3 ms·

> the constant stream of negative comments from unhappy and rude users during the work week and outside of it was extremely draining This is because mozilla i

> the constant stream of negative comments from unhappy and rude users during the work week and outside of it was extremely draining This is because mozilla is an open source aberration. The actual developers are super humans, but they are being led by people with the wrong incentives. This is what cause "rude emails from users". the opposite would have gotten you a nice balance of polite and rude patches/reports from contributors. Open source organizations should focus on fostering the community and educating users. Not trying to champion new versions and rewrites themselves. Mozilla at first focused on selling the default search spot (and spent that money on exec salary and moonshot projects not related to the browser at all). Now they are focusing on getting mobile users in order to sell their attached products. When you pay for developers, and make your projects even more closed, you call that on yourself. You are now a company competing on the freemium market. Case in point, i was an early contributor to Gaia (the mozilla phone OS). I could build and change the browser with ease. I would send in detailed bug reports. Now on android, I can barely get a decent build with the google libraries baked in, let alone make meaningful changes. I just hold off updates and hope somebody else do the work for me (for a while f-droid folks did :) And I will not even get into my worse petty peeve which is the recent android addons non-techcnical-totally-political-whitelist. sigh. or the changes on every revision to the bookmarks. keywords, folders, etc. can't keep my data consistent for a while now :( But to close in a good note: mozilla is not representative of opensource! it is much better elsewhere. thank you!

floatingatoll 6y ago
No. Abusers are responsible for their abuse. This is non-negotiable. The people on the Internet chose to be abusive. That's their fault. That is never anyone else's fault, period. > the opposite would have gotten you a nice balance of polite and rude You are transferring some or all of the responsibility of "choose not to be rude to strangers on the Internet" onto the recipient, who received rudeness only once others had already made that choice. How dare you say that we can blame the recipient of abuse for the choices of others to be abusive. You have no right. If you choose to be rude to someone else on the Internet, you alone are fully responsible, without regard for any extenuating circumstances whatsoever. If you are having a medical event, seek in-reality medical attention and prepare an apology when your medical treatment has progressed far enough. If you didn't mean to be abusive, apologize, and then demonstrate over time that you're becoming less accidentally abusive. If you thought that the shield of anonymity on Twitter would protect you from being caught, you're no different than someone who throws bricks into people's windshields on the highway. No circumstance whatsoever sets aside your personal responsibility for the words you produced on the Internet. It doesn't matter what they did, what their employer did, what their software did. It doesn't matter if they could be perceived as being abusive to you. None of that matters at all. There is absolutely no room for blame-sharing or blame-transfer here. There are no excuses for choosing to be abusive in this way. You simply cannot transfer one iota of responsibility here. That decision terminates at you, and you alone. ps. I don't know if you're abusive or not, and I honestly don't care. This isn't about you, whoever you are. This is about your attempt to transfer the responsibility for abuse in part or in full from the abusers to the recipient of their abuse. That attempt, and my detailed refutal, is the sole focus of my comment. The English word "generic individual target within a plural set" is, unhappily, "you". Some confusion may occur, and I don't have the English skills to mitigate that at this time. No doubt someone will chime in with a better way to phrase this. I endorse whatever corrections are necessary to resolve the tense difficulty here.
- glsdfgkjsklfj 6y ago
  I did not read the article as people actively calling the maintainers names. But just showing dissatisfaction that their day-to-day work was disrupted without warning by a browser feature changing. And arguing about actively offensive people, i agree is moot and not the point of my comment. But those will exist regardless if your project is big enough, unfortunatelly. My comment is about people disliking (in a sociably manner) the work made by open source corporation like mozilla, and that demotivating the paid coders. That is totaly on mozilla.

floatingatoll 6y ago

No. Abusers are responsible for their abuse. This is non-negotiable. The people on the Internet chose to be abusive. That's their fault. That is never anyone else's fault, period. > the opposite would have gotten you a nice balance of polite and rude You are transferring some or all of the responsibility of "choose not to be rude to strangers on the Internet" onto the recipient, who received rudeness only once others had already made that choice. How dare you say that we can blame the recipient of abuse for the choices of others to be abusive. You have no right. If you choose to be rude to someone else on the Internet, you alone are fully responsible, without regard for any extenuating circumstances whatsoever. If you are having a medical event, seek in-reality medical attention and prepare an apology when your medical treatment has progressed far enough. If you didn't mean to be abusive, apologize, and then demonstrate over time that you're becoming less accidentally abusive. If you thought that the shield of anonymity on Twitter would protect you from being caught, you're no different than someone who throws bricks into people's windshields on the highway. No circumstance whatsoever sets aside your personal responsibility for the words you produced on the Internet. It doesn't matter what they did, what their employer did, what their software did. It doesn't matter if they could be perceived as being abusive to you. None of that matters at all. There is absolutely no room for blame-sharing or blame-transfer here. There are no excuses for choosing to be abusive in this way. You simply cannot transfer one iota of responsibility here. That decision terminates at you, and you alone. ps. I don't know if you're abusive or not, and I honestly don't care. This isn't about you, whoever you are. This is about your attempt to transfer the responsibility for abuse in part or in full from the abusers to the recipient of their abuse. That attempt, and my detailed refutal, is the sole focus of my comment. The English word "generic individual target within a plural set" is, unhappily, "you". Some confusion may occur, and I don't have the English skills to mitigate that at this time. No doubt someone will chime in with a better way to phrase this. I endorse whatever corrections are necessary to resolve the tense difficulty here.

glsdfgkjsklfj 6y ago
I did not read the article as people actively calling the maintainers names. But just showing dissatisfaction that their day-to-day work was disrupted without warning by a browser feature changing. And arguing about actively offensive people, i agree is moot and not the point of my comment. But those will exist regardless if your project is big enough, unfortunatelly. My comment is about people disliking (in a sociably manner) the work made by open source corporation like mozilla, and that demotivating the paid coders. That is totaly on mozilla.