Mozilla Puts New Money To Use Fighting For 'Internet Health' (cnet.com)

Stephen Shankland, writing for CNET: Mozilla is marshaling public support for political positions, like backing net neutrality, defending encryption and keeping government surveillance from getting out of hand, says Denelle Dixon-Thayer, Mozilla's chief legal and business officer. The organization is funding the efforts with revenue from Firefox searches, which has jumped since 2014 when it switched from a global deal with Google to a set of regional deals. Mozilla brought in $421 million in revenue last year largely through partnerships with Yahoo in the US, Yandex in Russia and Baidu in China, according to tax documents released alongside Mozilla's 2015 annual report on Thursday. Pushing policy work brings new challenges well beyond traditional Mozilla work competing against Google's Chrome browser and Microsoft's Internet Explorer. They include squaring off against the incoming administration of Donald Trump.

Comments

Slashdot to use fighting for website better

[Anonymous Coward]

English. Do you speak it?

Re:Slashdot to use fighting for website better

[Anonymous Coward]

You win comment/subject of the day. LOL.

Everyone else can go home for the day. We thank you for coming and you will have a chance again tomorrow.

Re:Slashdot to use fighting for website better

[Anonymous Coward]

English. Do you speak it?

... apparently better than you. Try looking up the difference between a noun and a verb.

Re:Slashdot to use fighting for website better

[Anonymous Coward]

Headlines are susceptible to mis-parsing. You apparently misread the noun "use" as a verb.

Re:Slashdot to use fighting for website better

[Desler]

Apparently you don't. There's nothing wrong with the title.

Re:Slashdot to use fighting for website better

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Ain't no garden path like a CSS Zen Garden path.

Re:Slashdot to use fighting for website better

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a valid construction.

Re:Slashdot to use fighting for website better

[Hognoxious]

It is. But "Mozilla Uses New Money To Fight For 'Internet Health'" conveys the same meaning without being shit.

How about for their browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they could do something about how slow it can be so that I will want to use it again.

Re:How about for their browser?

[mrclevesque]

They have, I use both and the difference is pretty much negligible on recent computers

Re:How about for their browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

ELWOOD: What kind of music do you usually have here?
CLAIRE: Oh, we have both kinds -- country and western.

Re:How about for their browser?

[mrclevesque]

:)

it just slipped out, chrome and firefox I mean

Re:How about for their browser?

[Spazmania]

Really? Your other web browsers lock up and become unresponsive for 5 minutes while pegging 100% of a CPU core? 'Cause Firefox does. Several times a day for me.

Re:How about for their browser?

[mrclevesque]

Sorry to hear that, mine was like that before too

Less politics

[geek]

More code.

Re:Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer better code instead of more code.

Re:Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay blinkered on the task while the shroud of heavy regulation sets in.

Re:Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

At first, less politics more code might sound productive. But in actuality, it's "keep your nose to the grindstone and don't stick your nose in the policies made by those above your pay grade". Of course, those policies will have tremendous effects on us, and we should have a say. All the code we can make won't necessarily change them.

The classical Greek definition of "idiot" is someone who declines to take part in democratic government. It is no less so today.

Re:Less politics

[geek]

The classical Greek definition of "idiot" is someone who declines to take part in democratic government. It is no less so today.

So where does forcing out a CEO who actively took part in democratic government fall?

Re:Less politics

[webnut77]

I wish Firefox would update the window title after closing a tab or switching tabs.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

It falls under participation in politics. Forcing out CEOs who publicly support policies repugnant to the organizations own membership and supporters is good politics. You have freedom of speech, but we have freedom to decline to be associated with you and your speech.

Re: Less politics

[narcc]

The trouble here is that you don't personally find Eich's politics repugnant. If, instead, he was actively supporting white supremacists, you wouldn't see anything wrong with either the criticism Mozilla received, nor would you so vocally object to Eich's resignation at every opportunity. (This is not to imply that one hate group is less repugnant than the other.)

There's no hypocrisy there, except in your own imagination. I can't even begin to guess how you came that that particular conclusion.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

It's not hypocrisy, nor is it either a safe space nor an echo chamber. That's silly rhetoric.

A CEO is the public face of your company. He or she has to represent your brand. Obviously Mozilla's brand was not to prevent Gay couples from having the right to marry.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on Bruce, you know better than that.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

The trouble here is that you don't personally find Eich's politics repugnant.

The actual trouble here is that people want to attack a person who's done something on their own time, without using the company as a mouthpiece to promote their own private views. If he was supporting white supremacists I wouldn't have a problem with it either, because as a private citizen, he has the right to do whatever they please. Now on the other hand if he turned around and started using Mozilla as a mouthpiece to promote those views, I'd have a problem with it.

What continues to surprise me is the number of people that believe that a person should be shamed/punished/etc for what they do as a private citizen. But then stand up and clap their hands when a company turns around and starts pushing political propaganda.

Re: Less politics

[narcc]

When you're the public face of an organization, you don't have that luxury.

Jared Fogle, for example, wasn't using Subway to promote child molestation, but Subway gave him the ax anyway. They dropped him even before there was any trial! Where they wrong to disassociate themselves from Fogle? Would you still say:

I wouldn't have a problem with it either, because as a private citizen, he has the right to do whatever they please.

What if your kid's school teacher openly supported NAMBLA?

Of course, Eich resigned on his own because he believed that was in the best interest of the organization. Mozilla didn't "force him out" like you seem to believe. It was the users who shouted, en masse, that they don't want a hatemonger leading Mozilla.

What continues to surprise me is the number of people that believe that a person should be shamed/punished/etc for what they do as a private citizen.

How, exactly, do you think societies work? Do you think free speech guarantees you freedom from the consequences of that speech?

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't you support the impeachment of Barrack Hussein Obama who also supported the same repugnant policy?

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

Usually in this sort of argument, if people start to curse you out that means you've beaten them. But who are you anyway? Should I care that you don't like my opinion?

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

A CEO is the public face of your company.

I've been trying to list companies for which this is true. My list is really really short.
Maybe you heard of Eich before the controversy, just cause you move in those circles.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm. So, you don't like Bruce's opinion that Eich should have been shown the door for his opinions, so you write a long emotional statement about how you're showing Bruce the door for his opinions. Just a bit of hypocrisy there.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

If he was supporting white supremacists I wouldn't have a problem with it either ...

Well, all of the Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, and oppressors of various sorts can count on you, then.

I'm going to keep standing up for my values, and I support the Mozilla users for standing up for theirs.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

Jared Fogle, for example, wasn't using Subway to promote child molestation, but Subway gave him the ax anyway. They dropped him even before there was any trial! Where they wrong to disassociate themselves from Fogle? Would you still say:

So he was the CEO of subway? Oooh right. Thought we were talking about that, I guess not. You miss the part where he was engaging in *illegal* behavior, and that was the reason that he was dropped? I guess so. Then again, if it had turned out hew as innocent, subway would be on the hook right?

What if your kid's school teacher openly supported NAMBLA?

You mean the impossibility of it? Or don't you know that in-depth background checks are a requirement, and that there are codes of conduct relating to things like that for individuals in such positions. Or would you like to try the and teachers(male and female) have been known to screw kids route?

How, exactly, do you think societies work? Do you think free speech guarantees you freedom from the consequences of that speech?

And there's that part where you believe that because a person has a right, and isn't breaking the law you should attack them. Instead of trying to understand the reasons for their positions instead.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

Well, all of the Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, and oppressors of various sorts can count on you, then.

I'm going to keep standing up for my values, and I support the Mozilla users for standing up for theirs.

You forgot the people who support social justice in there, BLM, Black Panthers, various student unions and a smattering of environmental groups. Just a FYI.

Your values seem to be: "Free speech is only permitted when it doesn't hurt my feelings." Mine just happens to be, a persons speech should be permitted as long as it's legal.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

A CEO is the public face of your company. He or she has to represent your brand. Obviously Mozilla's brand was not to prevent Gay couples from having the right to marry.

CEO's haven't been like that for nearly 25 years, it's different for the "sole ownership" of a company however. They don't represent the brand, they're the guide behind the scenes that makes the brand profitable. Mozilla is Mozilla's brand, nothing more and nothing less.

Re:Less politics

[vel-ex-tech]

Came here looking for this comment. Left satisfied.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

So he was the CEO of subway?

He was paid spokesperson. Usually this goes to a celebrity, they tried an "everyman" who followed their plan for weight loss. Too bad he had a yen for kids.

Yes, public spokespersons have to represent the brand. That's their only job. You might have noticed how fast the celebrity ones get dropped if they are in the news for drugs, deplorable sexual stuff, and violence. Brandon Marshall in the NFL lost two sponsorship deals for following Kapernick in his national anthem protest.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

they're the guide behind the scenes that makes the brand profitable.

I used to work for Steve Jobs. Never for one second was that guy anything behind the scenes. I worked at Pixar, but I hear that Apple did a ton of work to keep people from thinking that the company would founder* with his death (and IMO, it has).

I just can't think of many "behind the scenes" CEOs, whatever size the company is.

* Sometimes, you've gotta love the English language.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

Your values seem to be: "Free speech is only permitted when it doesn't hurt my feelings."

No. You're simply not recognizing that our actions can be free speech as well. When we do our very best to cut off all associations with a person, and to deplore their speech and actions, that is our free speech.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Off the top of your head, can you name the CEOs of Coca Cola, McDonald's, General Electric, Ford, Hasbro, or Walmart?
I used to watch Undercover Boss. That's the only place you hear those names or see those faces.
Apple is of course the exception, being a cult of personality. CEOs are not normally public anything.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's not his real name. You can only have power over him by using his real name!

Here is his real name: Baraq Hussein Soetoro.

Re: Less politics

[narcc]

Let's put this as simply as possible: When the public face of your company actively supports a hate group, it reflects poorly on your organization.

Had Mozilla forced Eich out, they'd have been justified. Neither the organization, it's employees, or their users want to be associated with hate groups. Of course, they did NOT force Eich out, he resigned on his own.

Mozilla didn't do what you claim they did. I'm saying that they'd have been justified, had that actually been the case.

This isn't complicated.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't care about gay marriage one way or another. If gay people want to get married let them its inconsequential to our society as a whole (so is legally recognized heterosexual marriage for that matter). Cue the people screaming about the tax incentives which you don't necessarily get in every situation and the emotional feels you get in marriage which you could have without the government recognizing that union.

What is a drain on our society is advertisers owning all the major forms of communication in our society. If he was better qualified to lead Mozilla into being the best open web platform then I think he should have continued to lead Mozilla even if he was a white supremacist. If he was supporting white supremacy somehow with the platform then he would not be making the best open platform and would cease to be the most qualified. But if he believed that though he didn't like a particular group they still deserved an equal voice in our society (unlike the people who wanted his resignation) then that ceases to be an issue.

Engaging with people with differing opinions than yours is important and that means people with different opinions than you can have roles like CEOs of companies.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between believing anyone can say whatever and each person can judge them, and believing anyone who disagrees with my views is evil and should have their life destroyed. While the second believer is exercising their rights to free speech, they don't actually believe in free speech even if they claim too since they're trying to limit it in others.

narcc's issue is he believes it's proper to overthrow people you don't agree with rather than accepting that you don't agree with them. Taking action to limit someone because of what they said requires you to not believe in free speech rights for everyone thus you don't actually believe in free speech rights at all. The 'proper' way to respond would be to donate to the opposite cause, not to personally attack the person. It's the difference between wining people to your side and killing people on the other side. Both methods give your side more influence, but only the first is the moral way to do it.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that is incorrect.

It is a fantasy that officers of a corporation can "[do] something on their own time" and not have it reflect on their corporation. The executive suite of any corporation have sweeping powers and the individuals in it are identified with that corporation. Corporations know it, citizens know it, you should know it.

When sports figures sign promotional deals with corporations, they often sign a 'morals clause'. This usually states something like, 'I [famous sporting individual] agree not to bring Corp. X into disrepute'. For the executive suite I am not aware of morals clauses in their contracts. Instead it is usually the Board of Directors who exercise that power. If the Board doesn't like the private activities of their CxO, and those private activities become widely known, the Board will routinely step in. Most often the press release that follows will read that 'CxO [name] has decided to step down to spend more time with their family. Corp. X thanks them and wishes them well in their future endeavours.'

In reality what happens is a meeting where the choices are stark. The Board will read the riot act and state, "we can fire you but we don't want the publicity. You've been doing too much of that already. You have 2 weeks to resign, we will make nice, and our story is that you wanted to spend more time with your family. We all win this way. Don't rock the boat if you are smart."

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

Off the top of your head, can you name the CEOs of Coca Cola

The CEO of Coke has not become as well known as Elon Musk, but I went on their web site and clicked on press releases, and he's generally quoted in the releases that discuss any significant financial event in the business. They have "brand ambassadors" for lesser things, but the CEO is definitely representing the brand, and particularly when the brand is marketed to stockholders and investors.

You will find similar things about the CEOs of the other companies you mentioned.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not really speech. You can call it freedom though.

I recognize your opinion, but I question it as an effective means to move towards your goal of people being tolerant. I believe that listening to hateful people and talking to them is a better method than shunning them, which I believe leads to radicalization. It's not the same as agreeing with them.

In short if someone is going to be hateful I will be even more tolerant. That is very often a confusing moment for many people, and they actually find it annoying that I accept them as human beings and ask them about their opinions and reasons instead of verbally fighting them. Instead I say how I would react to a certain problem they are trying to solve with hate, without dismissing the issue that is bothering them. So far all of them have been good people underneath the hateful exterior, no "evil" people yet.

My experience tells me that when you meet people with hate or rejection they become more hateful, and on top of that you've shown them that that's normal.

Re: Less politics

[Gavagai80]

When the CEO takes a political position that alienates a significant fraction of employees, that's bad for business. If Mozilla was afraid of losing GLBT workers, it had to act to ensure no employees would think that the company was trying to break up their marriages.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

He was paid spokesperson. Usually this goes to a celebrity, they tried an "everyman" who followed their plan for weight loss. Too bad he had a yen for kids.

And he was engaging in illegal behavior. Eich's on the other hand wasn't. You're going pretty gun-ho for the whole "if it doesn't reflect my views, they need to be punished" authoritarianism.

Yes, public spokespersons have to represent the brand. That's their only job.

Sure, and in the case of Eich's he wasn't the public spokesman for that brand, it wasn't even his job. So how does that translate again? Right it doesn't.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

Let's put this as simply as possible: When the public face of your company actively supports a hate group, it reflects poorly on your organization. ... Of course, they did NOT force Eich out, he resigned on his own.

So Fogle was a spokesman, but Eich's wan't. Neither were supporting a hate group. The first was engaging in illegal behavior, the second had opinions that you don't like. Good job on the authoritarianism, you opening reeducation camps for wrong think next?

Really? You should go read up on that a bit more, he was forced out. And it cost mozilla a chunk of the marketshare because of their actions, which still hasn't rebounded. Oh you're right, this isn't complicated. It's far more difficult to defend speech when it's speech you disagree with, and you don't appear to have the want or desire to.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

No. You're simply not recognizing that our actions can be free speech as well. When we do our very best to cut off all associations with a person, and to deplore their speech and actions, that is our free speech.

No I recognize it, but feel free to do that all you want. But if you find a person having an opinion that doesn't fit with yours because of the definition of "marriage" you're likely very thin skinned, especially if you want to cut off associations with a person over it.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

Fogle was a company spokesperson, who got fired before the trial started because whether or not he had actually committed any crime, the appearance of his behavior made him unsuitable as a spokesperson.

Was Eich similarly a company spokesperson? You need only look at Mozilla's press releases. He's quoted in them while he's CTO, and if you go on Youtube, you can see that he makes a number of conference keynotes representing the Foundation. Once he's CEO, he writes this piece on inclusiveness which is linked to in this Mozilla Foundation press release. So, there's Eich representing the Mozilla brand on exactly the issue they already know he has a problem with. He doesn't get a chance to represent the foundation again, as they know they have a problem.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

When the CEO takes a political position that alienates a significant fraction of employees, that's bad for business.

Except in his case he didn't take a political position on something. He took a person position. Unless you have actual proof, statements, his words that show this as something else. Then all you have at the end of the day is Mozilla forcing someone out because "reasons they don't like." Which is really no different then the witch hunts for wrong think.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

... So, there's Eich representing the Mozilla brand on exactly the issue they already know he has a problem with. He doesn't get a chance to represent the foundation again, as they know they have a problem.

Thanks for proving my point. He supported Mozilla's corporate culture, and was forced out for a private opinion. In other words, Mozilla acted in a shitty way, and you support going after people who do things privately and on their own time if they don't align with your views.

Re: Less politics

[Mashiki]

You're basically talking "outside the norm" Steve Jobs is one of those. Can you name the CEO of AMD? FYI they're female. How about for GM? The last two GM CEO's? Last 3? Yeah, thought not(FYI out of those last 3, one was also female and was responsible for nearly bankrupting them). That's why a CEO isn't the public face of a company, and why companies promote their brand as the face of the company.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

Because you are an end-user and not an investor in these companies, you might actually think the public face of the companies is a logo or a trademark rather than a human being. Perhaps you think the public face of McDonalds is Ronald McDonald! Or that Sprint's used to be that actor who portrayed a technician. But this naiveté is not shared by the people who are the target audience for the public face that the CEO's appearances and quotations produce. AMD has people to handle the guy who once plugged one of their CPUs into a motherboard. The public face nurtured by the CEO is reserved for investors and business relationships, government, and corporate citizenship. These are all areas in which a decision made outside of the company can have great impact on the company. And so, if you go on the company site, you will see the CEO quoted in the press releases related to those items. At trade shows, you will see these CEOs as keynotes. I am heading for CES in January, where many CEOs you've never heard of who run large tech companies will be speaking, and there will be full halls of their eager target audiences.

Don't you think it might be self-centered to assume someone's not the public face of the company because you don't know who they are?

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

It was only 1967 when the United States Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case. Preventing blacks and whites from marrying, as the State of Virginia (and many others) did with laws on its books until it was forced to remove them in 1967, is an issue of racism, nothing else. One doesn't have to be thin skinned to be disgusted by racism.

Why should I feel any different about gender discrminiation? Texas had a law on the book making homosexual relations illegal in 1998, and two men were arrested for it and similarly to Loving, helped to strike it down in the courts. Marriage discrimination is yet another legal wall erected by the prejudiced. Doesn't take a thin skin at all to oppose it and its supporters.

Re: Less politics

[Bruce Perens]

Eich resigned because of external pressure on the Mozilla organization. I hear that one of the lobbying activities against him was when the dating site "OK Cupid" started informing Firefox users who accessed the site of Eich's activities and that they should download a browser made by people who don't nominate someone with gender discrimination issues to be their CEO. At the time, 8% of OK Cupid customers were there to arrange same-gender meetings.

They felt he was the public face of the company.

Russ Nelson published a piece on what he theorized was the economic motivation of Blacks to be lazy, and was booted off of the Open Source Initiative board. He wasn't thinking about how it would be perceived. A modified version of the piece is still online, but not the version that got him in trouble. In general, executives are seen as the public faces of their organizations even in the case of Nelson, who was not the chairman of the board, but was simply a member of the executive board. In Nelson's case, it wasn't that he made publicity appearances and press releases, it was that he was one of the people with the power to direct the company (and thus a more real face of the company than soneone who just does PR), and folks did not trust that someone who wrote what he did would behave as they would like in that position.

Re: Less politics

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess "Marriage is between a man and a woman" Norgay Rodham Clinton lost the election on this issue.

Less bloat

[Anonymous Coward]

Less code!

Re:Less bloat

[Anonymous Coward]

Less is more.

Re:Less bloat

[Anonymous Coward]

More or less

Re: Less bloat

[Anonymous Coward]

Both are true.

user rights turned into the 'manifesto'

[nimbius]

conveniently the users bill of rights morphed into this corporate-jargon manifesto. its all vague enough that enforcement is almost impossible, but there are some points of hilarity to debate

Individualsâ(TM) security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional.

then give us back cookie control, let us completely disable tiles, and work for a real and meaningful way to thwart intrusive advertising and user tracking.

Individuals must have the ability to shape the Internet and their own experiences on it.

okay. my experience is emphatically not social. Get rid of the video/voice chat feature. sync is pointless to me, so make it an optional add-on. microsummaries are a waste of cpu cycles. the star button is pointless.

Transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability and trust.

then start fixing the bugs. no more of this closed/cantfix or closed/wontfix shit. take the time to explain to users why Firefox is a RAM hog, why performance is miserable, and why stability suffers.

Re:user rights turned into the 'manifesto'

[Anonymous Coward]

Me me me. Forget everyone else.

I see no improvements, ever. Nothing ever seems to improve. Yet I never troubleshoot, so I never notice whether it's Firefox or my addons or just general third-party interference. Mozilla has to fix that for me too.

Despite hundreds of bugs being fixed, I don't care. The only ones that matter are the ones that get WONT/CANTFIXed, even if they're insane or backwards.

And if you don't cater primarily to me and my ridiculous and uninformed whims, then you're not worth trusting.

Re:user rights turned into the 'manifesto'

[Anonymous Coward]

The "user's bill of rights"? What kind of bullshit is that? Reminds me of this bullshit: https://www.irs.gov/taxpayer-bill-of-rights

Concocted by a bunch of authoritarian females with Napoleon complex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex), no doubt.

Re:user rights turned into the 'manifesto'

[Anonymous Coward]

and work for a real and meaningful way to thwart intrusive advertising and user tracking

That was the real reason they got rid of Eich. He wanted to take more steps to block advertising and tracking while the rest of the corporate Mozilla cocksuckers wanted to do the opposite. Notice that he was the only exec fighting against including Pocket and other spyware garbage and that as soon as he was gone they went full steam ahead on selling out their users. Mozilla is trash.

Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Government surveillance is not "getting out of hand". It's going exactly as far and as fast as the State actors pushing for it want. They have made it clear enough that they do not trust the populace and are going to keep us all monitored 24/7, forever. And there is not a damn thing we can do about it. They know it and they laugh at our futile efforts and hand-wringing. Anyone attempting to circumvent or disrupt their plans will feel the harsh baton of the law.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you feel the 'harsh baton' of my booted foot up your ass?

I don't use the Internet for anything important that isn't part of public records to start with (they can make what they will of watching Maru trying to fit himself into too-small boxes, LOL), any 'sensitive' conversations I want to have with anyone are done in person in private locations, and my non-smartphone has the GPS physically disabled (shorted the GPS antenna input to ground on the main PCB, fuck the police), and it's turned OFF when I'm not actively using it. Furthermore I use cash not plastic, and my bills are paid with paper checks sent via the mail. My TV is not a 'smart TV', and there are no microphones or cameras anywhere in my house. Surveil my middle finger, nosy government assholes. You can still have a Private Life in these United States, you just have to try.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

So, do I get this right? You are a homosexual Amish BDSM top with a fetish for sex toys attached to your boots?

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's just you projecting.

Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

You want something? YOU pay for it!

Google, Netflix, Facebook, Mozilla, etc., have enough resources to create a consortium and lobbying group, and thereby build out their own "neutral" network. If it's profitable, then bully for them! Otherwise, they can go fuck off.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless that something is a web browser, then the users can bitch all they want that their edge case isn't being suited by Firefox.

Sounds like a good idea

[Hognoxious]

Every dollar wasted on this is a dollar they can't waste on wrecking the UI, adding features nobody wants, and removing ones everybody likes.

Sounds like a good idea

Re:Sounds like a good idea

[rtb61]

Realistically they should be involved these are core issues of the digital age, a citizens digital rights, the right to privacy, the right to digital security, the right to equal access to the shared global societal digital network and the right to be 'Anonymous' ;D.

Hosts files help vs. DNS tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

By avoiding DNS tracking logs & more (protecting you + speeding you up) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...

Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).

Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.

Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.

Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.

Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.

Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).

Gets data via 10 security sites.

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

Re:Hosts files help vs. DNS tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOO! Mooooo cows MOOOOOOO! Mooo say the cows. YOU HOSTS FILE COWS!!

Re:Hosts files help vs. DNS tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

At least apk's not full of BULL like you are!

seems rather politically biased

[ooloorie]

They include squaring off against the incoming administration of Donald Trump.

Why didn't they "square off" against the Obama administration? Why aren't they "squaring off" against Pelosi? It looks to me like their "squaring off" is not so much based on an interest in free speech and a free Internet, but other political priorities that they have that are unrelated to the Internet.

Re:seems rather politically biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Because mass surveillance and censorship are like war.

They're good things if the guy in the White House has a "D" after his name.

Re:seems rather politically biased

[Anonymous Coward]

They need the malleable leftists' donations and clicks.

Re:seems rather politically biased

[webnut77]

Because mass surveillance and censorship are like war.

They're good things if the guy in the White House has a "D" after his name.

Trump, D. ?

Re:seems rather politically biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

Re:seems rather politically biased

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks to me like their "squaring off" is not so much based on an interest in free speech and a free Internet, but other political priorities that they have that are unrelated to the Internet.

You hit the nail on the head.

Re:seems rather politically biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse him. Of course he knows it's pronounced: Donald Drump

Trump hasn't even taken office yet

[NaCh0]

The problem of living in an insular part of the country is that you lose touch with the other half. When the Mozilla board of directors runs the foundation like their pet political project they are guaranteed to stay a tiny niche product. That's not very healthy when people get you depend on volume for your ad revenue.

Some people will never learn. They will think the "racists" ruined their ivory tower.

Re:Trump hasn't even taken office yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla gets ad revenue?

Re:Trump hasn't even taken office yet

[narcc]

What on earth are you talking about?

Re:Trump hasn't even taken office yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently $421 million in 2015.

Re:Trump hasn't even taken office yet

[110010001000]

He doesn't like Obama because of his "policies".

Re:Trump hasn't even taken office yet

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not ad revenue; that's revenue. Mozilla doesn't run any ads.

Re:Trump hasn't even taken office yet

[Mashiki]

Seems to me, they're talking about why the elites(political/academia/tech/etc) don't understand why they lost. So instead of being introspective and asking "Am I out of touch?" and saying "maybe" they're responding with "No, no. Everyone else is out of touch." This is simply an extension of the "everyone who doesn't follow what I do is a racist/sexist/homophobic/is literally Hitler" and so on. In other words, these people who are pushing that stuff live in such an insular political and social bubble, they don't understand why they actually are wrong. And instead of learning from that, they're doubling down. Just a FYI to people who think that doubling down is a great idea. It doesn't work.

Re:Trump hasn't even taken office yet

[Bruce Perens]

Mozilla gets ad revenue?

They actually get their revenue from directing searches to their partner search engine company, Yahoo for now. The search engine company runs the ads. But it looks like Yahoo might credit part of their revenue from the ads on a Mozilla-originated search to Mozilla.

Put it to a good use.

[raymorris]

If you speak English, I hope you put that skill to some good use.

Mozilla's 990 Form

[Anonymous Coward]

https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/2015_Mozilla_Foundation_Forms_990_Public_Disclosure.pdf
Curious about these items:
Balance Sheet
Investments - publicly traded securities 15,741,855 15,232,060

Reconciliation of Net Assets
Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments -631,871

Investments - Other Securities.
OTHER SECURITIES AND HEDGE FUNDS 4,960,717

General Information on Activities Outside the United States.
CENTRAL AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 0 0 INVESTMENTS 4,960,717.

Transactions With Related Organizations
MOZILLA CORPORATION 6,466,566.TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT

1. What securities does Mozilla have investments in?
2. What Central American/Caribbean securities or hedge funds does Mozilla invest in?
3. Why does the Foundation license its trademarks to Mozilla Corporation, its wholly-own subsidiary? Is that normal?

These were the items that caught my eye.

Re:Mozilla's 990 Form

[Bruce Perens]

What securities does Mozilla have investments in?

I only have the answer to why they have investments. Because they have a significant amount of money on hand, and are holding it in the way that makes the most money for a project. When you put money in a bank, they invest it too. This way generally makes more money than interest from the bank.

What Central American/Caribbean securities or hedge funds does Mozilla invest in?

Don't know that either, but I can say why they do it. Diversification of your financial holdings over multiple currencies and over multiple national economies protects you from a crash in a single economy. The reliability of the US economy is no sure thing at the moment.

Why does the Foundation license its trademarks to Mozilla Corporation, its wholly-own subsidiary? Is that normal?

Yes. In this case I think it's a difference in tax status between the non-profit and the operating company. Sometimes it's done to keep the trademarks from being assets that could be placed in peril in a lawsuit. For-profit entities sometimes offshore the intellectual property rights as a tax shield, but I don't think that's happening here.

Re:Mozilla's 990 Form

[Anonymous Coward]

>I only have the answer to why they have investments.

Yeah, that's not my question.

>Don't know that either, but I can say why they do it.

Again, you answered a question I didn't ask.

>Yes. In this case I think it's a difference in tax status between the non-profit and the operating company

Well, you answered "yes", but then acknowledge that you really don't know in Mozilla's case. I guess this one is my fault for asking such an open-ended question. Here's a specific one: Did Mozilla Foundation get fair market value for licensing it trademarks to Mozilla Corporation, a how was this valuation arrived at?

Re:Mozilla's 990 Form

[Bruce Perens]

Did Mozilla Foundation get fair market value for licensing it trademarks to Mozilla Corporation, a how was this valuation arrived at?

Mozilla Foundation, as a 501(c)3 non-profit, would not base their decisions solely on valuation or profit, nor would they be required to, and indeed they could get in trouble with the IRS if they did. The decision to license to their own operating corporation was so that they could achieve the purposes in their constitution, which have to do with net freedom.

Don't like my answers? Do your own research.

Re:Mozilla's 990 Form

[Anonymous Coward]

>Mozilla Foundation, as a 501(c)3 non-profit, would not base their decisions solely on valuation or profit

There you go again, answering a question I didn't ask. I asked if the Mozilla Corporation paid the Foundation a fair market value for trademark licensing, not whether the Foundation received a profit from it.

>and indeed they could get in trouble with the IRS if they did

No they wouldn't.

>The decision to license to their own operating corporation was so that they could achieve the purposes in their constitution, which have to do with net freedom

Heh, now you're just making shit up.

>Don't like my answers? Do your own research.

I just askin Does anyone else who has some actual knowledge about large 501(c)3 organizations want to chime in?

Corporate formalities must be observed to protect the separation of the entities. Each organization must have a separate governing body and should conduct separate board and committee meetings, with separate minutes taken. The entities also should avoid commingling assets by using separate bank accounts and should maintain an arm’s length relationship. If the subsidiary and the parent will share any resources such as office space or employees, or if one entity is going to provide goods or services to the other, or a license of any intellectual property, the entities should enter into a written resource-sharing, services, or licensing arrangement. A charity must receive at least fair market value for whatever it provides to the for-profit entity.

Re:Mozilla's 990 Form

[Bruce Perens]

MoCo could have paid as little as $1 for the license, along with an agreement to return profits, and that would be fair value. There's no question that the profits were returned.

However, there was never any possibility that any other entity would have been offered the license regardless of what they offered, and IMO had they considered that transaction based on the amount returned rather than achieving their purpose of a free internet, they would have disqualified themselves as a 501(c)3.

How about

[Anonymous Coward]

putting the money towards fixing that 0day vuln in firefox that has been building up large botnets?

I hope they don't waste it in the US

[jenningsthecat]

For at least the duration of Trump's presidency, it seems almost certain that 'net neutrality is done like dinner, government surveillance will increase unchecked, and attempts to cripple encryption will continue unabated. It might be best to spend the money in countries where they have a better chance of getting some traction, at least until some sanity returns to Washington. Or should I have said "New York"? It's so hard to tell these days.

Re:To hell with these infiltrator scumbags.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla in 1991: we're working so the Internet remains free for usage by its users as they see fit.
Us in 1999: awesome! Mozilla 4ever!

Mozilla in 2008: we're still working so the Internet remains free for usage by its users as they see fit.
Us In 2008: meh, Chrome's a better browser, I don't really care as much that it's free, but sure... someone should at least try I guess.

Mozilla in 2016: we're still working so the Internet remains free for usage by its users as they see fit.
Us in 2016: fuck you, Mozilla! Leftists! Extremists! Inclusivity is sooo 1999!

Less code, more security

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics is what transforms an internet of things into an internet of wireless punishment collars for humans.

Re:To hell with these infiltrator scumbags.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla in 2014: You can't work here if you don't support gay marriage.

Mozilla in 2016: Donald Trump just got elected, so we're entering politics to openly oppose him, starting by making all sorts of misleading implications about his planned policy so we can claim victory when he doesn't do the things he wasn't planning to do anyway.

Politics is for the user

[AHuxley]

Keep the browser ahead of any emerging security issues.
Offer really great encryption that is not just another US brand with a trapdoor or backdoor for the NSA, GCHQ.
Get the browser fully supporting modern computer hardware.
No need to fund SJW to correct spelling or suggest new words.
Just code and compile a fast, secure browser. The users can then enjoy the web.
The user will then have a really great secure browser for their own politics and commenting global issues if they want.

They can't even get a decent popup blocker working

[thesjaakspoiler]

so how much can we expect from this? Are they just gonna hire a bunch of lobbyists?