5 ms·

> Mozilla's leadership is directionless and flailing because it's never had to do, or be, anything else. It's never needed to know how to make a profit, because

> Mozilla's leadership is directionless and flailing because it's never had to do, or be, anything else. It's never needed to know how to make a profit, because it never had to make a profit. It's no wonder it has no real direction or vision or clue: it never needed them. It's role-playing being a business.

saubeidl 1y ago
The "real" fix would be for Mozilla to become an actual proper non-profit entity. Maybe the EU can buy it and maintain the browser as a critical piece of infrastructure, the same way roads etc are.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  > the same way roads etc are Roads are also a model of corruption and inefficiency, fully captured by private actors (in Europe, Vinci etc). And I think there's no way around it past some size, but that might not be the direction we wish for Firefox.
  - mminer237 1y ago
    In the US, road construction is actually pretty competitive. I'm sure there's some corruption, but I think it's done pretty well overall.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      The following study lists the U.S. as having "moderate to high corruption" in road construction industries: https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321 https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321
      - rtkwe 1y ago
        The abstract out rights says it's just using a PPP adjusted price vs quality measurement not actually studying real measurable corruption just their arms length proxy measurement. All that really shows is the US gets crappier product for the 'same' money (PPP comparisons are really squishy).
        timschmidt 1y ago
        And google is full of examples such as the following: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/construction-company-owner-pleads-guilty-bid-rigging-and-bribery https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/construction-company...
        rtkwe 1y ago
        Those are much better to point to, I wasn't saying there isn't any corruption more that the study is a bad measure of that issue.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        The way I see it, one is quantifying bounds on the scale of the other. Both are relevant.
  - a0123 1y ago
    Yes, we know. We are not saying "privatize the browser" because as you rightly pointed out, privatisation is a guaranteed route to the utmost corruption.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  Been saying that for years but it's never been a popular opinion. For one thing people solidly blame the EU for those awful cookie banners -- and I think those cookie banners broke down any resistance to web sites popping up modals that cover up other modals all asking for your email..
  - fsflover 1y ago
    The EU didn't force the banners. They restricted opt-out data collection without consent, which is a good thing to do. The banners is malicious compliance.
    - PaulHoule 1y ago
      Consent for privacy is a broken model. It needs to be "Respect DNT or go to directly to jail, do not pass Go" It's a predictable result and if the EU is not "consenting" with it they should change the law.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - bmn__ 1y ago
        > It needs to be [heavy-handed reprimands] What is the realistic chance for such a regulation to pass all hurdles before being signed/coming into effect?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - orangecat 1y ago
      The banners is malicious compliance. That's true, but I'm still going to blame the EU. The nag screens were absolutely a predictable response, and if the regulators didn't spend half an hour thinking about unscrupulous data marketers would react to the regulations, then they are bad at their jobs. And even after that, they've had years to fix the regulations and haven't done so.
- eastbound 1y ago
  > Maybe the EU can buy it Thank you but I don’t think the EU is a good steward. Look how much it spent in funding startups across Europe, and what little we have for it. Look at the decision-making in the EU stack. Sweden or the Netherlands should buy it. The EU, no.
- sunaookami 1y ago
  Ugh please no, the first thing they would integrate is mandatory censorship of sites they don't like because of "hate speech".
xeonmc 1y ago
It's like that video of a fledgling Myna opening its beak towards a crawling catepillar and expecting it to jump in automatically.

saubeidl 1y ago

The "real" fix would be for Mozilla to become an actual proper non-profit entity. Maybe the EU can buy it and maintain the browser as a critical piece of infrastructure, the same way roads etc are.

makeitdouble 1y ago
> the same way roads etc are Roads are also a model of corruption and inefficiency, fully captured by private actors (in Europe, Vinci etc). And I think there's no way around it past some size, but that might not be the direction we wish for Firefox.
- mminer237 1y ago
  In the US, road construction is actually pretty competitive. I'm sure there's some corruption, but I think it's done pretty well overall.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    The following study lists the U.S. as having "moderate to high corruption" in road construction industries: https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321 https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321
    - rtkwe 1y ago
      The abstract out rights says it's just using a PPP adjusted price vs quality measurement not actually studying real measurable corruption just their arms length proxy measurement. All that really shows is the US gets crappier product for the 'same' money (PPP comparisons are really squishy).
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        And google is full of examples such as the following: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/construction-company-owner-pleads-guilty-bid-rigging-and-bribery https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/construction-company...
        rtkwe 1y ago
        Those are much better to point to, I wasn't saying there isn't any corruption more that the study is a bad measure of that issue.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        The way I see it, one is quantifying bounds on the scale of the other. Both are relevant.
- a0123 1y ago
  Yes, we know. We are not saying "privatize the browser" because as you rightly pointed out, privatisation is a guaranteed route to the utmost corruption.
PaulHoule 1y ago
Been saying that for years but it's never been a popular opinion. For one thing people solidly blame the EU for those awful cookie banners -- and I think those cookie banners broke down any resistance to web sites popping up modals that cover up other modals all asking for your email..
- fsflover 1y ago
  The EU didn't force the banners. They restricted opt-out data collection without consent, which is a good thing to do. The banners is malicious compliance.
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    Consent for privacy is a broken model. It needs to be "Respect DNT or go to directly to jail, do not pass Go" It's a predictable result and if the EU is not "consenting" with it they should change the law.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - bmn__ 1y ago
      > It needs to be [heavy-handed reprimands] What is the realistic chance for such a regulation to pass all hurdles before being signed/coming into effect?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - orangecat 1y ago
    The banners is malicious compliance. That's true, but I'm still going to blame the EU. The nag screens were absolutely a predictable response, and if the regulators didn't spend half an hour thinking about unscrupulous data marketers would react to the regulations, then they are bad at their jobs. And even after that, they've had years to fix the regulations and haven't done so.
eastbound 1y ago
> Maybe the EU can buy it Thank you but I don’t think the EU is a good steward. Look how much it spent in funding startups across Europe, and what little we have for it. Look at the decision-making in the EU stack. Sweden or the Netherlands should buy it. The EU, no.
sunaookami 1y ago
Ugh please no, the first thing they would integrate is mandatory censorship of sites they don't like because of "hate speech".

xeonmc 1y ago

It's like that video of a fledgling Myna opening its beak towards a crawling catepillar and expecting it to jump in automatically.