5 ms·

> 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 f

by 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.
    - jshowa3 7y ago
      Problem with restricted fund is that the organization is forced to put it in a place where it may not be needed and they cannot use it elsewhere, even in the case of emergency. So lets say you donated specifically for development of module X. What if a server died and it was in desperate need of repair? What if they need to hire Y person that had good talent for module X? People could construe the funding for interviews for that talent as not being specifically for development. In short, a lot of people don't understand the bureaucracy of the company enough to make targeted donations for specific use. And it often hampers the organization when you do it. I guess it's a case if you want Mozilla as an organization to exist as a whole since much of its parts are probably needed to get the product out the door, or caring about one specific piece of code which, in that case, you might as well just fork it and work on it yourself.
      - martin_a 7y ago
        Those are made up reasons. If you have a solid definition of what is needed and what not, this is no problem at all.
        7y ago
austhrow743 7y ago
I think you left out an absolutely huge question that dwarfs all of those in importance. What other good can I do with my dollars? That donating to Mozilla wont make it worse is such a low bar when there are kids that need malaria nets or deworming or whatnot. If you think about the opportunity cost of donating to an organisation thats doing some things you think are really important as well as some things that you think are only kinda sorta important, when there are organisations that focus 100% on things you think are really important, then that should clear things up for you.
spodek 7y ago
Henry Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" is about not being able to send money to an organization without funding projects he doesn't want to fund, therefore not sending money at all. Many consider it an important work, including myself. It's short, with several free versions linked to from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau).

by sakisv 7y ago

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.
  - jshowa3 7y ago
    Problem with restricted fund is that the organization is forced to put it in a place where it may not be needed and they cannot use it elsewhere, even in the case of emergency. So lets say you donated specifically for development of module X. What if a server died and it was in desperate need of repair? What if they need to hire Y person that had good talent for module X? People could construe the funding for interviews for that talent as not being specifically for development. In short, a lot of people don't understand the bureaucracy of the company enough to make targeted donations for specific use. And it often hampers the organization when you do it. I guess it's a case if you want Mozilla as an organization to exist as a whole since much of its parts are probably needed to get the product out the door, or caring about one specific piece of code which, in that case, you might as well just fork it and work on it yourself.
    - martin_a 7y ago
      Those are made up reasons. If you have a solid definition of what is needed and what not, this is no problem at all.
      - 7y ago

austhrow743 7y ago

I think you left out an absolutely huge question that dwarfs all of those in importance. What other good can I do with my dollars? That donating to Mozilla wont make it worse is such a low bar when there are kids that need malaria nets or deworming or whatnot. If you think about the opportunity cost of donating to an organisation thats doing some things you think are really important as well as some things that you think are only kinda sorta important, when there are organisations that focus 100% on things you think are really important, then that should clear things up for you.

spodek 7y ago

Henry Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" is about not being able to send money to an organization without funding projects he doesn't want to fund, therefore not sending money at all. Many consider it an important work, including myself. It's short, with several free versions linked to from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau).