5 ms·

> bothered with the values of open source and how this pertains to democracy and human values It does, but Mozilla is not representative of those values to my

> bothered with the values of open source and how this pertains to democracy and human values It does, but Mozilla is not representative of those values to my opinion. They represent the values on the left of humanism, but are opposed to right values, and therefore it doesn’t embody neutrality or democracy. They go as far as thinking everyone should share their opinion on gay marriage, and a private donation in that matter is grounds to fire someone. Given their clear left leaning on other public stances, I think activists on the right should be wary of sudden account deletion if they store data with Mozilla (e.g. the password vault). Not that they could trust Google either, of course. But neutrality would be much better if we mention democracy.

t-writescode 5y ago
1: democracy isn't neutral, it tends to follow the will of the people 2: Why should I care about the politics of the software company I use, as long as they abide by the stances they say they have regarding my privacy and making the best product possible?
- fleddr 5y ago
  It depends on whether the topic is divisive or not. Protecting privacy, holding big tech accountable, etc are not divisive topics. Any internet user wants that. Yet if you tread in more divisive topics, you may lose part of your audience. Examples: women in tech, trans rights, advancing the black community with special projects. Each of these are politically divisive. It doesn't matter where you stand on these issues, I'm just commenting on how they are divisive topics in an extremely polarized political landscape. If these issues are central to your belief and mission, one should go for it. Yet you then need to accept the risk of abandoning part of the potential user base. Which for a browser maker is dumb. But I wonder what Mozilla really is these days.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  Why should I care about the politics of the software company I use One obvious reason would be if the company in question is directly supporting various causes that you like or dislike. You might also choose to care about the people working at that company. Suppose they support and/or practice policies that are harmful (or beneficial) to their employees. You might choose to discourage (or encourage) such policies by voting with your money. Really, your question is disingenuous -- surely you understand? It seems like you simply don't want to care or don't feel that giving or witholding your support will make a sufficient difference. That's your call. Just be honest with yourself and others.
astrange 5y ago
There's no reason to dig up every opinion on Earth just so you can maintain neutrality between all of them. Brendan Eich is surprisingly un-cancelled for a guy who thinks his employees shouldn't be able to visit their spouses dying in hospitals[1]. He's literally still around. [1] Which happened a lot during the AIDS pandemic and was essentially the purpose of the gay marriage campaign. It was actually relatively culturally conservative; super-liberal SF gay people wouldn't want nuclear families after all, they'd want to live in communes or something.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Eich would tell you he supported civil unions.
  - astrange 5y ago
    Too bad he contributed to a campaign that wasn't for them then. And of course, CA did introduce something like "marriage with a different name" afterwards, but it didn't seem like the Prop 8 defenders liked that either, and the courts still found it unconstitutional.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      California domestic partnerships included hospital visitation rights from 1999.[1] And most marriage rights from 2005.[2] They weren't fully equal. And separate but equal is nonsense anyway. But they came before Proposition 8. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Assembly_Bill_26_of_1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Wholesale_expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo...
- atatatat 5y ago
  > He's literally still around. Low-quality.
- simondotau 5y ago
JohnBooty 5y ago
Feel free to agree or disagree with Mozilla, obviously. However, I suggest skipping the extra and disingenous step of pretending there's some objective universal standard of "neutrality." Your "neutral" may be somebody else's idea of "left" or "right." What you're doing here makes as much sense as inventing some arbitrary personal definition of "rock and roll music" and then criticizing some performer for not hewing closely enough to it.

t-writescode 5y ago

1: democracy isn't neutral, it tends to follow the will of the people 2: Why should I care about the politics of the software company I use, as long as they abide by the stances they say they have regarding my privacy and making the best product possible?

fleddr 5y ago
It depends on whether the topic is divisive or not. Protecting privacy, holding big tech accountable, etc are not divisive topics. Any internet user wants that. Yet if you tread in more divisive topics, you may lose part of your audience. Examples: women in tech, trans rights, advancing the black community with special projects. Each of these are politically divisive. It doesn't matter where you stand on these issues, I'm just commenting on how they are divisive topics in an extremely polarized political landscape. If these issues are central to your belief and mission, one should go for it. Yet you then need to accept the risk of abandoning part of the potential user base. Which for a browser maker is dumb. But I wonder what Mozilla really is these days.
JohnBooty 5y ago
Why should I care about the politics of the software company I use One obvious reason would be if the company in question is directly supporting various causes that you like or dislike. You might also choose to care about the people working at that company. Suppose they support and/or practice policies that are harmful (or beneficial) to their employees. You might choose to discourage (or encourage) such policies by voting with your money. Really, your question is disingenuous -- surely you understand? It seems like you simply don't want to care or don't feel that giving or witholding your support will make a sufficient difference. That's your call. Just be honest with yourself and others.

astrange 5y ago

There's no reason to dig up every opinion on Earth just so you can maintain neutrality between all of them. Brendan Eich is surprisingly un-cancelled for a guy who thinks his employees shouldn't be able to visit their spouses dying in hospitals[1]. He's literally still around. [1] Which happened a lot during the AIDS pandemic and was essentially the purpose of the gay marriage campaign. It was actually relatively culturally conservative; super-liberal SF gay people wouldn't want nuclear families after all, they'd want to live in communes or something.

pseudalopex 5y ago
Eich would tell you he supported civil unions.
- astrange 5y ago
  Too bad he contributed to a campaign that wasn't for them then. And of course, CA did introduce something like "marriage with a different name" afterwards, but it didn't seem like the Prop 8 defenders liked that either, and the courts still found it unconstitutional.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    California domestic partnerships included hospital visitation rights from 1999.[1] And most marriage rights from 2005.[2] They weren't fully equal. And separate but equal is nonsense anyway. But they came before Proposition 8. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Assembly_Bill_26_of_1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Wholesale_expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo...
atatatat 5y ago
> He's literally still around. Low-quality.
simondotau 5y ago

JohnBooty 5y ago

Feel free to agree or disagree with Mozilla, obviously. However, I suggest skipping the extra and disingenous step of pretending there's some objective universal standard of "neutrality." Your "neutral" may be somebody else's idea of "left" or "right." What you're doing here makes as much sense as inventing some arbitrary personal definition of "rock and roll music" and then criticizing some performer for not hewing closely enough to it.