3 ms·

Agreed, it's a ridiculous mischaracterization and part of a pattern that's become a self-sustaining spiral with no quality control. I don't believe it's astrot

Agreed, it's a ridiculous mischaracterization and part of a pattern that's become a self-sustaining spiral with no quality control. I don't believe it's astroturfing, simply just mind bogglingly awful arguments. Claiming the decline in market share is tied to inadequate browser features with no two conversations ever agreeing on what those features are. No coherent theory of cause and effect between features and market share while ignoring structural advantages that are much more important drivers, which Google leverages. Claims that CEO pay is the problem when it's 1% of annual revenue. Idiosyncratic interpretations of their published statements that make unfalsifiable assumptions about intentions. And a basic inability to grasp and compare the relative scale of different types of transgressions (e.g. Google is increasingly driving the web into deeper dependence on Chromium, but Mozilla once did a Mr. Robot promo!) I think the worst of the worst were on Lemmy where similar conversations happen and one person looked at a 990 form from the Mozilla Foundation, a standard non-profit disclosure form, and breathlessly went through the lines as if they were evidence of a conspiracy. I don't think everyone makes arguments that bad, but I think exposure to this normalized, low-quality discourse has socialized people into perpetuating the narrative with increasingly tenuous arguments.

mixmastamyk 2y ago
It's perfectly normal to hold good actors to a higher standard than bad actors. And the leadership should be fired instead of rewarding itself. What if they put 10% of the hundred million a year they got from Google for the last dozen years into an endowment instead? They'd be sustainable without needing to sell out.
- glenstein 2y ago
  I don't know if you read everything that I laid out, but none of the above had anything to do with holding the good actors to hire standards. Thinking that a 990 form is secret evidence of a conspiracy because the nonprofit spent like $10,000 on a consultant here and there is at a fundamental level a form of information illiteracy. It's not like a principled attempt to hold them to a higher standard. And my contention is that it's things like those that increasingly are what people mean when they say "everything" bad Mozilla is doing. It's more like a tulip craze than a well thought out argument.
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    Folks can wallow in conspiracies if they want, but there are real concerns that could be focused on instead.
mcny 2y ago
> Claims that CEO pay is the problem when it's 1% of annual revenue. I fully support Mozilla. I don't think this change is bad. However, I do think executive pay should be reined in. Not just the CEO but the board as well. It is also not just about the money but the culture as well. I sincerely believe the CEO shouldn't make more than the median employee salary. This is too much.
- 7bit 2y ago
  If a CEO typically works 12-16 hours a day with no overtime pay I'm fine if he earns more than the employee who doesn't do overtime or gets paid. I also don't care if he earns slightly more than everybody else. It being median pay is certainly exaggerating. But unfortunately, many CEOs make at least 10 times the money of the median and often 100x or more.
  - mcny 2y ago
    In my experience, I have been "exempt" even though I have zero supervisory or management authority as an individual contributor. If there are people like me in any organization, the CEO should not get extra pay for being exempt. Yes, it is a little extreme to demand median pay but this is the starting point of a conversation to highlight that CEO make 10 or 100 maybe more times the median salary.
- glenstein 2y ago
  >However, I do think executive pay should be reined in. I do too, but let's keep our eye on the ball for a second. CEO pay is not (1) driving Mozilla towards unprofitability, (2) taking developer resources away from critical investments in the browser (3) the reason why the market share is lower (4) a revelation of malevolent intent regarding user data and privacy (5) an indicator of moral equivalence with Google. It's a vague generality that's barely about anything, but it's half made arguments like these that are driving perceptions in these threads.

mixmastamyk 2y ago

It's perfectly normal to hold good actors to a higher standard than bad actors. And the leadership should be fired instead of rewarding itself. What if they put 10% of the hundred million a year they got from Google for the last dozen years into an endowment instead? They'd be sustainable without needing to sell out.

glenstein 2y ago
I don't know if you read everything that I laid out, but none of the above had anything to do with holding the good actors to hire standards. Thinking that a 990 form is secret evidence of a conspiracy because the nonprofit spent like $10,000 on a consultant here and there is at a fundamental level a form of information illiteracy. It's not like a principled attempt to hold them to a higher standard. And my contention is that it's things like those that increasingly are what people mean when they say "everything" bad Mozilla is doing. It's more like a tulip craze than a well thought out argument.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Folks can wallow in conspiracies if they want, but there are real concerns that could be focused on instead.

mcny 2y ago

> Claims that CEO pay is the problem when it's 1% of annual revenue. I fully support Mozilla. I don't think this change is bad. However, I do think executive pay should be reined in. Not just the CEO but the board as well. It is also not just about the money but the culture as well. I sincerely believe the CEO shouldn't make more than the median employee salary. This is too much.

7bit 2y ago
If a CEO typically works 12-16 hours a day with no overtime pay I'm fine if he earns more than the employee who doesn't do overtime or gets paid. I also don't care if he earns slightly more than everybody else. It being median pay is certainly exaggerating. But unfortunately, many CEOs make at least 10 times the money of the median and often 100x or more.
- mcny 2y ago
  In my experience, I have been "exempt" even though I have zero supervisory or management authority as an individual contributor. If there are people like me in any organization, the CEO should not get extra pay for being exempt. Yes, it is a little extreme to demand median pay but this is the starting point of a conversation to highlight that CEO make 10 or 100 maybe more times the median salary.
glenstein 2y ago
>However, I do think executive pay should be reined in. I do too, but let's keep our eye on the ball for a second. CEO pay is not (1) driving Mozilla towards unprofitability, (2) taking developer resources away from critical investments in the browser (3) the reason why the market share is lower (4) a revelation of malevolent intent regarding user data and privacy (5) an indicator of moral equivalence with Google. It's a vague generality that's barely about anything, but it's half made arguments like these that are driving perceptions in these threads.