Slashdot Mirror


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.

6 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. How about for their browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

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

  2. Re:Less politics by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re: Less politics by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re: Less politics by narcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re: Less politics by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re: Less politics by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...