5 ms·

I have an idea for Mozilla: cut the random activism projects, keep Firefox competitive and resume the experimental stuff once you've got the browser sorted. A

I have an idea for Mozilla: cut the random activism projects, keep Firefox competitive and resume the experimental stuff once you've got the browser sorted. A browser that's not pushed by an advertising company is really important. If we lose Firefox, we lose badly, and these diversions are putting that key bulwark at risk.

dralley 6y ago
This is a project by the Mozilla Foundation (as you can see from the URL), it has nothing to do with Mozilla Corporation or the Firefox browser. "Activism stuff" is precisely what the Mozilla _Foundation_ is for.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  This should probably be made clearer to people who consider donating to the Mozilla Foundation, then. Because I bet many donate because they want to support Firefox.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    How should they make it clearer? Their donate page says the donations are to "carry out our mission to keep the Web open and free" and links to a FAQ that details what the donations are used for and how Firefox is separate.
    - freshsqueeze 6y ago
      should say something like "goes to some non-profit exec leeches"
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        It's a non-profit charity, right? Is any potential donor unaware of this phenomenon?
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The Mozilla Foundation's 8 person board of directors seems to receive no salary, so your donation wouldn't pay for that.
    - tmzt 6y ago
      Except, "keep the web open and free" was a big part of the marketing around Firefox when the target was IE. The New York Times ad was paid for through donations to present an alternative to the closed ecosystem dominated by one browser that didn't follow open standards. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/14/fast-for-good-launching-the-new-firefox-into-the-world/nyt_ad_large_2004/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/14/fast-for-good-launc... Early versions of Firefox featured links to various news organizations and stories pulled from their feeds, until certain jurisdictions threatened to block the browser entirely. At some point their missions may have diverged, but the marketing of both were closely intertwined. MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo. Other projects came later, but the community's understanding of their respective roles remained the same. As a long-term observer I followed this closely when the Foundation and Commercial split was announced, and remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed. Here it is from the former CLW herself: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2007/08/09/firefox-is-a-public-asset/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2007/08/09/firefox-is-a-public...
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >The New York Times ad was paid for through donations While true, those donations were largely from sources connected to Netscape. If they had built a normal corporation, it'd be startup capital. >MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo Mozilla Corporation saw $60 million in revenue in the first year, at no point were the donations a significant source of income. >remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed. Here's the actual "core mission" they launched at the time, note the pledge containing >Use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform; https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Sexist projects like Outreachy aren't required to keep the web open and free.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- csande17 6y ago
  If the Mozilla Foundation really has nothing to do with the organization that develops Mozilla Firefox, they should consider using a name that isn't "Mozilla" or "Firefox". As it stands, the primary activity of the Foundation is to take money and goodwill earned by Firefox and divert it to unrelated activism.
  - freshsqueeze 6y ago
    they don't care, millions have been going to mitchell baker's pocket for the last decades
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- cbsks 6y ago
  “nothing to do with Mozilla Corporation or the Firefox browser” is a little strong “Firefox is maintained by the Mozilla Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation” https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/faq/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/faq/
wyldfire 6y ago
> A browser that's not pushed by an advertising company is really important. If we lose Firefox, we lose badly Agreed. I'm encouraged at the thought of Google being forced to divest from Chrome by US antitrust action [1] [2]. [1] https://www.marketplace.org/2020/10/13/what-would-google-be-without-chrome/ https://www.marketplace.org/2020/10/13/what-would-google-be-... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-googles-chrome-browser-for-breakup-428468 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-goo...
- burnte 6y ago
  I'm not a fan of making Google break up, nor Facebook. I don't think breaking them up serves the public interest best. I'd rather have stricter oversight and regulation of certain aspects. How would Chrome as a standalone business generate revenue?
  - tylerflick 6y ago
    They could sell their product, Chrome. People used to pay for software.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      I paid for Netscape back in the day and I’d pay quite a bit annually for Firefox or some other browser. But people are used to not paying for browsers and I’m not very convinced most or maybe not even enough people would.
  - freeopinion 6y ago
    Um. Maybe get a boat load of money from a company like... Google? You know, same as Firefox does?
    - burnte 6y ago
      So how does that change things? If they're dependent on Google for revenue, then they're vulnerable to Google's influence.

dralley 6y ago

This is a project by the Mozilla Foundation (as you can see from the URL), it has nothing to do with Mozilla Corporation or the Firefox browser. "Activism stuff" is precisely what the Mozilla _Foundation_ is for.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
This should probably be made clearer to people who consider donating to the Mozilla Foundation, then. Because I bet many donate because they want to support Firefox.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  How should they make it clearer? Their donate page says the donations are to "carry out our mission to keep the Web open and free" and links to a FAQ that details what the donations are used for and how Firefox is separate.
  - freshsqueeze 6y ago
    should say something like "goes to some non-profit exec leeches"
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      It's a non-profit charity, right? Is any potential donor unaware of this phenomenon?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      The Mozilla Foundation's 8 person board of directors seems to receive no salary, so your donation wouldn't pay for that.
  - tmzt 6y ago
    Except, "keep the web open and free" was a big part of the marketing around Firefox when the target was IE. The New York Times ad was paid for through donations to present an alternative to the closed ecosystem dominated by one browser that didn't follow open standards. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/14/fast-for-good-launching-the-new-firefox-into-the-world/nyt_ad_large_2004/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/14/fast-for-good-launc... Early versions of Firefox featured links to various news organizations and stories pulled from their feeds, until certain jurisdictions threatened to block the browser entirely. At some point their missions may have diverged, but the marketing of both were closely intertwined. MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo. Other projects came later, but the community's understanding of their respective roles remained the same. As a long-term observer I followed this closely when the Foundation and Commercial split was announced, and remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed. Here it is from the former CLW herself: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2007/08/09/firefox-is-a-public-asset/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2007/08/09/firefox-is-a-public...
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >The New York Times ad was paid for through donations While true, those donations were largely from sources connected to Netscape. If they had built a normal corporation, it'd be startup capital. >MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo Mozilla Corporation saw $60 million in revenue in the first year, at no point were the donations a significant source of income. >remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed. Here's the actual "core mission" they launched at the time, note the pledge containing >Use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform; https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Sexist projects like Outreachy aren't required to keep the web open and free.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
csande17 6y ago
If the Mozilla Foundation really has nothing to do with the organization that develops Mozilla Firefox, they should consider using a name that isn't "Mozilla" or "Firefox". As it stands, the primary activity of the Foundation is to take money and goodwill earned by Firefox and divert it to unrelated activism.
- freshsqueeze 6y ago
  they don't care, millions have been going to mitchell baker's pocket for the last decades
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
cbsks 6y ago
“nothing to do with Mozilla Corporation or the Firefox browser” is a little strong “Firefox is maintained by the Mozilla Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation” https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/faq/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/faq/

wyldfire 6y ago

> A browser that's not pushed by an advertising company is really important. If we lose Firefox, we lose badly Agreed. I'm encouraged at the thought of Google being forced to divest from Chrome by US antitrust action [1] [2]. [1] https://www.marketplace.org/2020/10/13/what-would-google-be-without-chrome/ https://www.marketplace.org/2020/10/13/what-would-google-be-... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-googles-chrome-browser-for-breakup-428468 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-goo...

burnte 6y ago
I'm not a fan of making Google break up, nor Facebook. I don't think breaking them up serves the public interest best. I'd rather have stricter oversight and regulation of certain aspects. How would Chrome as a standalone business generate revenue?
- tylerflick 6y ago
  They could sell their product, Chrome. People used to pay for software.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    I paid for Netscape back in the day and I’d pay quite a bit annually for Firefox or some other browser. But people are used to not paying for browsers and I’m not very convinced most or maybe not even enough people would.
- freeopinion 6y ago
  Um. Maybe get a boat load of money from a company like... Google? You know, same as Firefox does?
  - burnte 6y ago
    So how does that change things? If they're dependent on Google for revenue, then they're vulnerable to Google's influence.