4 ms·

Thats not all!!! I was really amazed with this post I found here the other day: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarr

Thats not all!!! I was really amazed with this post I found here the other day: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarre-finances-of-mozilla https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest... maybe they should think better where they put their money!!! If servo ever gets into a decent independent browser I will let go of Firefox the second its released!!! I do not support a donation-based tech company spending money in other places not related to tech!

phero_cnstrcts 3y ago
Wow. If that’s all true then that’s really disconcerting but hardly surprising in this corrupt-to-bone world. Every single choice we have to make boils down to taking the lesser evil.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dralley 3y ago
Bryan Lunduke is a terrible source for anything. You'd do better ignoring what he has to say and interpreting the source documents yourself.
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  Lunduke has his issues but I don't actually think there's are massive issues with this post. He clearly has idealistic issues with the political spending but it's hard to disagree that $500k on McKenzie Mack Group is probably not the best way to spend money... FWIW I think a few of these likely have perfectly reasonable innocent explanations like consultants having a company they don't bother branding rather taking payments personally (hence hard to find specifics on them - they brand themselves rather than their company) and I find it hard to believe that Lunduke didn't consider this possibility, but he asks nothing that doesn't deserve an answer. What's specifically wrong with this post besides the author?
  - dralley 3y ago
    One example is that he first explains that there are two different Mozillas, the corporation and the foundation, and then proceeds to ignore that for the rest of the peice when it's rhetorically convenient to do so. He bags on "Mozilla" for claiming that they relied on donations to function on a Foundation donation page, using the total revenue from both orgs as proof that wasn't true, but didn't bother to drill down into the Foundation's income specifically to see if the statement was true in the actual context that it was being made. Which is a common theme in a lot of his work. If he has an axe to grind (and he clearly does if you're familiar with his comments about Mozilla going back like 5+ years), his journalistic integrity takes a nosedive. Remember when he claimed that Mozilla funded terrorists because they donated to a privacy focused email service, and some antifa group he disliked used that email service? I do. Mostly, knowing how completely insane he has been on this and similar topics in the past makes me assume that he's probably as least being misleading now.
    - supriyo-biswas 3y ago
      > One example is that he first explains that there are two different Mozillas, the corporation and the foundation, and then proceeds to ignore that for the rest of the peice when it's rhetorically convenient to do so. Charitably I'd assume the quoted reason in the article is the reason: > In fact, the “not-for-profit” and “for-profit” aspects of Mozilla are so tightly intertwined that the auditors report makes a point of calling the collective group of three organizations simply “Mozilla”… and reports on their finances as a single entity.

phero_cnstrcts 3y ago

Wow. If that’s all true then that’s really disconcerting but hardly surprising in this corrupt-to-bone world. Every single choice we have to make boils down to taking the lesser evil.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

dralley 3y ago

Bryan Lunduke is a terrible source for anything. You'd do better ignoring what he has to say and interpreting the source documents yourself.

cmcaleer 3y ago
Lunduke has his issues but I don't actually think there's are massive issues with this post. He clearly has idealistic issues with the political spending but it's hard to disagree that $500k on McKenzie Mack Group is probably not the best way to spend money... FWIW I think a few of these likely have perfectly reasonable innocent explanations like consultants having a company they don't bother branding rather taking payments personally (hence hard to find specifics on them - they brand themselves rather than their company) and I find it hard to believe that Lunduke didn't consider this possibility, but he asks nothing that doesn't deserve an answer. What's specifically wrong with this post besides the author?
- dralley 3y ago
  One example is that he first explains that there are two different Mozillas, the corporation and the foundation, and then proceeds to ignore that for the rest of the peice when it's rhetorically convenient to do so. He bags on "Mozilla" for claiming that they relied on donations to function on a Foundation donation page, using the total revenue from both orgs as proof that wasn't true, but didn't bother to drill down into the Foundation's income specifically to see if the statement was true in the actual context that it was being made. Which is a common theme in a lot of his work. If he has an axe to grind (and he clearly does if you're familiar with his comments about Mozilla going back like 5+ years), his journalistic integrity takes a nosedive. Remember when he claimed that Mozilla funded terrorists because they donated to a privacy focused email service, and some antifa group he disliked used that email service? I do. Mostly, knowing how completely insane he has been on this and similar topics in the past makes me assume that he's probably as least being misleading now.
  - supriyo-biswas 3y ago
    > One example is that he first explains that there are two different Mozillas, the corporation and the foundation, and then proceeds to ignore that for the rest of the peice when it's rhetorically convenient to do so. Charitably I'd assume the quoted reason in the article is the reason: > In fact, the “not-for-profit” and “for-profit” aspects of Mozilla are so tightly intertwined that the auditors report makes a point of calling the collective group of three organizations simply “Mozilla”… and reports on their finances as a single entity.