5 ms·

But that's the whole point: they did pay their medical bills. It's not like they didn't pay their medical bills and instead bought a ps5. They did both. Mozill

But that's the whole point: they did pay their medical bills. It's not like they didn't pay their medical bills and instead bought a ps5. They did both. Mozilla develops Firefox, and they also pay their CEO a lot. Their CEO may be overpaid, the company may be mismanaged, but at least they are still upholding their commitment to maintaining Firefox. Picking out one expense that you don't like and saying "all the donations go to this, see!" is just disingenuous. Whether donating is worthwhile is another question, and it seems like the answer would be no. But it is a very different thing to say "All the donations just go to the CEO" instead of "I think the CEO is paid too much". We could also cherry-pick in the other direction and say the CEO is negotiating deals to bring in the 90% of non-donation revenue of Mozilla, in which case you could easily say that his pay is a result of that revenue creation.

rishav_sharan 1y ago
I think the key here is that they didn't have money to do both. If they had money enough for medicine, then why beg for donation?
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  You gift me $100 on Venmo or cashapp or whatever to go dinner with my partner. I transfer it to my bank. It’s in the same bank account as all my other liquid cash. How can either of us ever say whether or not I spent that specific $100 on dinner? Mozilla/FF has a pot of money that donations go in to, which is the same pot they use to operate as well as pay people, which includes their CEO.
  - chii 1y ago
    > How can either of us ever say whether or not I spent that specific $100 on dinner? there's no such thing as a specific $100. The donation of the $100 was contingent on you not having $100 for dinner. If it turns out you _did_ have $100 for dinner, but now that you received $100 in donations, you can choose to also spend the extra $100 on something else (which the donor may or may not like). It is on the donor to figure out whether donating the $100 is worth it - at least the recipient needs to declare all their financials, so they'd have the info to make a judgement on future donations.
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      You’re making this a very strict, binary situation. Either you’re broke and every single dollar you are gifted or requesting is specifically earmarked for a specific thing, or you have all the money you need and you can’t ever receive a gift or request a donation. Nothing is that simplistic. Charities doing well and able to meet all their goals/payroll still keep asking for money because they need it to be sustained for more than months or a year. Also at the end of the day, they are requesting donations to keep things operating. And that means paying people to run things, including CEOs. Every charity has somebody at the top, so your donations are also paying for those people as well. Unless you’re willing to say that all charities are therefore fraudulent because you are paying executive personnel, I just don’t see how this argument can really be put forth in earnest.
      - galangalalgol 1y ago
        It isn't binary in general but in this case it is. The money from mozilla corporation is close enough in quantity to the donations to make it so. Someone used the example of a medical bill and a ps5, but a better example is that you gave someone enough money to live on entirely, and the spent it on that as they said, but then took their income which could have paid for it and purchased something unnecessary. That wouldn't be ok. Furthermore one of the key pieces of research before donating to a charity is executive compensation. This level of compensation is a red flag in any non profit and means it won't be getting good ratings from the watchdog groups. That in turn hurts future donations.
        Forgeties79 1y ago
        I gave the PS5 example fyi. Not that it changes anything it just felt weird to not clarify that haha >but a better example is that you gave someone enough money to live on entirely, and the spent it on that as they said, but then took their income which could have paid for it and purchased something unnecessary. But that doesn’t really apply here, it’s not parallel to the Mozilla/Firefox situation. And if we want to arbitrarily decide that all donations go to the CEO strictly because the numbers are kind of similar, why can’t I just say “no all that money goes towards staff and operating“? Why is my assertion any less valid? The numbers being similar doesn’t tell us anything about how it’s being spent. It’s just a coincidence. I mean that’s what this all hinges on right? That the two numbers are kind of close? I can’t really think of how that tells us where the money is going. I don’t understand how that follows. If donations 10x tomorrow can we no longer claim the donations are going into the CEO’s pocket? Or if they cut to 1/10th? Would we be having this conversation if either was currently the case?
- sothatsit 1y ago
  I'm not trying to defend Mozilla begging for donations when they really don't need them. My point is that cherry-picking one expense that you don't like, and then saying all the donations go to that, is cherry-picking the financials, and is misleading.
  - closewith 1y ago
    You're arguing that money isn't fungible. It's absurd.
    - sothatsit 1y ago
      This is absolute nonsense. I am arguing that cherry-picking one expense is ridiculous. A much more reasonable approach would be to say that your donation is spread out over the entirety of the spend of Mozilla. That would suggest 1% of your donation is going to the CEO, not 100% of it like earlier commenters suggest. It is dishonest to pick out one expense you don't like and equate that to all of the donation money being spent on just that. That's all. I don't know how you got from that to "this guy thinks money isn't fungible."
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > much more reasonable approach would be to say that your donation is spread out over the entirety of the spend of Mozilla Transactions happen at the margin. If a junkie spends every dollar of a bonus on dope, it’s fair to say the bonus is being burned on dope. Even if they also pay rent with their base salary.
        sothatsit 1y ago
        From another user: If donations doubled, would CEO pay double? If donations halved, would CEO pay halve? I suspect the answer is "no" to both of those.
  - tete 1y ago
    > I'm not trying to defend Mozilla begging for donations when they really don't need them. They essentially do. The problem is they have a greedy, self-obsessed CEO taking it.
owebmaster 1y ago
[flagged]
- sothatsit 1y ago
  Mismanagement or waste isn't the same as corruption. Corruption means deliberately lying, cheating, or acting unethically for personal gain, not just spending money poorly. Paying their CEO $7 million is generous, but not particularly unusual for a corporation with $650m in revenue (as of 2023).
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Income they make from revenue from doing what? What is the revenue generating activity Mozilla/Firefox is doing?
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    Calling it mismanagement IS corruption. What we are discussing here is known by Mozilla high-ups and board. They know their current and past CEOs are getting a huge prize for destroying Firefox and they couldn't care less. That's clearly corruption.
ta1243 1y ago
If donations doubled, would CEO pay double? If donations halved, would CEO pay halve? I suspect the answer is "no" to both of those.
- sothatsit 1y ago
  Exactly, so the donations are not being funneled to the CEO, and suggesting that they are would be silly. If you split up your donation by how Mozilla actually spends its money, then most goes to operating Mozilla, and a small amount (~1%) goes to paying the CEO.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  I agree but your tone suggests you’re disagreeing with me? That’s the point I am driving at. Directly linking every donated dollar to the CEO’s pay simply because they’re close in number does not make sense.

rishav_sharan 1y ago

I think the key here is that they didn't have money to do both. If they had money enough for medicine, then why beg for donation?

Forgeties79 1y ago
You gift me $100 on Venmo or cashapp or whatever to go dinner with my partner. I transfer it to my bank. It’s in the same bank account as all my other liquid cash. How can either of us ever say whether or not I spent that specific $100 on dinner? Mozilla/FF has a pot of money that donations go in to, which is the same pot they use to operate as well as pay people, which includes their CEO.
- chii 1y ago
  > How can either of us ever say whether or not I spent that specific $100 on dinner? there's no such thing as a specific $100. The donation of the $100 was contingent on you not having $100 for dinner. If it turns out you _did_ have $100 for dinner, but now that you received $100 in donations, you can choose to also spend the extra $100 on something else (which the donor may or may not like). It is on the donor to figure out whether donating the $100 is worth it - at least the recipient needs to declare all their financials, so they'd have the info to make a judgement on future donations.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    You’re making this a very strict, binary situation. Either you’re broke and every single dollar you are gifted or requesting is specifically earmarked for a specific thing, or you have all the money you need and you can’t ever receive a gift or request a donation. Nothing is that simplistic. Charities doing well and able to meet all their goals/payroll still keep asking for money because they need it to be sustained for more than months or a year. Also at the end of the day, they are requesting donations to keep things operating. And that means paying people to run things, including CEOs. Every charity has somebody at the top, so your donations are also paying for those people as well. Unless you’re willing to say that all charities are therefore fraudulent because you are paying executive personnel, I just don’t see how this argument can really be put forth in earnest.
    - galangalalgol 1y ago
      It isn't binary in general but in this case it is. The money from mozilla corporation is close enough in quantity to the donations to make it so. Someone used the example of a medical bill and a ps5, but a better example is that you gave someone enough money to live on entirely, and the spent it on that as they said, but then took their income which could have paid for it and purchased something unnecessary. That wouldn't be ok. Furthermore one of the key pieces of research before donating to a charity is executive compensation. This level of compensation is a red flag in any non profit and means it won't be getting good ratings from the watchdog groups. That in turn hurts future donations.
      - Forgeties79 1y ago
        I gave the PS5 example fyi. Not that it changes anything it just felt weird to not clarify that haha >but a better example is that you gave someone enough money to live on entirely, and the spent it on that as they said, but then took their income which could have paid for it and purchased something unnecessary. But that doesn’t really apply here, it’s not parallel to the Mozilla/Firefox situation. And if we want to arbitrarily decide that all donations go to the CEO strictly because the numbers are kind of similar, why can’t I just say “no all that money goes towards staff and operating“? Why is my assertion any less valid? The numbers being similar doesn’t tell us anything about how it’s being spent. It’s just a coincidence. I mean that’s what this all hinges on right? That the two numbers are kind of close? I can’t really think of how that tells us where the money is going. I don’t understand how that follows. If donations 10x tomorrow can we no longer claim the donations are going into the CEO’s pocket? Or if they cut to 1/10th? Would we be having this conversation if either was currently the case?
sothatsit 1y ago
I'm not trying to defend Mozilla begging for donations when they really don't need them. My point is that cherry-picking one expense that you don't like, and then saying all the donations go to that, is cherry-picking the financials, and is misleading.
- closewith 1y ago
  You're arguing that money isn't fungible. It's absurd.
  - sothatsit 1y ago
    This is absolute nonsense. I am arguing that cherry-picking one expense is ridiculous. A much more reasonable approach would be to say that your donation is spread out over the entirety of the spend of Mozilla. That would suggest 1% of your donation is going to the CEO, not 100% of it like earlier commenters suggest. It is dishonest to pick out one expense you don't like and equate that to all of the donation money being spent on just that. That's all. I don't know how you got from that to "this guy thinks money isn't fungible."
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > much more reasonable approach would be to say that your donation is spread out over the entirety of the spend of Mozilla Transactions happen at the margin. If a junkie spends every dollar of a bonus on dope, it’s fair to say the bonus is being burned on dope. Even if they also pay rent with their base salary.
      - sothatsit 1y ago
        From another user: If donations doubled, would CEO pay double? If donations halved, would CEO pay halve? I suspect the answer is "no" to both of those.
- tete 1y ago
  > I'm not trying to defend Mozilla begging for donations when they really don't need them. They essentially do. The problem is they have a greedy, self-obsessed CEO taking it.

owebmaster 1y ago

[flagged]

sothatsit 1y ago
Mismanagement or waste isn't the same as corruption. Corruption means deliberately lying, cheating, or acting unethically for personal gain, not just spending money poorly. Paying their CEO $7 million is generous, but not particularly unusual for a corporation with $650m in revenue (as of 2023).
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Income they make from revenue from doing what? What is the revenue generating activity Mozilla/Firefox is doing?
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Calling it mismanagement IS corruption. What we are discussing here is known by Mozilla high-ups and board. They know their current and past CEOs are getting a huge prize for destroying Firefox and they couldn't care less. That's clearly corruption.

ta1243 1y ago

If donations doubled, would CEO pay double? If donations halved, would CEO pay halve? I suspect the answer is "no" to both of those.

sothatsit 1y ago
Exactly, so the donations are not being funneled to the CEO, and suggesting that they are would be silly. If you split up your donation by how Mozilla actually spends its money, then most goes to operating Mozilla, and a small amount (~1%) goes to paying the CEO.
Forgeties79 1y ago
I agree but your tone suggests you’re disagreeing with me? That’s the point I am driving at. Directly linking every donated dollar to the CEO’s pay simply because they’re close in number does not make sense.