111–120 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people forget Mitchell Baker has been a Mozilla employee for decades?
I do personally think tech companies [0] are better of if the CEO is a visionary techie instead of a lawyer. [0] Mozilla and others might not think they are a tech company but a activist plattform, so this is irrelevant to them from their perspective
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's good that Mozilla is still there to provide an alternative to the proprietary browsers and is fighting for open Internet standards > aggressive political stance These two statements are at odds with each other. Mozilla whole purpose is inherently political.
While they were always political, somewhere along the way Mozilla's politics changed. They stopped being an organization dedicated to furthering the cause of free software, and instead dedicated themselves to promoting radical left wing political causes. For example here's the mission statement for riseup.net, which Mozilla gives money to: https://riseup.net/en/about-us > Riseup’s Purpose > We value, support, and eng…
> They stopped being an organization dedicated to furthering the cause of free software, and instead dedicated themselves to promoting radical left wing political causes.
Mozilla's resources are directed at Firefox much more than anything else. Grants and donations were 1% of 2022 expenses. Your claim would be far from true still even if all grants and donations went to communist rebels.
I dont like Brave because of the Crypto stuff. But they have way better communication around this with more simple tweets and posts of what they ACTUALLY do. What is even going on, on this page? So much coroprate speak I feel like I am reading my for-profit company intranet page.
IMO Mozilla has turned into a wrong way since the shitshow with Brendan Eich.
According to Brave’s stats, they get ~63M MAU. Firefox is now sitting under 200M. That’s a loss of >50M users in two years. Looks like Eich might have been Mozilla’s hidden force keeping the project on the rails.
Three of the four new board members mention AI when asked why they joined Mozilla. I can't think of anything AI related that Mozilla has done, and nothing indicates that they will be relevant in the field in the future either. It's a stated goal by Mozilla to "include more expertise about AI", but I don't see the point. https://stateof.mozilla.org/#diversity
Nothing much changed in terms of % here YoY: still almost 50% of salaries going to management, ~25% of total company expenditure. I wonder if Mitchell has given herself another enormous raise on top of last year's 5 million. A few folk commenting on Mozilla's dependence on Google for revenue; it would certainly be easier to reason about reducing that dependence if their expenditure was a little more transparent: kill…
Nothing much changed in terms of % here YoY: still almost 50% of salaries going to management, ~25% of total company expenditure. I wonder if Mitchell has given herself another enormous raise on top of last year's 5 million. A few folk commenting on Mozilla's dependence on Google for revenue; it would certainly be easier to reason about reducing that dependence if their expenditure was a little more transparent: kill…
I don't think just reading page 5* in the auditors report and picking out "Management and general" as the total comp to management is going to give an accurate view of what the chair is getting. Something more complicated is going on, for instance if you look at the tax filings, page 10, you find that total functional expenses is 30 million, with leadership making up 6.5 of those. On page 7 you can Mitchell that is g…
In the "mission" statement they're doubling down on a total lack of self-reflection. They actually think they're in the position to "shape" markets and the internet in general.
How so? Just look at AI. How is a 10M Mozilla proof of concept going to move the needle against Google and OpenAI/Microsoft throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it? Where exactly is Mozilla's relevance in influencing anything at all?
And yes, the political brand is annoying and distracting. The "do-good" internet traditionally aligns to liberal, moderate progressive politics. Mozilla's current "woke" brand is not the same thing. It reeks of DEI, identity politics, intersectional feminism, anti-whiteness.
I don't care if you subscribe to these politics, I'm saying it's not moderate nor neutral. It's sub brand of highly polarized US politics that is widely unpopular outside of it. If you claim to stand for the worldwide internet, this is not "inclusive".
Luckily though, it turns out to be a case of woke capitalism. The budget for software development is 221M, the budget for "leadership" 109M.
They do a lot of leading at Mozilla. Nobody knows what exactly is led as zero promises or roadmaps are tangible or deliver anything. When you check board members, fellows and grants...it just leaves you puzzled at what these people do, how it helps, and how it moves the needle.
They can't help themselves. They are used to getting free money by literally doing nothing: keeping the search box aimed at Google. Next they piss it all away on useless initiatives where failure has no consequences.
Nothing much changed in terms of % here YoY: still almost 50% of salaries going to management, ~25% of total company expenditure. I wonder if Mitchell has given herself another enormous raise on top of last year's 5 million. A few folk commenting on Mozilla's dependence on Google for revenue; it would certainly be easier to reason about reducing that dependence if their expenditure was a little more transparent: kill…
How did you get almost 50% for management when the category including management was 39%? They spent $283,739,000 on salaries and benefits. $110,767,000 was in the management and general category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some stuff I would like to see: First and foremost, allow me to donate to Firefox. Not to the foundation, to Firefox. Second, and related, increase Firefox' budget. Remember how extensions were essentially dead on Android since 2020 until recently? Or how they fired a chunk of the Rust team due to budget cuts? That should not have happened. Third, put Firefox front and center. The article linked here has exactly one…
> First and foremost, allow me to donate to Firefox. Not to the foundation, to Firefox. I’d like to see this too. They already have a donation option for Thunderbird, which is officially under MZLA Technologies Corporation. There could be something similar for Firefox. Not complete sure on this, but right now the only way to give money to Mozilla Corporation (the one owning and developing Firefox) is by subscribing t…