5 ms·

For the love of God can you please just focus on the browser. Right now Firefox is the one thing standing between all web protocols being decided by Google and

For the love of God can you please just focus on the browser. Right now Firefox is the one thing standing between all web protocols being decided by Google and an open net. You'll do a hell of a lot more good by ensuring Alphabet doesn't get to arbitrarily redefine protocols embed tracking in all the web and make the entire internet cater to the whims of the tech giants than any other bullshit social justice, environmental responsibility, or other virtue signaling or political bull hockey you people are currently engaged in.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
Or just spin off the browser to technically-focused (cf policy focused) group that does not have any connection to management and staff who get paid from deals with "tech" companies. Mozilla could be releasing multiple "experimental" browsers for people to play with. Trimmed down versions of Firefox with "features" removed that anyone can compile on a low resource computer. Browsers not designed for advertising. Browsers designed for commerce. For banking. Browsers designed for fast information retrieval. "Secure" browsers with tiny attack surfaces. And so on. Specialised browsers. All that Mozilla code should be useful to more than just "tech" companies. For the avoidance of doubt, the idea of the web browser should not be solely a neverending popularity contest to crown one program that will obviate all others. There should also be (more) unpopular, boring browsers for doing routine, boring web-based things. The whole "web advocacy" schtick comes across as hollow when the company treats a web browser like some "holy" program that no one else can tinker with. That is exactly why we have the situation with Google. "Web protocols" are decided by whomever writes the browser, and according to Mozilla's view of the web, only a handful of people can write browsers. As it happens they work for advertising companies, companies that are becoming advertising companies or a company paid by advertising companies (Mozilla). The web is more than a f'ing advertising medium. It is a public resource. Mozilla just cannot get over itself and see how dysfunctional this has become. Mozilla thinks the web is dead without advertising. It is the other way around. The web is getting suffocated by the influence of browser-enabled advertising spend. And then we have the obvious conflict of interest. Mozilla execs get paid from deals with "tech" companies. We are then asked to believe Mozilla is going to make these companies more "responsible". Difficult to see how that is going to work when those companies are the ones paying Mozilla. Maybe if Mozilla threatened to "democratise" the web browser so it was not the exclusive domain of "tech" companies. A web with many clients. Those companies have come to rely on the power over web users they have through controlling "the" browser.
- jefftk 4y ago
  > spin off the browser to technically-focused (cf policy focused) group Browser development is the main project of the technically-focused Mozilla Corporation, while it looks to me like the project here is under the policy-focused Mozilla Foundation.
  - cbtacy 4y ago
    Thank you!! People constantly conflate the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation.
    - zo1 4y ago
      We all know it's a technicality used for finance and separation of accountability. In any other sane universe we'd call these shell corporations and tax avoidance schemes.
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      Strange that people would confuse thing with wholly owned subsidiary of thing, yes.
      - jefftk 4y ago
        Especially when this press release isn't trying very hard to make the distinction clear
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  > Mozilla could be releasing multiple "experimental" browsers for people to play with. Trimmed down versions of Firefox with "features" removed that anyone can compile on a low resource computer. The number of people who will actually compile a browser themselves is a rounding error to a footnote on the graph of browser stats. I can't imagine how that can make a dent in anything. Do you just have faith that by doing this, Mozilla would empower some developer in his basement to come up with a killer feature that will allow them to burst back into the forefront of browsers?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
snapcaster 4y ago
Came here to say this, I feel like Mozilla is so out of touch with their (rapidly shrinking) remaining users
warner25 4y ago
Is it possible that making money as a VC firm on the side is the solution to Mozilla's funding problem - being dependent on a deal with their main competitor - so that they can keep working on the browser?
skyfaller 4y ago
Although I understand your sentiment, there was a big uproar (rightly so) when Mozilla cut a lot of stuff that wasn't directly related to Firefox, such as MDN web docs or the experimental Servo browser engine. Building a healthy and innovative ecosystem requires not developing tunnel vision. Having a future requires investing in the future as well as the present. Some would no doubt consider incubating their own programming language, Rust, to be a distraction, but it's a clear benefit to programming / computer safety that they did, and presumably makes Firefox more fun to work on since programmers famously enjoy Rust. Focus is good, but like most good things it's best in moderation, otherwise you reach diminishing returns while sacrificing everything else that matters.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  > Although I understand your sentiment, there was a big uproar (rightly so) when Mozilla cut a lot of stuff that wasn't directly related to Firefox, such as MDN web docs or the experimental Servo browser engine. Building a healthy and innovative ecosystem requires not developing tunnel vision. Having a future requires investing in the future as well as the present. Funny how under that goal Firefox has gone from 30% of the market to 3%: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share Mozilla today is a net negative for the web. We would be better with them dying in a fire so something new can take their place and actually be something that people want to use.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > We would be better with them dying in a fire so something new can take their place and actually be something that people want to use. Or at least we might get an antitrust suit that forces google to unload Chrome.
  - throw_m239339 4y ago
    Executive pay at Mozilla seems inversely proportional to the browser's market share... That's how performance is rewarded at the corporation, the less Firefox is used, the bigger her salary is...
  - 4y ago
cbtacy 4y ago
Mozilla Foundation (non profit org doing this 'venture fund') != Mozilla Corporation (folks who build firefox)
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Mozilla Corporation is owned by Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla Foundation also owns the Firefox trademark, and has the Corporation pay the Foundation for the right to use that trademark. $16.3 million in 2020 alone. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-2020-short-form-0926.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-202...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tannhaeuser 4y ago
> Firefox is the one thing standing between all web protocols being decided by Google and an open net. They're not. Mozilla management is ok to take money from Google for acting as a fig leaf and greenwash Google's "standards" and out-of-control complexity. There's no way around the fact that they're fully complicit in having turned the web into a monopolistic PoS that inspires no-one and doesn't provide economic incentives for anyone except Google. They give a shit to users, and now upper management wants to become even more like Wikimedia foundation and engage in mindless fundraising business only benefitting management.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

Or just spin off the browser to technically-focused (cf policy focused) group that does not have any connection to management and staff who get paid from deals with "tech" companies. Mozilla could be releasing multiple "experimental" browsers for people to play with. Trimmed down versions of Firefox with "features" removed that anyone can compile on a low resource computer. Browsers not designed for advertising. Browsers designed for commerce. For banking. Browsers designed for fast information retrieval. "Secure" browsers with tiny attack surfaces. And so on. Specialised browsers. All that Mozilla code should be useful to more than just "tech" companies. For the avoidance of doubt, the idea of the web browser should not be solely a neverending popularity contest to crown one program that will obviate all others. There should also be (more) unpopular, boring browsers for doing routine, boring web-based things. The whole "web advocacy" schtick comes across as hollow when the company treats a web browser like some "holy" program that no one else can tinker with. That is exactly why we have the situation with Google. "Web protocols" are decided by whomever writes the browser, and according to Mozilla's view of the web, only a handful of people can write browsers. As it happens they work for advertising companies, companies that are becoming advertising companies or a company paid by advertising companies (Mozilla). The web is more than a f'ing advertising medium. It is a public resource. Mozilla just cannot get over itself and see how dysfunctional this has become. Mozilla thinks the web is dead without advertising. It is the other way around. The web is getting suffocated by the influence of browser-enabled advertising spend. And then we have the obvious conflict of interest. Mozilla execs get paid from deals with "tech" companies. We are then asked to believe Mozilla is going to make these companies more "responsible". Difficult to see how that is going to work when those companies are the ones paying Mozilla. Maybe if Mozilla threatened to "democratise" the web browser so it was not the exclusive domain of "tech" companies. A web with many clients. Those companies have come to rely on the power over web users they have through controlling "the" browser.

jefftk 4y ago
> spin off the browser to technically-focused (cf policy focused) group Browser development is the main project of the technically-focused Mozilla Corporation, while it looks to me like the project here is under the policy-focused Mozilla Foundation.
- cbtacy 4y ago
  Thank you!! People constantly conflate the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation.
  - zo1 4y ago
    We all know it's a technicality used for finance and separation of accountability. In any other sane universe we'd call these shell corporations and tax avoidance schemes.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    Strange that people would confuse thing with wholly owned subsidiary of thing, yes.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      Especially when this press release isn't trying very hard to make the distinction clear
CWuestefeld 4y ago
> Mozilla could be releasing multiple "experimental" browsers for people to play with. Trimmed down versions of Firefox with "features" removed that anyone can compile on a low resource computer. The number of people who will actually compile a browser themselves is a rounding error to a footnote on the graph of browser stats. I can't imagine how that can make a dent in anything. Do you just have faith that by doing this, Mozilla would empower some developer in his basement to come up with a killer feature that will allow them to burst back into the forefront of browsers?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

snapcaster 4y ago

Came here to say this, I feel like Mozilla is so out of touch with their (rapidly shrinking) remaining users

warner25 4y ago

Is it possible that making money as a VC firm on the side is the solution to Mozilla's funding problem - being dependent on a deal with their main competitor - so that they can keep working on the browser?

skyfaller 4y ago

Although I understand your sentiment, there was a big uproar (rightly so) when Mozilla cut a lot of stuff that wasn't directly related to Firefox, such as MDN web docs or the experimental Servo browser engine. Building a healthy and innovative ecosystem requires not developing tunnel vision. Having a future requires investing in the future as well as the present. Some would no doubt consider incubating their own programming language, Rust, to be a distraction, but it's a clear benefit to programming / computer safety that they did, and presumably makes Firefox more fun to work on since programmers famously enjoy Rust. Focus is good, but like most good things it's best in moderation, otherwise you reach diminishing returns while sacrificing everything else that matters.

thrown_22 4y ago
> Although I understand your sentiment, there was a big uproar (rightly so) when Mozilla cut a lot of stuff that wasn't directly related to Firefox, such as MDN web docs or the experimental Servo browser engine. Building a healthy and innovative ecosystem requires not developing tunnel vision. Having a future requires investing in the future as well as the present. Funny how under that goal Firefox has gone from 30% of the market to 3%: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share Mozilla today is a net negative for the web. We would be better with them dying in a fire so something new can take their place and actually be something that people want to use.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > We would be better with them dying in a fire so something new can take their place and actually be something that people want to use. Or at least we might get an antitrust suit that forces google to unload Chrome.
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  Executive pay at Mozilla seems inversely proportional to the browser's market share... That's how performance is rewarded at the corporation, the less Firefox is used, the bigger her salary is...
- 4y ago

cbtacy 4y ago

Mozilla Foundation (non profit org doing this 'venture fund') != Mozilla Corporation (folks who build firefox)

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Mozilla Corporation is owned by Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla Foundation also owns the Firefox trademark, and has the Corporation pay the Foundation for the right to use that trademark. $16.3 million in 2020 alone. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-2020-short-form-0926.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-202...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tannhaeuser 4y ago

> Firefox is the one thing standing between all web protocols being decided by Google and an open net. They're not. Mozilla management is ok to take money from Google for acting as a fig leaf and greenwash Google's "standards" and out-of-control complexity. There's no way around the fact that they're fully complicit in having turned the web into a monopolistic PoS that inspires no-one and doesn't provide economic incentives for anyone except Google. They give a shit to users, and now upper management wants to become even more like Wikimedia foundation and engage in mindless fundraising business only benefitting management.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]