7 ms·

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 'kee

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.
      - oarsinsync 7y ago
        I'm not sure that's a compatible position to be having, especially in the context of wanting a privacy-focused browser alternative to Chrome. It's inherently a social development in the form of software.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Development of code is a technical action. Can you explain why a secondary action outside of writing code is required simply based on the results of the code? Surely you aren't suggesting that for Google to develop anti-privacy code would require them to have anti-privacy social development?
        jshowa3 7y ago
        Development of code is not, strictly, a technical action. Otherwise, how would you know what to develop unless you discussed the requirements of the customer? Discussing requirements with the customer, or even within your team, involves several facets of industry, including diversity. For example, if you were trying to construct an app to measure diversity, you would need to know what category to measure, how to measure it, how to present it, etc. And getting requirements right is paramount to the results of the code. Of course, there are projects where these discussions are probably minimal (such as a kernel for instance), but in most cases, it compromises the majority of software development.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Are you saying that Mozilla's only social development is asking questions and "getting requirements"? And I entirely disagree that programming code /requires/ any social interaction at all. You can do it purely alone in a basement with no contact with anyone.
        jshowa3 7y ago
        Yes, if you're making your own product. If you're not making your own product (ie. company development), then it's not purely a technical exercise. Even if you're making your own product, you at least want to get market data and/or customer feedback once you release it. Otherwise, what's the point of selling a product if your customers don't like it? And I'm not saying that gathering requirements is Mozilla's only social development. I'm saying that you underestimate how much social involvement there is to development, especially on the organization level, where code isn't purely technical.
- michaelt 7y ago
  True, but if I donate to a charity because I'm passionate about their mission of X and instead they spend their money on Y which is still a worthy cause, but one I'm less passionate about, I'm not likely to donate to that charity again - because my aim is to donate towards X. Hell, X and Y don't even have to be all that different. Did you know Make-A-Wish doesn't grant wishes for hunting or fishing, while other charities do that exclusively?
  - oarsinsync 7y ago
    When you provide a general purpose donation to a charity, you're giving them a gift. You're entrusting them to do with it what they think is best. If you don't trust them to do the right thing, don't give them the money in the first place, or donate to a specific campaign if they offer such opportunities. Unless they turn out to be deceitful, duplicitous, or otherwise exceptionally wasteful, second guessing and/or judging their decision making process from the outside isn't likely to be a particularly fruitful endeavour for any of the parties involved. If you want to explicitly target a very narrow case, you need to donate explicitly to that very narrow case. There are NPOs and charities that provide this kind of explicit service[0], for narrow targeted funding where you control exactly where your money goes. If you donate to an organisation with a broader mission, you shouldn't have any specific expectations of where that money is spent. [0] e.g. https://www.donorschoose.org/ https://www.donorschoose.org/
    - notyourday 7y ago
      People who write large checks never donate unrestricted funds because they know how terrible charities are ran. Do you want to make $10k a year for 5 years on something that costs you $2k? Buy a copier on ebay and lease it to a 501(c)3. That's why smart donors restrict funds.
- notyourday 7y ago
  Every marginally legitimate non-profit in the US that solicits and gets donations has restricted funds. Money from that fund cannot go to anything other than what those moneys were received for. Non-profits hate that because that money cannot be used for G&A, their other pet projects, feel good stuff or say charitable events used for fundraising (you know, the fabulous parties that non-profits throw - spend $300k to raise $303k while important people at the non-profit have a good time being photographed). Make sure to donate to restricted funds. In that case your funds will either be returned to you ( your donation rejected ) or it will be used with the restrictions you put on it. For the downvoters: https://www.501c3.org/kb/what-are-restricted-funds/# https://www.501c3.org/kb/what-are-restricted-funds/#
  - _-david-_ 7y ago
    As far as I can tell Mozilla does not have a spot to select what the donations go to. I haven't gone past the first screen on the donation page so maybe its further down the process. They do have the option to send a check so you could restrict it for only Firefox development but any money that is not restricted is fungible. This means if I donate $100 for Firefox development they can take another $100 (that is not restricted) that they would have used on Firefox on something else. Most people do not mark their donations as restricted so I would still for all intents and purposes be funding something other than Firefox.
brianpgordon 7y ago
> I suppose if he wanted to donate to a diversity campaign, he'd donate to one directly. This interpretation of his comment is... generous. I agree that there's a legitimate point around wanting your donation to go specifically to browser development and not overhead or other side-projects, but it's pretty clear that he was using the word diversity contemptuously.
- h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
  Perhaps OP feels that the specific strategy Mozilla employee for helping diversity is ineffective; in the same manner that refusing to donate to ineffective anti-poverty charities, is not the same as supporting poverty. Edit: rather than trying to read OP's mind or surmise what they may be thinking, I'll give my own experience on this. I have seen companies spend money on diversity as lip-service, or targeting groups that don't really aid diversity much. As much as I support female/LGBTQ/race rights and diversity, I suspect many companies I have been a part of would have got a better number of "units of diversity per dollar spent" had they spent money on people from lower socio-economic classes, or countries with poorer education/access to facilities (or maybe combined with the previous groups; I suspect the middle+ classes of female/LGBTQ/different ethnic origin groups are far better catered for than their working class counterparts). But perhaps people don't consider social class or country of origin diversity? Perhaps "we hired lots of underprivileged people" doesn't give as much political capital? I'm not sure.
  - barking 7y ago
    I agree with this. It might not be that he feels contemptuously about eliminating discrimination but rather than that he's unhappy with the way diversity campaigns are run. Sometimes it seems to me that whereas in the past we had Churches in a privileged position, telling us how to behave, that we now have NGOs doing the same thing. For example there was just last week a report in the UK about how employees in oxfam shops had sign NDAs in settlements so that the organisation would not get negative publicity for not practicing as they preach.
    - 7y ago

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.
    - oarsinsync 7y ago
      I'm not sure that's a compatible position to be having, especially in the context of wanting a privacy-focused browser alternative to Chrome. It's inherently a social development in the form of software.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Development of code is a technical action. Can you explain why a secondary action outside of writing code is required simply based on the results of the code? Surely you aren't suggesting that for Google to develop anti-privacy code would require them to have anti-privacy social development?
        jshowa3 7y ago
        Development of code is not, strictly, a technical action. Otherwise, how would you know what to develop unless you discussed the requirements of the customer? Discussing requirements with the customer, or even within your team, involves several facets of industry, including diversity. For example, if you were trying to construct an app to measure diversity, you would need to know what category to measure, how to measure it, how to present it, etc. And getting requirements right is paramount to the results of the code. Of course, there are projects where these discussions are probably minimal (such as a kernel for instance), but in most cases, it compromises the majority of software development.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Are you saying that Mozilla's only social development is asking questions and "getting requirements"? And I entirely disagree that programming code /requires/ any social interaction at all. You can do it purely alone in a basement with no contact with anyone.
        jshowa3 7y ago
        Yes, if you're making your own product. If you're not making your own product (ie. company development), then it's not purely a technical exercise. Even if you're making your own product, you at least want to get market data and/or customer feedback once you release it. Otherwise, what's the point of selling a product if your customers don't like it? And I'm not saying that gathering requirements is Mozilla's only social development. I'm saying that you underestimate how much social involvement there is to development, especially on the organization level, where code isn't purely technical.
michaelt 7y ago
True, but if I donate to a charity because I'm passionate about their mission of X and instead they spend their money on Y which is still a worthy cause, but one I'm less passionate about, I'm not likely to donate to that charity again - because my aim is to donate towards X. Hell, X and Y don't even have to be all that different. Did you know Make-A-Wish doesn't grant wishes for hunting or fishing, while other charities do that exclusively?
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  When you provide a general purpose donation to a charity, you're giving them a gift. You're entrusting them to do with it what they think is best. If you don't trust them to do the right thing, don't give them the money in the first place, or donate to a specific campaign if they offer such opportunities. Unless they turn out to be deceitful, duplicitous, or otherwise exceptionally wasteful, second guessing and/or judging their decision making process from the outside isn't likely to be a particularly fruitful endeavour for any of the parties involved. If you want to explicitly target a very narrow case, you need to donate explicitly to that very narrow case. There are NPOs and charities that provide this kind of explicit service[0], for narrow targeted funding where you control exactly where your money goes. If you donate to an organisation with a broader mission, you shouldn't have any specific expectations of where that money is spent. [0] e.g. https://www.donorschoose.org/ https://www.donorschoose.org/
  - notyourday 7y ago
    People who write large checks never donate unrestricted funds because they know how terrible charities are ran. Do you want to make $10k a year for 5 years on something that costs you $2k? Buy a copier on ebay and lease it to a 501(c)3. That's why smart donors restrict funds.
notyourday 7y ago
Every marginally legitimate non-profit in the US that solicits and gets donations has restricted funds. Money from that fund cannot go to anything other than what those moneys were received for. Non-profits hate that because that money cannot be used for G&A, their other pet projects, feel good stuff or say charitable events used for fundraising (you know, the fabulous parties that non-profits throw - spend $300k to raise $303k while important people at the non-profit have a good time being photographed). Make sure to donate to restricted funds. In that case your funds will either be returned to you ( your donation rejected ) or it will be used with the restrictions you put on it. For the downvoters: https://www.501c3.org/kb/what-are-restricted-funds/# https://www.501c3.org/kb/what-are-restricted-funds/#
- _-david-_ 7y ago
  As far as I can tell Mozilla does not have a spot to select what the donations go to. I haven't gone past the first screen on the donation page so maybe its further down the process. They do have the option to send a check so you could restrict it for only Firefox development but any money that is not restricted is fungible. This means if I donate $100 for Firefox development they can take another $100 (that is not restricted) that they would have used on Firefox on something else. Most people do not mark their donations as restricted so I would still for all intents and purposes be funding something other than Firefox.

brianpgordon 7y ago

> I suppose if he wanted to donate to a diversity campaign, he'd donate to one directly. This interpretation of his comment is... generous. I agree that there's a legitimate point around wanting your donation to go specifically to browser development and not overhead or other side-projects, but it's pretty clear that he was using the word diversity contemptuously.

h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
Perhaps OP feels that the specific strategy Mozilla employee for helping diversity is ineffective; in the same manner that refusing to donate to ineffective anti-poverty charities, is not the same as supporting poverty. Edit: rather than trying to read OP's mind or surmise what they may be thinking, I'll give my own experience on this. I have seen companies spend money on diversity as lip-service, or targeting groups that don't really aid diversity much. As much as I support female/LGBTQ/race rights and diversity, I suspect many companies I have been a part of would have got a better number of "units of diversity per dollar spent" had they spent money on people from lower socio-economic classes, or countries with poorer education/access to facilities (or maybe combined with the previous groups; I suspect the middle+ classes of female/LGBTQ/different ethnic origin groups are far better catered for than their working class counterparts). But perhaps people don't consider social class or country of origin diversity? Perhaps "we hired lots of underprivileged people" doesn't give as much political capital? I'm not sure.
- barking 7y ago
  I agree with this. It might not be that he feels contemptuously about eliminating discrimination but rather than that he's unhappy with the way diversity campaigns are run. Sometimes it seems to me that whereas in the past we had Churches in a privileged position, telling us how to behave, that we now have NGOs doing the same thing. For example there was just last week a report in the UK about how employees in oxfam shops had sign NDAs in settlements so that the organisation would not get negative publicity for not practicing as they preach.
  - 7y ago