4 ms·

I do not trust Google, but I do not trust Mozilla either. An overwhelming majority of Mozilla funding comes from Google, Microsoft, and other giants it directly

I do not trust Google, but I do not trust Mozilla either. An overwhelming majority of Mozilla funding comes from Google, Microsoft, and other giants it directly competes with. Added to that, many of it's battles (at the W3C and like) prioritize philosophy over customer satisfaction and ease of use. 99.9% of browser users don't care or don't even know if their browser is open source - what they want is convenience and ease of use. I hope Mozilla prioritizes the ones that actually matter - the users, over whatever philosophy it claims to live by, that often times isn't rooted in customer centricity.

TAForObvReasons 7y ago
Mozilla really hasn't helped their cause with various privacy-related issues over the last few years, like the Booking.com ads (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360). The obfuscatory language around it are arguably more insulting than the ads themselves. As John Gruber so eloquently wrote: > If you want to sell ads, sell ads. Own it. Don’t try to coat it with a layer of frosting and tell me it’s a fucking cupcake. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/02/16/mozilla https://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/02/16/mozilla
- r3bl 7y ago
  They didn't sell the space to Booking.com. They've promoted one another in their user bases: Firefox showed a message about Booking, Booking showed a message about Firefox. There was no money involved. I'm not gonna defend their action to do so because I disagree with it too, but if you wanna feel outraged about it, at least get the facts right. John Gruber should do the same.
  - TAForObvReasons 7y ago
    Ironically that Gruber comment was about the "user-enhancing" Sponsored Tiles episode from early 2014. That we are still seeing questionable and un-telegraphed behavior in 2019 suggests none of the privacy-relevant lessons were taken to heart.
    - r3bl 7y ago
      Excellent way of shifting the goalpost away from your stance on the Booking.com case. :) Displaying the same ad to everyone doesn't have privacy consequences. It's why billboards aren't privacy issues, nor are the TV ads, nor ads in a magazine. Ad networks are a privacy issue, self-hosted ads are not.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    A sale is a sale even if it doesn't involve hard currency. When Disney bought most of 21st Century Fox assets, there was no money involved either.
    - emn13 7y ago
      What privacy-related information was sold to booking.com again, regardless of how the transaction played out? I get the feeling that people are asking Mozilla to simply not deal with corporations at all, regardless of privacy, which is simply impossible if it wants to survive - almost all major actors are corporations, so the alternative is Mozilla turning into a shut-in. If you want influence, you're going to need to deal. And sure, there are deals conceivable that represent giving up on principles for short term gain. But just because it's possible to conceive of a deal that's "selling out", doesn't mean every deal represents selling out. I mean in this very same comment thread another poster is complaining how principled Mozilla is @ the w3c. Suffocating Mozilla (regardless of whether you use/admire/detest/ignore Firefox) under impossible expectations is likely a permanent loss for users. There are precious few organizations like it with any influence that are advocating for the individual in web tech, so once Mozilla dies (which seems likely, at this point), whatever tech firm special-interests can get away with is going to happen. And as modern politics should make clear: there's not a lot of reasonableness left with which to restrain actors like that once things turn political.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        Sorry, I didn't make it clear: I was arguing that point alone, not claiming they sold private data or anything else.
- wguaa 7y ago
  Really pathetic to see people here defending Mozilla putting ads on the home page of the browser. What do you think of when the Mozilla Corporation sent the browsing history of users by default to a third party advertisement company? >Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit. https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...
bad_user 7y ago
Yes, but they also made moves that are against Google's interests, repeatedly. If you have better ideas on how to monetize a browser, I'm sure they are open to suggestions. As for their "battles at the W3C", you mean DRM and H.264, the patent-encumbered video codec? The philosophy you're talking about is probably why they still have that 5% of the market, otherwise they would be irrelevant ;-)
syshum 7y ago
I dont believe Mozilla prioritizes their philosophy enough, they are tooo quick to cave in in the name of "customer centricity" instead of standing up for the Open Web which is and should be the SOLE reason they exist Mozilla Foundation is a Non-profit foundation who mission to the ensure the web is open and accessible to all, not to make the most commercially successful web browser
- zaarn 7y ago
  If nobody uses their browser and nobody contributes to their project, then the point of defending an open web is kinda moot. It's not the hill I want Mozilla's philosophy to die on because if they do (and they will if they do as you ask), then there is no point to it. The open web dies to thundering applause from Google employees.
  - syshum 7y ago
    Same result if they cave in to everything Google does in lock step with them as they do today? I fail to see how having FireFox around has a Chrome Clone is in anyway different
    - zaarn 7y ago
      Mozilla does plenty to differentiate from Chrome and does a lot of work to increase privacy for web users. They have to make compromises in places to make sure they are relevant enough to push privacy elsewhere. (And of course there is lots of google shilling to spread paranoia about Mozilla).
emn13 7y ago
As an individual, I want "convenience and ease of use". But I'm not blind to the fact that you're going to get shafted because my negotiating position - as an individual - is poor. So I 100% want an organization like mozilla, that does have at least some influence (but let's not get too hopeful here), to prioritize also the longer term benefits you describe as "philosophy". Otherwise you're basically giving in to eternal serfdom; letting large corporations dictate the terms, knowing that individuals will never be able to extract the long-term compromises needed for a good deal. It's basic negotiating 101 that the party holding all the cards is going to get most of the value.

TAForObvReasons 7y ago

Mozilla really hasn't helped their cause with various privacy-related issues over the last few years, like the Booking.com ads (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360). The obfuscatory language around it are arguably more insulting than the ads themselves. As John Gruber so eloquently wrote: > If you want to sell ads, sell ads. Own it. Don’t try to coat it with a layer of frosting and tell me it’s a fucking cupcake. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/02/16/mozilla https://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/02/16/mozilla

r3bl 7y ago
They didn't sell the space to Booking.com. They've promoted one another in their user bases: Firefox showed a message about Booking, Booking showed a message about Firefox. There was no money involved. I'm not gonna defend their action to do so because I disagree with it too, but if you wanna feel outraged about it, at least get the facts right. John Gruber should do the same.
- TAForObvReasons 7y ago
  Ironically that Gruber comment was about the "user-enhancing" Sponsored Tiles episode from early 2014. That we are still seeing questionable and un-telegraphed behavior in 2019 suggests none of the privacy-relevant lessons were taken to heart.
  - r3bl 7y ago
    Excellent way of shifting the goalpost away from your stance on the Booking.com case. :) Displaying the same ad to everyone doesn't have privacy consequences. It's why billboards aren't privacy issues, nor are the TV ads, nor ads in a magazine. Ad networks are a privacy issue, self-hosted ads are not.
- icebraining 7y ago
  A sale is a sale even if it doesn't involve hard currency. When Disney bought most of 21st Century Fox assets, there was no money involved either.
  - emn13 7y ago
    What privacy-related information was sold to booking.com again, regardless of how the transaction played out? I get the feeling that people are asking Mozilla to simply not deal with corporations at all, regardless of privacy, which is simply impossible if it wants to survive - almost all major actors are corporations, so the alternative is Mozilla turning into a shut-in. If you want influence, you're going to need to deal. And sure, there are deals conceivable that represent giving up on principles for short term gain. But just because it's possible to conceive of a deal that's "selling out", doesn't mean every deal represents selling out. I mean in this very same comment thread another poster is complaining how principled Mozilla is @ the w3c. Suffocating Mozilla (regardless of whether you use/admire/detest/ignore Firefox) under impossible expectations is likely a permanent loss for users. There are precious few organizations like it with any influence that are advocating for the individual in web tech, so once Mozilla dies (which seems likely, at this point), whatever tech firm special-interests can get away with is going to happen. And as modern politics should make clear: there's not a lot of reasonableness left with which to restrain actors like that once things turn political.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Sorry, I didn't make it clear: I was arguing that point alone, not claiming they sold private data or anything else.
wguaa 7y ago
Really pathetic to see people here defending Mozilla putting ads on the home page of the browser. What do you think of when the Mozilla Corporation sent the browsing history of users by default to a third party advertisement company? >Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit. https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...

bad_user 7y ago

Yes, but they also made moves that are against Google's interests, repeatedly. If you have better ideas on how to monetize a browser, I'm sure they are open to suggestions. As for their "battles at the W3C", you mean DRM and H.264, the patent-encumbered video codec? The philosophy you're talking about is probably why they still have that 5% of the market, otherwise they would be irrelevant ;-)

syshum 7y ago

I dont believe Mozilla prioritizes their philosophy enough, they are tooo quick to cave in in the name of "customer centricity" instead of standing up for the Open Web which is and should be the SOLE reason they exist Mozilla Foundation is a Non-profit foundation who mission to the ensure the web is open and accessible to all, not to make the most commercially successful web browser

zaarn 7y ago
If nobody uses their browser and nobody contributes to their project, then the point of defending an open web is kinda moot. It's not the hill I want Mozilla's philosophy to die on because if they do (and they will if they do as you ask), then there is no point to it. The open web dies to thundering applause from Google employees.
- syshum 7y ago
  Same result if they cave in to everything Google does in lock step with them as they do today? I fail to see how having FireFox around has a Chrome Clone is in anyway different
  - zaarn 7y ago
    Mozilla does plenty to differentiate from Chrome and does a lot of work to increase privacy for web users. They have to make compromises in places to make sure they are relevant enough to push privacy elsewhere. (And of course there is lots of google shilling to spread paranoia about Mozilla).

emn13 7y ago

As an individual, I want "convenience and ease of use". But I'm not blind to the fact that you're going to get shafted because my negotiating position - as an individual - is poor. So I 100% want an organization like mozilla, that does have at least some influence (but let's not get too hopeful here), to prioritize also the longer term benefits you describe as "philosophy". Otherwise you're basically giving in to eternal serfdom; letting large corporations dictate the terms, knowing that individuals will never be able to extract the long-term compromises needed for a good deal. It's basic negotiating 101 that the party holding all the cards is going to get most of the value.