4 ms·

Way to butcher the quote. In full it has nearly the opposite meaning and it's far more intriguing - I believe that Mozilla can make progress in privacy, b

by eps 11y ago

Way to butcher the quote. In full it has nearly the opposite meaning and it's far more intriguing - I believe that Mozilla can make progress in privacy, but leadership needs to recognize that current advertising practices that enable "free" content are in direct conflict with security, privacy, stability, and performance concerns -- and that Firefox is first and foremost a user-agent, not an industry-agent.

wlesieutre 11y ago
I don't see how that's opposite
- paulryanrogers 11y ago
  Conflict arises because content isn't truly free. Someone pays of their free time or gets paid to produce by advertising or subscribers. Tools that deliver the content while bypassing payment will drive payment elsewhere or erode the incentive to produce.
- simoncion 11y ago
  The author's point is threefold: 1) Firefox should be software that serves its computer user's interests. 2) The Mozilla corporation is pressured (to whatever degree) to turn Firefox into software that serves the entertainment and advertising and surveillance industry's interests. 3) Sometimes Mozilla bends to industry interests rather than user interests. This is a bad thing. When you excerpted that quote, you changed the author's statement into: "Firefox serves the interests of computer users, rather than industry titans." Understand? :)
  - sukilot 11y ago
    #2 comes from your own mind or other sources (DRM standards), not from the quoted material.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      #2 comes directly from the quoted material: "[Mozilla's] leadership needs to recognize that current advertising practices that enable "free" content are in direct conflict with security, privacy, stability, and performance concerns..." Not to be crass, but read between the lines. All statements have context. That one sits in the context of a world where browser makers have spent many years removing infoleaks from their browsers, much to the chagrin of advertisers and surveillers.

by eps 11y ago

wlesieutre 11y ago

I don't see how that's opposite

paulryanrogers 11y ago
Conflict arises because content isn't truly free. Someone pays of their free time or gets paid to produce by advertising or subscribers. Tools that deliver the content while bypassing payment will drive payment elsewhere or erode the incentive to produce.
simoncion 11y ago
The author's point is threefold: 1) Firefox should be software that serves its computer user's interests. 2) The Mozilla corporation is pressured (to whatever degree) to turn Firefox into software that serves the entertainment and advertising and surveillance industry's interests. 3) Sometimes Mozilla bends to industry interests rather than user interests. This is a bad thing. When you excerpted that quote, you changed the author's statement into: "Firefox serves the interests of computer users, rather than industry titans." Understand? :)
- sukilot 11y ago
  #2 comes from your own mind or other sources (DRM standards), not from the quoted material.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    #2 comes directly from the quoted material: "[Mozilla's] leadership needs to recognize that current advertising practices that enable "free" content are in direct conflict with security, privacy, stability, and performance concerns..." Not to be crass, but read between the lines. All statements have context. That one sits in the context of a world where browser makers have spent many years removing infoleaks from their browsers, much to the chagrin of advertisers and surveillers.