- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The author may be a right-wing fellow. Nonetheless, the data he exposes are taken from official Mozilla docs.
You must log in or register to comment.
This “report” is exactly what I would expect from Lunduke. It is really sad that this reactionary content comes from someone who I once thought was cool.
The only part I can agree on : the execs at Mozilla are getting paid too much in the current situation.
Now to get to the real meat.
The combined spendings to political organizations make up around 1m$. This is less than the donations made to Mozilla foundation. Considering the very political nature of the foundation, these spendings were likely authorized there.
Now, why would a technology company spend on political organisations? Well, simply put : technology is political. People trying to peddle that technology is not political are trying to sell you the status quo.
Technology companies spend insane amounts of money on lobbying.
Now, why would Mozilla spend money on left-leaning organisations? Well, simply put : left-leaning politics (though embedded in neoliberal Californian ideals of the internet) are embedded at the core of Mozilla from the start with Mozilla manifesto.
I’m not gonna get into why Lunduke thinks that these organisations are bad but consider it a red flag.
Now, what I would ask to anyone reading this : why do you think Lunduke is ignoring this? Why would Lunduke try to paint this picture?
I’d say the CEO is the only one who’s overpaid. The other executives make between $200k to $370k, which is a lot of money but barely noteworthy imo.
If they’re living in SF, then it’s even less money. It’s a lot, don’t get me wrong, but it takes a lot of money to afford to live in (or around) that city.
Yeah, for sure, the CEO is the clear outlier. I just count them as an exec though that might be misusing how that term is used colloquially.
I don’t know enough about corporate finance or how Mozilla is structured, but why is the CEO the only one marked with “paid only by a related for profit”? Is this coming from money from Mozilla Corporation? Why is she the only one being paid from there and not the others? Does that maybe have something to do with the disparity in pay?
This “report” is exactly what I would expect from Lunduke. It is really sad that this reactionary content comes from someone who I once thought was cool.
It’s sad. When I discovered the Linux Action Show back in 2006 or 2007, he seemed like a fun and interesting person. But it’s amazing how quickly that perception proved false. And his Twitter feed in 2020 was a dumpster fire.
Well, simply put : left-leaning politics (though embedded in neoliberal Californian ideals of the internet) are embedded at the core of Mozilla from the start with Mozilla manifesto.
Which is so fascinating given the involvement of people like Brendan Eich, and also descending from noted Libertarian and capitalist Marc Andreesen
I mean, the neolib Californian ideals of the internet was anarchist so always anti-gov but not anti-corporate. That’s how you end up with compromise points in the Mozilla manifesto like this:
Commercial involvement in the development of the internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical.
Worth mentioning that Eich came from the Netscape days and was highly influential on a technical level.
Worth mentioning that Eich came from the Netscape days and was highly influential on a technical level.
Oh yeah for sure. Foundational on the browser, and with developing JavaScript. But a shit person. I guess the Prop8 business was finally a bridge too far, PR-wise
Yeah, of course. I’m not defending Eich, just some insight on how he got there :P
Disregard everything below. I mistook the comment about neo-liberalism for a quote from this guy.
I’m leaving the text up for context, but this criticism is misdirected.
==
It says everything you need to know that he (I suspect deliberately) confuses neo-liberal for left-wing ideology.
Neo-liberal = capitalist with a smoking jacket and a fancy degree on the wall.
SV is absolute rife with anarcho-capitalist ideology. I can only dream of a version of SV that actually carries some measure of economically liberal ideology.
My guess is this guy is confusing social liberalism with economic liberalism. But, of course, that’s the entire right wing schtick these days.
I might be confused but Lunduke doesn’t mention neoliberalism or left-wing ideology in that article - I did.
Of course neoliberalism is to the right of what I’d consider to be left-wing and it works very much hand in hand with conservatism but it’s usually socially liberal. I think Mozilla definitely fits a weird bill, it’s hard to pinpoint because the principles are largely about individual rights yet the addendum definitely feels atleast socially liberal. That said, it seems most of the causes they support are left-wing.
The problem isn’t that they’re spending money on political causes and I wouldn’t even expect them to do some false balance bs where they’d spend money on left and right wing politics, but spending money on political causes with almost zero transparency (like what do orgs do with the money, how effective are they, are they actually aligned with certain values, who is involved in these orgs, etc) seems fishy as fuck.
(like what do orgs do with the money, how effective are they, are they actually aligned with certain values, who is involved in these orgs, etc)
These are all issues of the organizations own reporting, not anything Mozilla did. Mozilla is not responsible for disclosing the operational details of places it donates to or works with.
The laws and regulations surrounding NPOs, charities, and foundations and what they report are a whole other rabbit hole.
I didn’t read the article… Are the organizations secret? I don’t think it’s fishy if not. Why would they need to spend time justifying things to the public like that?
Ieft leaning? These orgs sound more like the typical liberal right centrist orgs from america lol
It is stated within the article that Mckensie Mack is non-binary, however the author chose to refer to them with she/her pronouns. Regardless of “politics” and “beliefs”, I don’t agree with ignoring or disrespecting somebody’s identity.
So where’s Lunduke’s articles on the numerous right-wing shady organizations? I haven’t listened to or read anything by this hack in many years now because of the fact that he has a clear agenda motivated by his own political bullshit.
Maybe find an article that is written by someone reputable and post that to numerous communities.
This right here.
He was always a shit. But seeing him in 2020 parroting alt-right talking points and defending the Proud Boys showed exactly what kind of person he is.
I don’t really care if someone fights in both directions if their points are valid. Misgendering or not, mozilla has had some troubling developments internally and it’s good people shed light on it.
Shedding light with bias is the whole problem with media in the current landscape. They’re never done objectively. All it does is provide a feedback loop within the echo chamber, further dividing people with the result of “see, I told you the other side is bad.” Motivations matter. Lunduke has, in the past, proven where his motivations are. If he actually reported on all political, economic, technological goings-on in an objective manner, given he is a pretty good communicator, then I’d withdraw my opposition to him. Until such time, I keep to my opinion of him and have no interest in his articles. I can form my own opinion of Mozilla independent of what Lunduke or FOX News or MSNBC tries to get me to ingest.
Given the author’s political affiliation and the apparent lack of coverage of this anywhere else I find it difficult to make any conclusions other than those that would indicate the author’s politically makes.
It’s so painfully obvious that the article was written to push a personal agenda rather than objectively address the topic
deleted by creator
I think this approach is doomed. People only care about Mozilla because of Firefox and Firefox is falling behind again, no doubt coinciding with the mass layoffs and the ejection of the Servo engine. They’ve caught up with Chrome on most fronts a year or three ago when their reinvented CSS and layout engine was released, but they’re still on the back foot these days.
This is incorrect. Firefox recently surpassed Chrome in a key benchmark and has generally been on a roll lately.
Yes, their current iterative improvements are not as sexy as the big release of Quantum, but to say they’re currently falling behind is the opposite of the truth. They’ve just pulled ahead.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
This is not correct.
arewefastyet.com shows very clearly that although chrome beats firefox in some benchmarks, firefox trades blows with it and is similar to or faster in others.
deleted by creator
you can just move to chromium though, getting chrome performance without google spyware
Chrome also boasts about having the best performance.
Meanwhile, in the real world, running the two side-by-side tends to spell a whole different picture.
Without having read the whole thing, so I’m not sure how clear the article is about it: the important part is that donations to Mozilla go to the Mozilla Foundation, which does the political campaigning/social justice etc. stuff, while Firefox development happens in the Mozilla Corporation funded with search engine deals etc.
So again:
Donations to Mozilla do not go towards Firefox development
And looking independently at what the Mozilla Foundation does: Thank God for the Mozilla Foundation. The do incredibly important work and is as far as I know the strongest advocacy group for a free and open net.
The EFF is probably competitive there. But clearly they’re both on the same side of most issues, so not really a competition.
The author may be a right-wing fellow. Nonetheless, the data he exposes is not fake!
This should not be noteworthy much less be sufficient to make the article seem credible.
The people who tout justifications like this have clearly not paid enough attention in school to learn about things like secondary sources, misrepresenting data, or false extrapolations.
Or they’ve somehow forgotten all about how the far right has been falsely portraying information for years now, and using a kernel of truth to say “See? Therefore everything else I’m saying is also true!” so that the gullible will believe their lies.
Someone’s political beliefs aren’t indicative of how well they can form an argument. People can misrepresent data regardless of their political leanings, this whole talking point in the comments is irrelevant.
That perspective requires a wanton and purposeful ignorance of the right wing misinformation and disinformation campaigns of the last ten years.
It’s only irrelevant if you want to act like the author isn’t part of a political group that frequently lies.
The way you’re framing it seems disingenuous. You act like only people on the right lie and spread misinformation (and they do!). It feels like you’re making a childish jab at the right because you don’t like them.
Left-wing people and right-wing people both lie to you plenty, because political leanings have nothing to do with it.
I’m not claiming the piece itself is truthful, but you’ve got your head deep in the sand if you think the right wing is the only group lying to you, while the left & everyone else is truthful.
You’re acting like I’m not talking about QAnon or MAGA types for some reason. Why?
I’m not saying to dismiss anyone just because you politically disagree with them. I’m saying don’t trust a Nazi when he gives his opinion on Jews.
I’m not saying only one side lies. I’m saying there’s a political contingent that only operates on lies, and this guy is with them.
Stop trying to reduce the situation to talk about someone else. This is a QAnon type author writing falsities based on falsely interpreted data, not Noam Chomsky waffling on if something is a crime or not.
Why are you trying to make far right seem better than they really are? Why are you igoring exactly the kind of person I’m referring to in order to dilute the situation and suggest “But pretend like they just have some different ideas” as if they’re not the same kinds of people calling LGBT people child predators now.
This isn’t me advocating dismissing anyone you merely politically disagree with. This is me saying don’t trust a Nazi when he talks about Jews.
It’s not a theory or an idea that most of their arguments are based in lies. That’s par for the course. Their entire MO is denying truth and fact, something which doesn’t exist in even the moderate right wing.
It is a lie to suggest that anyone else lies as much and as inherently as the far right in recent years.
The only thing disingenuous here is your “both sides” bullshit when you’re suggesting a QAnon type should be given the same amount of credence as anyone else.
Hey folks - Just want to note that the !Technology mod team is aware of the reports on this post. After some discussion we decided to leave the thread up, since it had already generated a decent amount of good discussion despite the problems with the article itself. However, I do want to make it clear that we do not condone intentionally misgendering people.
If you have any questions or feedback, feel free to reply here or DM me.
Besides the CEO thing, this makes me wanna donate even more to the foundation
And this is one of the many reasons I don’t donate to Firefox. Firefox employees should really fork that project and make it better than what it is now instead of just being Google’s dog + an excuse to pay millions to a single person and hundreds of thousands to random individuals, who have nothing to do with Firefox.
400M in cash could go to a lot of development efforts. They could rewrite Firefox entirely in Rust, make it run on any platform, move the needle on web technologies in a big way, hell, they could make their own damn phone with that kind of money, or even write their own competitor to ChromeOS.
But instead…
And what do you do after three years? Then the cash will be used up.
Mozilla isn’t just developing the Firefox browser. Technology is inherently political - and educating people and influencing actors politically on the free and open web is very important. Firefox is much less likely to mis-align away from their browser users than chrome simply because they don’t have the misaligned incentives like the chrome Browser which is equally made by the largest internet advertising firm of the world.
They even has created FirefoxOS for phone at some point in the past 10 years. But I don’t remember what happened with that.
They tried making a phone already and it failed to gain steam.
It’s worth noting that KaiOS, a fork of Firefox OS, has been successful - particularly in developing markets.
This is reassuring, I’ve been debating installing Ubuntu’s phone OS on my old Sony Xperia. It’s great that it’s not a complete bust to have a nice FOSS OS on phones. Mozilla just didn’t have the resources or wherewithal to follow through with Firefox OS and that’s just how it goes.
What are you on about? This is super confusing to me. Mozilla does a lot of great work. It’s insanely hard to make and develop a web browser… Are you aware of that? Apple probably spends a large fraction of the amount Mozilla does and yet safari benefits more from open source than Mozilla and is still one of the biggest shit piles on the planet.
deleted by creator
I find WebKit to be a fine browser engine most of the time.
It is worth mentioning that the WebKit port for GTK does not support WebRTC and that it is not supported at all by Apple. It’s an effort by Igalia, one person from Red Hat and volunteers.
There’s also essentially no WebKit browser for windows. WebKit is often slow at adopting new web technologies as well.
All that to say - WebKit is not the example of a success outside of helping big corporations to make their own big proprietary browsers.
All I know is that as a frontend Dev, features in safari are about 5-10 years late to the party. the world’s first trillion dollar company is years behind a non profit…
deleted by creator
This is something I deal with daily. Safari has awful support for new-ish features. Combine that with a requirement to support a couple versions back like my company does and you’re basically limited to what the web was 10 years ago. Safari is the new IE.
Safari is the new IE.
From a feature perspective, yes. But with the dominance of Google’s Chrome and them pushing awful web API’s I’d say the title of “the new IE” goes to Chrome.
Google’s business practices are God awful, yes. Apple’s are too, in a different way. In the end, Google’s probably are worse but from a technology standpoint at least they are not seeking to ignore web standards. They’re trying to create them. In the case of the authentication API it’s a shit ass standard, but that’s not what they have done historically. Google has mostly embraced and helped push standards through which made the web better. Apple has actively despised and resisted standards.
But I’m not sure why we are comparing these two evil tech companies. Firefox and other browser makers have also supported modern web standards while apple hates the idea of them. The result is a shitty ass browser that behaves like 7 years old Firefox or something. That was my only point.
I’ve never bothered to test on Safari (don’t have a device that runs it and I won’t buy one for it either)
This explains why you don’t think safari is that bad. Lol, you don’t test in it. It’s fucking bad. Every time I think I’m doing some safe that safari can’t botch and don’t test for a few days in safari, I’m shown what a foolish thought that is. The types of sites I work on have some less common features admittedly, but every other browser, even silk browser on ancient Kindle devices, works flawlessly most times while safari has a problem with SO much. Even back when we supported IE 11 (trident) the weird issues were worse on safari.
Apple’s big selling point has never been their software.
What has it been then? I think hundreds of millions of people would say their software “just works” and that’s why they love it.
Hardware and the fact that their products became bourgie status symbols. Their aesthetic game is on point and UI is fairly polished, but their software can be super limited in annoying ways.
Agreed, but I think the general population thinks that their products are great in general. They’re not too concerned about hardware vs software. “It just works”
Use LibreWolf. I’ve switched to it from Brave because it’s counted as firefox market share but it gets rid of all the non-browser features (Pocket, Telemetry, etc.) and enables some interesting flags in the config (ResistFingerprinting for example).
I’ve heard that it wouldn’t it be possible due to tax laws, but I do wish that you could donate directly to Mozilla Corporation itself. The foundation’s advocacy work is important, but it would also be important to ensure Firefox’s continued development without them having to rely on Google
You could just buy one of their products (Pocket, VPN, etc.) and not use it if you want.
Where does the money from here go?
To the foundation for their advocacy.
A Lunduke article??? Ewww. To the unsub button I go! Thought beehaw was better than this…
