4 ms·

> 2023: https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/toyota/ https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/toyo... You can safely assume i

> 2023: https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/toyota/ https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/toyo... You can safely assume it's only getting worse until proven otherwise.

altairprime 2mo ago
Many car companies have managed to fail and cease operations without destroying their brand with, as the article title describes it, “showing commercials on their car’s dash screens”. While I agree that they’re as greedy and shitty as the other companies — though GM and Rivian have them beat on that for denying CarPlay over its data processing protections! — it’s too early to identify which brands will next self-immolate with video ads like this. It’s infuriating to see that if Toyota would just stop trying so hard to sell cars, they wouldn’t be at risk of this. Something like 90% of their sales profits on a 25% markup from production cost are spent on marketing to get each sale?! That reeks of the same kind of desperation to show growth in growth of profits that BMW is showing, so they’re definitely in the at-risk category now.
SilasX 2mo ago
Mozilla is leveling this criticism? How about leading by example? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 Thanks to altairprime for mentioning it first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49137765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49137765
- altairprime 2mo ago
  Mozilla is right to level criticism, regardless of hypocrisy. The internal debate around the Mr. Robot events was even more fiery than the public reaction, and while the Corporation has busily continued enshittifying, that does not excuse dismissing the Foundation’s critique of auto manufacturers. You’re not only confusing two entirely separate business entities that are formally operated apart from each other, that would risk 501(c)(3) revocation if they fail to maintain that chasm — you’re discrediting a serious and real breakdown of privacy violations on the grounds of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy does not invalidate legitimate objections. It could, if these had been the same organization as you assumed, invalidate the stated and unstated motivations driving publication. Concrete facts and negative reviews present by an unpalatable and biased source may still be accurate and relevant. What motivation did you consider suspect here, and why do you feel should invalidated their claims regarding auto manufacturers? You could well be right, after all, and I’d rather consider your full viewpoint than dismiss it for being incomplete.
  - SilasX 2mo ago
    I wasn't saying that this invalidates the objection. I was (very clearly) asking them to lead by example. Regardless of the legal structure, the non-profit should still be calling the shots, and should still be vetoing efforts like the Mr. Robot tie-in (which their reps agree with, if you follow the story). The reason I think the hypocrisy is interesting is that (as I've said before[1]) the contrast should be a source of insight, and it's right to expect a organization concerned about the public to use said insight. Here, the insight is: "Okay, you're ostensibly non-profit and pro-user and yet you still forced ads on the user. You already got the lecture on it being bad and supposedly agree with it, so what happened? What would have aligned your incentives, and how can that be applied more generally?" [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121059
    - altairprime 2mo ago
      > the non-profit should still be calling the shots I truly wish this were the case sometimes. Perhaps things would have gone differently for us if it had been. One can dream. Maybe someday they’ll do it, anyways.

altairprime 2mo ago

Many car companies have managed to fail and cease operations without destroying their brand with, as the article title describes it, “showing commercials on their car’s dash screens”. While I agree that they’re as greedy and shitty as the other companies — though GM and Rivian have them beat on that for denying CarPlay over its data processing protections! — it’s too early to identify which brands will next self-immolate with video ads like this. It’s infuriating to see that if Toyota would just stop trying so hard to sell cars, they wouldn’t be at risk of this. Something like 90% of their sales profits on a 25% markup from production cost are spent on marketing to get each sale?! That reeks of the same kind of desperation to show growth in growth of profits that BMW is showing, so they’re definitely in the at-risk category now.

SilasX 2mo ago

Mozilla is leveling this criticism? How about leading by example? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 Thanks to altairprime for mentioning it first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49137765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49137765

altairprime 2mo ago
Mozilla is right to level criticism, regardless of hypocrisy. The internal debate around the Mr. Robot events was even more fiery than the public reaction, and while the Corporation has busily continued enshittifying, that does not excuse dismissing the Foundation’s critique of auto manufacturers. You’re not only confusing two entirely separate business entities that are formally operated apart from each other, that would risk 501(c)(3) revocation if they fail to maintain that chasm — you’re discrediting a serious and real breakdown of privacy violations on the grounds of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy does not invalidate legitimate objections. It could, if these had been the same organization as you assumed, invalidate the stated and unstated motivations driving publication. Concrete facts and negative reviews present by an unpalatable and biased source may still be accurate and relevant. What motivation did you consider suspect here, and why do you feel should invalidated their claims regarding auto manufacturers? You could well be right, after all, and I’d rather consider your full viewpoint than dismiss it for being incomplete.
- SilasX 2mo ago
  I wasn't saying that this invalidates the objection. I was (very clearly) asking them to lead by example. Regardless of the legal structure, the non-profit should still be calling the shots, and should still be vetoing efforts like the Mr. Robot tie-in (which their reps agree with, if you follow the story). The reason I think the hypocrisy is interesting is that (as I've said before[1]) the contrast should be a source of insight, and it's right to expect a organization concerned about the public to use said insight. Here, the insight is: "Okay, you're ostensibly non-profit and pro-user and yet you still forced ads on the user. You already got the lecture on it being bad and supposedly agree with it, so what happened? What would have aligned your incentives, and how can that be applied more generally?" [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121059
  - altairprime 2mo ago
    > the non-profit should still be calling the shots I truly wish this were the case sometimes. Perhaps things would have gone differently for us if it had been. One can dream. Maybe someday they’ll do it, anyways.