is "privacy" as the "right to be left alone". I see pop up messages that have to be dismissed as harassment, pure and simple. Firefox has a chance to show it is different from Google but it harasses me just like Google and refuses to hire developers in the same 99% of the world that Google won't hire developers, why should I expect Firefox to be any different from Chrome? Long-term the answer for us is a migration away from "The Google Platform" and towards Gopher, telnet BBSes, and anything else where hipsters fear to tread.