461–469 of 469 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People still download Chrome onto Windows. Used to be they did that for Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix.
I would argue the reason so many people do that is because every time you visit a Google property it prompts you to do so. Mozilla doesn’t have the advantage of owning sites that are part of people’s daily routines either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think it is done by holding feminist AI conferences in Africa?
Yes, that's part of it. Guys in SV don't need help with access; women in Africa do - that's the place to hold conferences, and probably much more cost effective. (Whatever is mean by 'Africa', a very large area, and I know nothing about the conference.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's part of it. Guys in SV don't need help with access; women in Africa do - that's the place to hold conferences, and probably much more cost effective. (Whatever is mean by 'Africa', a very large area, and I know nothing about the conference.)
Yeah, but what would be the most optimal way to achieve the goals (spreading an open web)?
Intel isn't hosting a hardware conference in 99% of the world. It's a great opportunity for Mozilla's mission, for those people, and for the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how many of this angry crowd donate. Mozilla do accept donations. Or maybe the idea is that employees/developers don't need to eat, which is incredibly ironic given who HN users typically are. There isn't a single line in this petition dedicated to how Mozilla should raise funds instead. Maybe signing the petition should be behind a paywall, I would be very interested to see how many votes that would gather.
> I wonder how many of this angry crowd donate. Mozilla do accept donations. This is what Mozilla have to say about it: > How will my donation be used? > Our grassroots donations, from supporters like you, are our most flexible source of funding. These funds directly support advocacy campaigns (i.e. asking big tech companies to protect your privacy), research and publications like the *Privacy Not Included buyer's gu…
> Don’t Mozilla products, like Firefox, earn income?
> Firefox is maintained by the Mozilla Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. While Firefox does produce revenue — chiefly through search partnerships — this earned income is largely reinvested back into the Corporation. The Mozilla Foundation’s education and advocacy efforts, which span several continents and reach millions of people, are supported by philanthropic donations.
In short, donations do not and can not directly support Firefox development. Donations go to the Mozilla Foundation, which is a non-profit that owns the for-profit Mozilla Corporation, which makes Firefox. (In my opinion, the Mozilla Foundation does a lot of good work and is worth supporting independently if that's your thing, but it's separate from Firefox.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So probably only 1/3rd of their income is going to browser development, which is pretty bad. Only because you assume that they should only be working on browser development.
> Only because you assume that they should only be working on browser development. Why not? This isn't Oxfam, this is Mozilla. To an outsider, the assumed point for all these other endeavors was to be profitable to provide more money for browser development. When that money doesn't primarily provide for that something seems sketchy.
Mozilla needs to operate like NPR by having pledge drives and seeking charitable investment by organizations and nations because depending on for-profit arrangements means inevitable corruption just like any other corporation.
NPR needs to get rid of the ads. That half of the budget is influencing their news coverage and content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So probably only 1/3rd of their income is going to browser development, which is pretty bad. Only because you assume that they should only be working on browser development.
They were expressing their own opinion, that's not an assumption. The relevance of opinion to nonprofit organizations is mediated through donation or other forms of support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue the reason so many people do that is because every time you visit a Google property it prompts you to do so. Mozilla doesn’t have the advantage of owning sites that are part of people’s daily routines either.
Yeah, but before Chrome people were doing this for Firefox, just from word of mouth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leadership focusing on their own agenda instead of the mission of the nonprofit is a form of corruption.
No, not in general. Only if done dishonestly or for corrupt purpose (e.g. self-enrichment). It also is not totally clear that these activities are actually outside the scope of the nonprofit's mission.