4 ms·

Sure, but they are also treating it as a business opportunity, just like the people compiling the data are. They should perhaps be pushing on the legal aspect o

Sure, but they are also treating it as a business opportunity, just like the people compiling the data are. They should perhaps be pushing on the legal aspect of what's wrong with the situation rather than making money from it.

wolverine876 3y ago
You're assuming they are driven by a business opportunity; I have no evidence of their motives (do you?), but another way to see it: There is no law and no prospect of one soon. Mozilla can partially solve the problem by providing the service - I think that's great. Otherwise people would have less recourse. And also, Mozilla must have money to operate; charging for this service seems among the least-bad options.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  Well, we arrive at the whole "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero" train of thought, otherwise there is no money-making opportunity. They push on the legal aspects of other problems, but I don't see them pushing on the legal aspects of this. Mozilla receives half a billion dollars per year from Google, making up most of their revenue. Mozilla's CEO is also paid millions of dollars each year. If they can't survive as-is whilst paying out those kinds of salaries with such revenue, that's a management problem.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Well, we arrive at the whole "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero" train of thought, otherwise there is no money-making opportunity. So? Do doctors want you to have cancer? Do undertakers want you to die? Yet they still get paid. > They push on the legal aspects of other problems, but I don't see them pushing on the legal aspects of this. That's not persuasive, unless you are in that business. Where is a list of the things they do? > If they can't survive as-is whilst paying out those kinds of salaries with such revenue, that's a management problem. While I don't like the CEO's pay, competitors have far greater budgets - and pay CEOs far more - as do many businesses. The amount itself isn't evidence. Where is the evidence that Mozilla isn't allocating funds well?

wolverine876 3y ago

You're assuming they are driven by a business opportunity; I have no evidence of their motives (do you?), but another way to see it: There is no law and no prospect of one soon. Mozilla can partially solve the problem by providing the service - I think that's great. Otherwise people would have less recourse. And also, Mozilla must have money to operate; charging for this service seems among the least-bad options.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
Well, we arrive at the whole "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero" train of thought, otherwise there is no money-making opportunity. They push on the legal aspects of other problems, but I don't see them pushing on the legal aspects of this. Mozilla receives half a billion dollars per year from Google, making up most of their revenue. Mozilla's CEO is also paid millions of dollars each year. If they can't survive as-is whilst paying out those kinds of salaries with such revenue, that's a management problem.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Well, we arrive at the whole "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero" train of thought, otherwise there is no money-making opportunity. So? Do doctors want you to have cancer? Do undertakers want you to die? Yet they still get paid. > They push on the legal aspects of other problems, but I don't see them pushing on the legal aspects of this. That's not persuasive, unless you are in that business. Where is a list of the things they do? > If they can't survive as-is whilst paying out those kinds of salaries with such revenue, that's a management problem. While I don't like the CEO's pay, competitors have far greater budgets - and pay CEOs far more - as do many businesses. The amount itself isn't evidence. Where is the evidence that Mozilla isn't allocating funds well?