4 ms·

I consider Mozilla to be a public interest group. It's understandable that Meta's involvement is seen as a red flag, but if you want it to actually happen, part

I consider Mozilla to be a public interest group. It's understandable that Meta's involvement is seen as a red flag, but if you want it to actually happen, part of this process will involve cooperating with advertisers. In the end any proposal should be judged primarily on its merits rather than its authors.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> part of this process will involve cooperating with advertisers There is a massive difference between cooperating with an advertiser and buying one. > any proposal should be judged primarily on its merits rather than its authors Sure. But when we're discussing hypothetical proposals, track record is all we've got.
- NoGravitas 2y ago
  The evidence of Google's history shows that when you buy an advertiser, you're being reverse-acquired.
rightbyte 2y ago
> I consider Mozilla to be a public interest group It should be but it is in bed with Google and founded by dirty money. I mean, there seem to be some resistance internally, but the leadership seem to be bought.
eesmith 2y ago
Being a public interest group doesn't mean they have my interests in mind. Consider that both the National Right to Life Committee and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund are public interest group, even though they have strongly different views of what best benefits the public. Why should we cooperate when advertisers and others didn't cooperate and respect the Do Not Track (DNT) header? I want zero tracking and zero user profiling. I'm okay with context advertising. If the internet can't survive without profiling, then it's got a worse business model than broadcast TV.
NoGravitas 2y ago
Mozilla should be a public interest group, but it serves a mess of conflicting interests because of its structure and leadership. A public interest group would give no quarter to advertisers.
captainepoch 2y ago
> I consider Mozilla to be a public interest group. It's not longer the case. It was a few years ago, but not nowadays.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> part of this process will involve cooperating with advertisers There is a massive difference between cooperating with an advertiser and buying one. > any proposal should be judged primarily on its merits rather than its authors Sure. But when we're discussing hypothetical proposals, track record is all we've got.

NoGravitas 2y ago
The evidence of Google's history shows that when you buy an advertiser, you're being reverse-acquired.

rightbyte 2y ago

> I consider Mozilla to be a public interest group It should be but it is in bed with Google and founded by dirty money. I mean, there seem to be some resistance internally, but the leadership seem to be bought.

eesmith 2y ago

Being a public interest group doesn't mean they have my interests in mind. Consider that both the National Right to Life Committee and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund are public interest group, even though they have strongly different views of what best benefits the public. Why should we cooperate when advertisers and others didn't cooperate and respect the Do Not Track (DNT) header? I want zero tracking and zero user profiling. I'm okay with context advertising. If the internet can't survive without profiling, then it's got a worse business model than broadcast TV.

NoGravitas 2y ago

Mozilla should be a public interest group, but it serves a mess of conflicting interests because of its structure and leadership. A public interest group would give no quarter to advertisers.

captainepoch 2y ago

> I consider Mozilla to be a public interest group. It's not longer the case. It was a few years ago, but not nowadays.