15 ms·

Yikes why would you not want companies investing in diversity? Especially if they are the interface to our online world?

lordgrenville 7y ago
Ignoring the specific case, it's totally reasonable to say "I want to donate to nonprofit X because of thing Y that they do that I value, but I'd like the money earmarked for that thing only, not for all their other activities, which I may or may not support". (Quickly googled example: https://www.nonprofitissues.com/to-the-point/can-earmarked-contributions-be-used-general-funds-purposes-permissible https://www.nonprofitissues.com/to-the-point/can-earmarked-c... )
- nulbyte 7y ago
  In the US, where Mozulla Foundation is organized, the organization often does not have a legal obligation to honor an unsolicited restriction. Mozilla would first have to solicit donations specifically for Firefox before a donor should reasonably expect donated funds to be used solely for Firefox.
martin_a 7y ago
While wording could be improved, the point stands. I want my money to be used for working on Firefox (the core browser) and for that exclusively. Not something like Pocket or whatever Mozilla thinks it should bring out that nobody asked for. There is no way to ensure this, so I will not give any money at all.
- sakisv 7y ago
  > There is no way to ensure this, so I will not give any money at all. Please keep in mind that this is not a personal attack as I don't know you and I don't find it particularly constructive to engage in this kind of attacks, so please only focus on my argument: I cannot understand this way of thinking. On one hand we have the option to give Mozilla some money to use them however they see fit. This means that from the sum of the donations they can use whatever percentage they see fit to fund different products/aspects, e.g. the engineering department so that they can keep working on Firefox, the marketing department to increase the awareness and drive adoption, the user researchers to better understand their user needs etc. On the other hand we have the "default" stance where we don't support what Mozilla is doing. This means that the development of Firefox, the marketing to raise awareness etc, are depended on Google and on Pocket which is something that we want to get away from. I think it mostly boils down to some simple questions and how we feel about the answers: - Do I prefer to know that all my money go to hire more engineers and improve Firefox? Probably (tbh personally I would focus a bit more on user research, it's the everyday people that they should be after, not us) - Do I prefer to allow Mozilla to be depended on Google? Definitely not. - Can my donations be used to make the current situation worse (i.e. tie them tighter on Google's business)? No. So for me, although I don't control where my money goes, I think that they can only be used to improve things.
  - ramphastidae 7y ago
    > I cannot understand this way of thinking. If you ask me, it’s because most of us work very hard for our money and don’t have a lot to spare. If we are going to make the sacrifice of donating, we want to make sure the sacrifice is worth it. If my hard earned money is going to be used for something like the moz://@ nonsense, it’s not worth the sacrifice. If it’s going to be used to support development of privacy features in the browser, then it is.
  - martin_a 7y ago
    > I cannot understand this way of thinking. I want Mozilla to build a browser and a mail program. Nothing else. It's easy as that. And if I have to "fear" that they will use my money to build something else, I will not donate to them. Think of them as a company with several products. People would buy Firefox, they would buy Thunderbird, but probably nobody would buy the aforementioned "moz://" product or Pocket. In a traditional company this would lead to a production stop of the later two and to a better focus on the first two products. With Mozilla, and other donation-based "companies" it will not work that way. There will be other stuff that gets allocated lots of money, because "the money is there" and needs to be used.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      > I want Mozilla to build a browser and a mail program. Nothing else. It's easy as that. Then buy Mozilla, the company, or buy FF/mail server devs to do it. By donating to mozilla you are actually supporting at least one effort Mozilla is participating in. If their revenue goes down after pursuing Pocket, then Mozilla will understand in general their donors don’t approve of pocket. On another coin, by not donating to Mozilla one also is fine with not funding FF/Mail because money just might go to things one doesn’t approve of.
      - notyourday 7y ago
        Donate restricted fund and restricted funds only.
nprateem 7y ago
Jeepers it's almost like the OP wants the choice of what their money gets spent on.
longcommonname 7y ago
Wanting their funds to not go to diversity doesn't equate to not wanting Mozilla to fund diversity.
input_sh 7y ago
Because they're not interested in donating, and they need a handy excuse to justify that.
richthegeek 7y ago
I suppose if he wanted to donate to a diversity campaign, he'd donate to one directly. Wikipedia is a big one for this: the donation campaign is all about 'keeping our servers running', and then huge chunks of the spending goes on community feelgood stuff. I've nothing against diversity campaigning but if you were to treat donation like any other 'purchase' you'd be pretty miffed if you thought you were ordering a cheeseburger and you got a carrot and the waiter gave himself a bottle of beer.
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  Orders and purchases are different from donations and gifts.
  - faeyanpiraat 7y ago
    The point is that they say they will use it for purpose X, but instead they use it for Y. A lie is a lie whether it is related to a donation or a purchase.
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      Mozilla is quite open about what they do and where the money goes, nobody is lying: "The direct work of the Mozilla Foundation focuses on fueling the movement for a healthy internet. We do this by supporting a diverse group of fellows working on key internet issues, connecting open Internet leaders at events like MozFest, publishing critical research in the Internet Health Report, and rallying citizens around advocacy issues that connect the wellbeing of the Internet directly to everyday life."
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        But what if you want to only support software development and not social development? I think this is the crux of this thread of discussion.
        7y ago
chronolitus 7y ago
It could be that your parent comment wanted to spark a discussion on whether there is value added from Marketing campaigns, rather than about politics / diversity in the workplace.
ecmascript 7y ago
Because diversity in the tech world isn't real. Just read about Brendan Eich. He got fired because he had the incorrect opinion. In my world, that is the complete opposite of diversity.
- sprafa 7y ago
  Brendan Eich worked against equal rights. Don’t you know Karl Popper’s formulation - a tolerant world cannot tolerate intolerance.
  - ecmascript 7y ago
    No he did not. He funded a political campaign. No I do not know that formulation and I completely disagree with that. It's like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit.
    - Jonnax 7y ago
      They funded a homophobic political campaign. Websites started user agent detecting Firefox and putting banners saying to not use Firefox because of their homophobic CEO. It's pathetic that people like you hide behind censorship arguments and "diversity of thought" when defending the right to attack minorities. This kind of disingenuous thinking makes me question anyone evangelising Brave as a web browser.
      - ecmascript 7y ago
        Just because someone donate to a political campaign that wants to stop same-sex marriage doesn't automatically make that person homophobic. He didn't attack any minority, stop spreading objectively false information. I am defending his right to believe whatever he likes in private. It will be a quick downhill (as we already have seen) as soon as you start listing bad values and try to hate on people that have these values. You may think I'm pathetic if you wish, I don't care. But remember, I will defend your right to your opinion too. It's kind of obvious you do not believe in the same thing and if more people would be like you we would find ourselves in a dark dystopia. You could move to China, they are well on their way to building the kind of society you seem to strive for. :)
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Diversity != diversity campaigns != diversity campaigns as implemented by a given organization.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gjs278 7y ago
because computers don’t need diversity. you can either code or you can’t. who you are in the real world doesn’t matter.
avip 7y ago
Possibly because affirmative diversity could be seen as incompatible with meritocracy.
- thristian 7y ago
  "Meritocracy" is an unattainable goal, like "utopia". It sounds good in the abstract, but "merit" is such a subjective concept that it's useless for any practical purpose. Every person's life is as much a product of random chance as innate potential, so there's no objective measure of merit by which a meritocracy could be judged. I'm sure there's reasonable arguments against affirmative diversity in general or Mozilla's diversity projects in specific, but incompatibility with meritocracy is not a strong one.
  - drevil-v2 7y ago
    How do you define diversity though? How do you slice and dice and at what point do you say it is done? Say I am a hiring manager at Mozilla and I hire a college graduate from Rwandan not because he is best but because of a diversity quota. What if there is also a Sudanese grad who is looking for a job or a Nepalese transgender MtF? How do I decide at that point? Is it my call and only my call or should there be regulation and legislation to deal with situations like this? I have one spot and many diverse candidates. How do I choose?
    - guerrilla 7y ago
      > How do you slice and dice and at what point do you say it is done? When everyone has an equal opportunity. You should be able to derive the rest of the answers to your questions from that.
      - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        > When everyone has an equal opportunity. "Equal opportunity" is an unattainable goal, like "utopia". It sounds good in the abstract, but "equal opportunity" is such a subjective concept that it's useless for any practical purpose. Every person's life is as much a product of random chance as innate potential, so there's no objective measure of equal opportunity by which a society that enforces equal opportunity could be judged. (Very much /s, of course.) The point being that any arguments made against the unattainability of true meritocracy apply just as well to true equal opportunity.
marble-drink 7y ago
"Diversity" in tech means "we should have programmers with skin colour X or genital configuration Y". But I don't care about people's skin colour or genitals. It turns out people are diverse anyway and that's why not everyone end up in tech.
- johnisgood 7y ago
  Yeah, and it is insane how much amount of money you can receive in the name of diversity. I am pretty sure people who are getting fat rich from it are perfectly aware of this. Slightly off-topic but it is also funny that X would praise diversity, and at the same time imply that we should balance some things out when it is the people themselves who are the cause for the imbalance. They make the assumption that imbalance is bad. Imbalance is not a problem! We do not have to balance/even things out. Examples: construction workers? Mostly males. Nurses? Mostly females, although this has been changing. So what? I do not see these people trying to push women into getting to construction work. Let people decide. We do not have to intervene. If women do not want to get into construction, that is fine! If they do not want to get into IT, that is also fine (but apparently it is not)!
  - marble-drink 7y ago
    I live right next to a major highway construction project. They work in all weathers (or at least try to) and 24 hours a day. 100% male. Funny how nobody is crying foul about this clear case of discrimination. Yet in tech/IT we're failing if the numbers are not 50/50 apparently.
- rifung 7y ago
  > It turns out people are diverse anyway and that's why not everyone end up in tech That's true but also ignores the problem that many people drop out of tech due to discrimination or feeling like they don't belong even though they are interested. "While a majority of the men in the study reported that their internship experiences were positive, women’s experiences were much more of a mixed bag, full of ageism, sexism, and not being taken seriously" https://www.womenintech.com/mit-study-figures-out-why-so-many-girls-are-dropping-out-of-stem-programs/ https://www.womenintech.com/mit-study-figures-out-why-so-man...
protomyth 7y ago
Because Mozilla's version of diversity ignores the people I wish would get a shot in technology. I can donate to local initiatives myself. I especially don't want my "interface to our online world" to have opinions on the subject.
owl57 7y ago
"…as the chairman of cultural department of our house..." "Chairwoman," Philip Philipovich corrected her. "Would like to ask you," at this point the woman pulled out of her coat-front a few brightly coloured journals, still damp from the snow, "to take a few journals sold for the benefit of German children. 50 kopecks each." "No, thank you," replied Philip Philipovich briefly, glancing at the journals. The four indicated total amazement and the woman went the colour of cranberry juice. "Why do you refuse?" "I don't want them." "You have no sympathy for the children of Germany?" "On the contrary." "You grudge fifty copecks?" "No." "Why then?" "I don't want them." -- "The Heart of a Dog", Mikhail Bulgakov
tomp 7y ago
For example: https://medium.com/aleria/unconscious-bias-trainings-are-often-a-waste-of-your-money-456b82a46cc9 https://medium.com/aleria/unconscious-bias-trainings-are-oft... Unconscious Bias Trainings are (Often) a Waste of Your Money
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Consider that this company specifically once fired a guy because someone revealed he had a fetish, then ask yourself how much they really care about diversity and how much is just a show they put on.

lordgrenville 7y ago

Ignoring the specific case, it's totally reasonable to say "I want to donate to nonprofit X because of thing Y that they do that I value, but I'd like the money earmarked for that thing only, not for all their other activities, which I may or may not support". (Quickly googled example: https://www.nonprofitissues.com/to-the-point/can-earmarked-contributions-be-used-general-funds-purposes-permissible https://www.nonprofitissues.com/to-the-point/can-earmarked-c... )

nulbyte 7y ago
In the US, where Mozulla Foundation is organized, the organization often does not have a legal obligation to honor an unsolicited restriction. Mozilla would first have to solicit donations specifically for Firefox before a donor should reasonably expect donated funds to be used solely for Firefox.

martin_a 7y ago

While wording could be improved, the point stands. I want my money to be used for working on Firefox (the core browser) and for that exclusively. Not something like Pocket or whatever Mozilla thinks it should bring out that nobody asked for. There is no way to ensure this, so I will not give any money at all.

sakisv 7y ago
> There is no way to ensure this, so I will not give any money at all. Please keep in mind that this is not a personal attack as I don't know you and I don't find it particularly constructive to engage in this kind of attacks, so please only focus on my argument: I cannot understand this way of thinking. On one hand we have the option to give Mozilla some money to use them however they see fit. This means that from the sum of the donations they can use whatever percentage they see fit to fund different products/aspects, e.g. the engineering department so that they can keep working on Firefox, the marketing department to increase the awareness and drive adoption, the user researchers to better understand their user needs etc. On the other hand we have the "default" stance where we don't support what Mozilla is doing. This means that the development of Firefox, the marketing to raise awareness etc, are depended on Google and on Pocket which is something that we want to get away from. I think it mostly boils down to some simple questions and how we feel about the answers: - Do I prefer to know that all my money go to hire more engineers and improve Firefox? Probably (tbh personally I would focus a bit more on user research, it's the everyday people that they should be after, not us) - Do I prefer to allow Mozilla to be depended on Google? Definitely not. - Can my donations be used to make the current situation worse (i.e. tie them tighter on Google's business)? No. So for me, although I don't control where my money goes, I think that they can only be used to improve things.
- ramphastidae 7y ago
  > I cannot understand this way of thinking. If you ask me, it’s because most of us work very hard for our money and don’t have a lot to spare. If we are going to make the sacrifice of donating, we want to make sure the sacrifice is worth it. If my hard earned money is going to be used for something like the moz://@ nonsense, it’s not worth the sacrifice. If it’s going to be used to support development of privacy features in the browser, then it is.
- martin_a 7y ago
  > I cannot understand this way of thinking. I want Mozilla to build a browser and a mail program. Nothing else. It's easy as that. And if I have to "fear" that they will use my money to build something else, I will not donate to them. Think of them as a company with several products. People would buy Firefox, they would buy Thunderbird, but probably nobody would buy the aforementioned "moz://" product or Pocket. In a traditional company this would lead to a production stop of the later two and to a better focus on the first two products. With Mozilla, and other donation-based "companies" it will not work that way. There will be other stuff that gets allocated lots of money, because "the money is there" and needs to be used.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    > I want Mozilla to build a browser and a mail program. Nothing else. It's easy as that. Then buy Mozilla, the company, or buy FF/mail server devs to do it. By donating to mozilla you are actually supporting at least one effort Mozilla is participating in. If their revenue goes down after pursuing Pocket, then Mozilla will understand in general their donors don’t approve of pocket. On another coin, by not donating to Mozilla one also is fine with not funding FF/Mail because money just might go to things one doesn’t approve of.
    - notyourday 7y ago
      Donate restricted fund and restricted funds only.

nprateem 7y ago

Jeepers it's almost like the OP wants the choice of what their money gets spent on.

longcommonname 7y ago

Wanting their funds to not go to diversity doesn't equate to not wanting Mozilla to fund diversity.

input_sh 7y ago

Because they're not interested in donating, and they need a handy excuse to justify that.

richthegeek 7y ago

I suppose if he wanted to donate to a diversity campaign, he'd donate to one directly. Wikipedia is a big one for this: the donation campaign is all about 'keeping our servers running', and then huge chunks of the spending goes on community feelgood stuff. I've nothing against diversity campaigning but if you were to treat donation like any other 'purchase' you'd be pretty miffed if you thought you were ordering a cheeseburger and you got a carrot and the waiter gave himself a bottle of beer.

oarsinsync 7y ago
Orders and purchases are different from donations and gifts.
- faeyanpiraat 7y ago
  The point is that they say they will use it for purpose X, but instead they use it for Y. A lie is a lie whether it is related to a donation or a purchase.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    Mozilla is quite open about what they do and where the money goes, nobody is lying: "The direct work of the Mozilla Foundation focuses on fueling the movement for a healthy internet. We do this by supporting a diverse group of fellows working on key internet issues, connecting open Internet leaders at events like MozFest, publishing critical research in the Internet Health Report, and rallying citizens around advocacy issues that connect the wellbeing of the Internet directly to everyday life."
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      But what if you want to only support software development and not social development? I think this is the crux of this thread of discussion.
      - 7y ago

chronolitus 7y ago

It could be that your parent comment wanted to spark a discussion on whether there is value added from Marketing campaigns, rather than about politics / diversity in the workplace.

ecmascript 7y ago

Because diversity in the tech world isn't real. Just read about Brendan Eich. He got fired because he had the incorrect opinion. In my world, that is the complete opposite of diversity.

sprafa 7y ago
Brendan Eich worked against equal rights. Don’t you know Karl Popper’s formulation - a tolerant world cannot tolerate intolerance.
- ecmascript 7y ago
  No he did not. He funded a political campaign. No I do not know that formulation and I completely disagree with that. It's like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit.
  - Jonnax 7y ago
    They funded a homophobic political campaign. Websites started user agent detecting Firefox and putting banners saying to not use Firefox because of their homophobic CEO. It's pathetic that people like you hide behind censorship arguments and "diversity of thought" when defending the right to attack minorities. This kind of disingenuous thinking makes me question anyone evangelising Brave as a web browser.
    - ecmascript 7y ago
      Just because someone donate to a political campaign that wants to stop same-sex marriage doesn't automatically make that person homophobic. He didn't attack any minority, stop spreading objectively false information. I am defending his right to believe whatever he likes in private. It will be a quick downhill (as we already have seen) as soon as you start listing bad values and try to hate on people that have these values. You may think I'm pathetic if you wish, I don't care. But remember, I will defend your right to your opinion too. It's kind of obvious you do not believe in the same thing and if more people would be like you we would find ourselves in a dark dystopia. You could move to China, they are well on their way to building the kind of society you seem to strive for. :)

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Diversity != diversity campaigns != diversity campaigns as implemented by a given organization.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gjs278 7y ago

because computers don’t need diversity. you can either code or you can’t. who you are in the real world doesn’t matter.

avip 7y ago

Possibly because affirmative diversity could be seen as incompatible with meritocracy.

thristian 7y ago
"Meritocracy" is an unattainable goal, like "utopia". It sounds good in the abstract, but "merit" is such a subjective concept that it's useless for any practical purpose. Every person's life is as much a product of random chance as innate potential, so there's no objective measure of merit by which a meritocracy could be judged. I'm sure there's reasonable arguments against affirmative diversity in general or Mozilla's diversity projects in specific, but incompatibility with meritocracy is not a strong one.
- drevil-v2 7y ago
  How do you define diversity though? How do you slice and dice and at what point do you say it is done? Say I am a hiring manager at Mozilla and I hire a college graduate from Rwandan not because he is best but because of a diversity quota. What if there is also a Sudanese grad who is looking for a job or a Nepalese transgender MtF? How do I decide at that point? Is it my call and only my call or should there be regulation and legislation to deal with situations like this? I have one spot and many diverse candidates. How do I choose?
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    > How do you slice and dice and at what point do you say it is done? When everyone has an equal opportunity. You should be able to derive the rest of the answers to your questions from that.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > When everyone has an equal opportunity. "Equal opportunity" is an unattainable goal, like "utopia". It sounds good in the abstract, but "equal opportunity" is such a subjective concept that it's useless for any practical purpose. Every person's life is as much a product of random chance as innate potential, so there's no objective measure of equal opportunity by which a society that enforces equal opportunity could be judged. (Very much /s, of course.) The point being that any arguments made against the unattainability of true meritocracy apply just as well to true equal opportunity.

marble-drink 7y ago

"Diversity" in tech means "we should have programmers with skin colour X or genital configuration Y". But I don't care about people's skin colour or genitals. It turns out people are diverse anyway and that's why not everyone end up in tech.

johnisgood 7y ago
Yeah, and it is insane how much amount of money you can receive in the name of diversity. I am pretty sure people who are getting fat rich from it are perfectly aware of this. Slightly off-topic but it is also funny that X would praise diversity, and at the same time imply that we should balance some things out when it is the people themselves who are the cause for the imbalance. They make the assumption that imbalance is bad. Imbalance is not a problem! We do not have to balance/even things out. Examples: construction workers? Mostly males. Nurses? Mostly females, although this has been changing. So what? I do not see these people trying to push women into getting to construction work. Let people decide. We do not have to intervene. If women do not want to get into construction, that is fine! If they do not want to get into IT, that is also fine (but apparently it is not)!
- marble-drink 7y ago
  I live right next to a major highway construction project. They work in all weathers (or at least try to) and 24 hours a day. 100% male. Funny how nobody is crying foul about this clear case of discrimination. Yet in tech/IT we're failing if the numbers are not 50/50 apparently.
rifung 7y ago
> It turns out people are diverse anyway and that's why not everyone end up in tech That's true but also ignores the problem that many people drop out of tech due to discrimination or feeling like they don't belong even though they are interested. "While a majority of the men in the study reported that their internship experiences were positive, women’s experiences were much more of a mixed bag, full of ageism, sexism, and not being taken seriously" https://www.womenintech.com/mit-study-figures-out-why-so-many-girls-are-dropping-out-of-stem-programs/ https://www.womenintech.com/mit-study-figures-out-why-so-man...

protomyth 7y ago

Because Mozilla's version of diversity ignores the people I wish would get a shot in technology. I can donate to local initiatives myself. I especially don't want my "interface to our online world" to have opinions on the subject.

owl57 7y ago

"…as the chairman of cultural department of our house..." "Chairwoman," Philip Philipovich corrected her. "Would like to ask you," at this point the woman pulled out of her coat-front a few brightly coloured journals, still damp from the snow, "to take a few journals sold for the benefit of German children. 50 kopecks each." "No, thank you," replied Philip Philipovich briefly, glancing at the journals. The four indicated total amazement and the woman went the colour of cranberry juice. "Why do you refuse?" "I don't want them." "You have no sympathy for the children of Germany?" "On the contrary." "You grudge fifty copecks?" "No." "Why then?" "I don't want them." -- "The Heart of a Dog", Mikhail Bulgakov

tomp 7y ago

For example: https://medium.com/aleria/unconscious-bias-trainings-are-often-a-waste-of-your-money-456b82a46cc9 https://medium.com/aleria/unconscious-bias-trainings-are-oft... Unconscious Bias Trainings are (Often) a Waste of Your Money

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

Consider that this company specifically once fired a guy because someone revealed he had a fetish, then ask yourself how much they really care about diversity and how much is just a show they put on.