5 ms·

> Mozilla Partners with [Facebook] on Privacy Okay, until now I gave them some benefit of the doubt. Now Mozilla don’t even try to hide how hypocritical they a

> Mozilla Partners with [Facebook] on Privacy Okay, until now I gave them some benefit of the doubt. Now Mozilla don’t even try to hide how hypocritical they are.

paxys 5y ago
It's not like they have ever hidden it. Pretty much all Mozilla revenue comes from their deals with Google.
- franga2000 5y ago
  Why do people insist on using this as a point?? It's just guilt by association! Taking Google's money has absolutely nothing to do with privacy. Google paid Mozilla to set them as the default search engine. That in no way decreases the privacy for the user and it gets Mozilla the funding they need to develop privacy-enhancing features that do benefit the user.
  - account42 5y ago
    Do you really expect anyone who thinks that making 500k/y instead of millions is not a sacrifice they should be asked to make to do anything to risk their primary source of funding? The money from Google doesn't just buy the default serch engine setting, it is a HUGE incentive for Mozilla to not rock the boat.
  - paxys 5y ago
    Because it is a data point. Sure it isn't a smoking gun pointing to malpractice, but if they are getting $500M/yr from Google, getting into partnerships with Facebook, and continue to make similar moves down the line, you have to question where they can truly be independent enough to be 100% on the consumer's side.
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      How is that a real data point? Like you said, it just raises questions, it doesn't actually tell you anything. Literally all you're doing is casting vague aspersions.
    - franga2000 5y ago
      Besides what the sibling comment said, of course Mozilla can't be independent. Nobody was ever under that illusion. Making a browser takes a shitload of money and Google is a good source of it. Even if that money came with strings attached (it doesn't), that would still be better than the alternative: having only one browser engine. Being financially independent is great, but only if you survive. I'd take a partially Google-funded independent project that publicly goes against Google's interests all the time over one that Google develops in-house to 100% serve their agenda anytime.
  - rvz 5y ago
    I mean, in 2007 the CEO of Mozilla saw this 'association' as a problem and vowed to not be dependent on Google's money and seek other sources of revenue: [0] > "Mozilla can live without Google's Money, Baker says" > "Mozilla Corp. will walk away from Google Inc. and the millions it collects from the search company each year, if that's what it takes to stay independent, the open-source developer's CEO promised" 14 years later, it continues to be on life support by their own anti-privacy competitors since they cannot make any significant revenue sources other than Google's money despite promising to 'walk away' years ago. They know that they can't be 'privacy-first' in their mission statement whilst still taking Google's money. Working with Facebook on this is another way for Mozilla to abandon it's 'privacy-first' selling point which at this point is now meaningless. Mozilla will never change. Even after 14 years. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_ https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
    - dralley 5y ago
      You're missing some details. 1) They did go without Google for a couple of years. They had a partnership with Bing, and Yahoo for quite a while. But Bing and Yahoo remain rounding errors in the search market. 2) 2007 was before Google started dominating with Chrome - before Android even. 2007 was near peak Mozilla. To some degree, fighting Google probably contributed to their decline.
    - franga2000 5y ago
      So what would you have them do? We all know they can't survive without Google's money. Things have gotten way worse since that statement (see sibling comment). They have two choices - work with industry players to find the least privacy-intrusive ways for them to keep doing what they do or give up, accept Google Chrome as the one and only browser and let Google develop constant user tracking as a native browser feature that can't be disabled. Mozzila does dumb shit all the time and they need to be called out for it. But they are still around, despite their competitor's revenue being over 300x theirs and their market share dropping to below 5%. They still regularly and often successfully oppose Google's attempts at steering web standards to their benefit, despite Google being their main source of funding. Their browser still has the best privacy features out of the box and supports the widest variety of privacy-enhancing extensions. Like it or not, they are our only hope. A "privacy-first" company means a dead company. Mozilla and every other project (Signal, Telegram, Brave...) is "Survival first, privacy second" and that's still better than the alternative - "profit first, privacy not even a consideration".

> Mozilla Partners with [Facebook] on Privacy Okay, until now I gave them some benefit of the doubt. Now Mozilla don’t even try to hide how hypocritical they are.

paxys 5y ago

It's not like they have ever hidden it. Pretty much all Mozilla revenue comes from their deals with Google.

franga2000 5y ago
Why do people insist on using this as a point?? It's just guilt by association! Taking Google's money has absolutely nothing to do with privacy. Google paid Mozilla to set them as the default search engine. That in no way decreases the privacy for the user and it gets Mozilla the funding they need to develop privacy-enhancing features that do benefit the user.
- account42 5y ago
  Do you really expect anyone who thinks that making 500k/y instead of millions is not a sacrifice they should be asked to make to do anything to risk their primary source of funding? The money from Google doesn't just buy the default serch engine setting, it is a HUGE incentive for Mozilla to not rock the boat.
- paxys 5y ago
  Because it is a data point. Sure it isn't a smoking gun pointing to malpractice, but if they are getting $500M/yr from Google, getting into partnerships with Facebook, and continue to make similar moves down the line, you have to question where they can truly be independent enough to be 100% on the consumer's side.
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    How is that a real data point? Like you said, it just raises questions, it doesn't actually tell you anything. Literally all you're doing is casting vague aspersions.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    Besides what the sibling comment said, of course Mozilla can't be independent. Nobody was ever under that illusion. Making a browser takes a shitload of money and Google is a good source of it. Even if that money came with strings attached (it doesn't), that would still be better than the alternative: having only one browser engine. Being financially independent is great, but only if you survive. I'd take a partially Google-funded independent project that publicly goes against Google's interests all the time over one that Google develops in-house to 100% serve their agenda anytime.
- rvz 5y ago
  I mean, in 2007 the CEO of Mozilla saw this 'association' as a problem and vowed to not be dependent on Google's money and seek other sources of revenue: [0] > "Mozilla can live without Google's Money, Baker says" > "Mozilla Corp. will walk away from Google Inc. and the millions it collects from the search company each year, if that's what it takes to stay independent, the open-source developer's CEO promised" 14 years later, it continues to be on life support by their own anti-privacy competitors since they cannot make any significant revenue sources other than Google's money despite promising to 'walk away' years ago. They know that they can't be 'privacy-first' in their mission statement whilst still taking Google's money. Working with Facebook on this is another way for Mozilla to abandon it's 'privacy-first' selling point which at this point is now meaningless. Mozilla will never change. Even after 14 years. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_ https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
  - dralley 5y ago
    You're missing some details. 1) They did go without Google for a couple of years. They had a partnership with Bing, and Yahoo for quite a while. But Bing and Yahoo remain rounding errors in the search market. 2) 2007 was before Google started dominating with Chrome - before Android even. 2007 was near peak Mozilla. To some degree, fighting Google probably contributed to their decline.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    So what would you have them do? We all know they can't survive without Google's money. Things have gotten way worse since that statement (see sibling comment). They have two choices - work with industry players to find the least privacy-intrusive ways for them to keep doing what they do or give up, accept Google Chrome as the one and only browser and let Google develop constant user tracking as a native browser feature that can't be disabled. Mozzila does dumb shit all the time and they need to be called out for it. But they are still around, despite their competitor's revenue being over 300x theirs and their market share dropping to below 5%. They still regularly and often successfully oppose Google's attempts at steering web standards to their benefit, despite Google being their main source of funding. Their browser still has the best privacy features out of the box and supports the widest variety of privacy-enhancing extensions. Like it or not, they are our only hope. A "privacy-first" company means a dead company. Mozilla and every other project (Signal, Telegram, Brave...) is "Survival first, privacy second" and that's still better than the alternative - "profit first, privacy not even a consideration".