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

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

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.

Less politics

[geek]

More code.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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: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.