This casual tone coming from Mozilla, in a year where they've laid off entire devisions of their business[1] seems a little out of touch. I think they have a lot of work to do in repairing their brand, and showing their core following that they can be trusted.
I think Mozilla might need a little bit of self-love.
Seems like the opposite honestly, their core following blows and can't be relied on to save them. Now that they're focusing on the times again Firefox is the best browser on Android for anyone who cares about a sane mobile ui or reliable core features like dark mode and ad-blocking. If it were up to the core audience we'd still be trapped on the desktop as the world gravitates more and more towards mobile.
Companies which are run for good intentions are often hard to work for, pay less etc. You can view it through the lense of employee as consumer - if people are likely to agree with the moral mission of the company, they're likely to be willing to work for less wages.
It's weirdly common and makes no sense to me this line of argument, I've seen independent newspapers attacked for paying less than (evil) big media companies. The devil pays well! That's the deal! Good guys can't/don't because they're trying to venture outside the huge raw capitalistic currents, and the employee-consumer effect. Ironically companies trying to do good which do pay well then get attacked for their profligacy with limited resources.
Underneath all this (especially on a still semi-elite tech site) I think a (societal) system with big problems pushing people into complicity creates a compulsion to attack anyone seemingly slightly nobler in their mission, in an to quash pervasive cognitive dissonance.
There's also this fun story [0], which was discussed here [1]. Fits nicely with Mozilla saying: "We’re here to prove that you can have an ethical tech business." Start by caring for your workers first, instead of giving pay raises to CEOs, under whose leadership the company's been struggling.
I get the impression that Mozilla is a bloated organisation that's resting on goodwill it built up back when Firefox was a compelling user experience.
I think one of the main reasons anyone uses Firefox nowadays is because they believe in the mission and find good values alignment with a player that has more independence than Google.
With a constant string of red flags and negative press, I wonder what the next version of Mozilla will look like. Personally, I wouldn't bet on them surviving and thriving for much longer.
I feel a core part of the Firefox-using crowd vouch for it because they believe in the Mozilla mission from years back, and feel a strong value alignment with the company. I don't think they've got enough goodwill built up to ride things out forever.
I get the intuition re CEO pay raises too, but in the market for CEOs you've got to be competitive, right? If you're offering considerably less than market, you aren't going to get top talent. And imagining hiring a CEO, I'd be worried about that.
I'm sure Mozilla gets a benefit from being not-evil in that they can successfully pay a little less, but I'm also sure it's not all that big a benefit.
I have an article in my personal wiki titled "How to Unfuck Firefox". It contains a list of the broken default behavior, workarounds, and long-standing unfixed bugs that have caused me great pain over the last decade.
It is thus ironic in the extreme that Mozilla is spending time and money on a campaign called "Unfuck the Internet" at a time that they're coming under fire for squandering their financial resources on CEO pay and pet projects instead of focusing their efforts on disrupting the Chrome/Webkit monopoly.
I think it's gross to pay the CEO a high salary if you're asking people for donations, but Mozilla isn't; they're self-funded. So if they want to blow all that money on their CEO, I guess it's their call.
>instead of focusing their efforts on disrupting the Chrome/Webkit monopoly.
How do you know they're not doing that? Its a large organization.
Also, it is very hard to hire quality people at lower salaries, its just the nature of the beast. I work in life sciences and we work primarily in the public health sector (vaccines) and it is amazingly hard to find talented scientists when the larger companies in our area vacuum up the talent pool each year. We're not a non-profit, so our salaries are bit higher, but I can imagine how hard it must be hiring for a non-profit. Especially STEM grads. If you're a quality dev at FAANG or some-such, how much of a salary hit are you willing to take to work on an open source browser?
Dang, lots of Mozilla hate. OK, I'll take the bait.
Why don't we have more advocates for unplugging from the internet? A reasonable person that has lived both online and offline lives would certainly come to the conclusion that online life is inherently inferior to an "offline" life. Social media is inherently unhealthy and attracts people with unhealthy lifestyles and choices. Why should Mozilla's mission be to promote a "healthy" and "online" life when "healthy" and "online" we know cannot coexist?
Like, instead of donating to Mozilla to promote good social media use for teenagers/children, how about donating to $NONPROFIT to give low-income families a quality Boy Scouts/camping experience and learn how to live and enjoy life through healthier means for example? We do not have to make online life the norm.
When people say that social media is unhealthy, they usually have in mind a certain generation of social media when like counts had been introduced, an algorithmically-generated feed, a membership that sought to include everyone, including your family members, etc. Essentially that kind of social media only arose towards the end of the first decade of the new millennium when Facebook became entrenched.
Yet many older members of HN spent a significant portion of our lives on the internet of the late 1990s and early 2000s, and we don’t feel that that online life was destructive. If anything, it was often liberating: someone growing up in a strict conservative community or in a relatively poor country could discover there was more out there. A broad range of smaller special-interest forums instead of a feed-generating one-stop-shop like Facebook or Reddit, tended to keep partisan politics and conspiracy theories away.
I’m not pessimistic that that kind of good internet socializing can’t be restored for much of the population – I deleted my Facebook and Reddit accounts years ago and yet I still have found enjoyable connections with other people on various hobby forums. Some independent forums are struggling as younger generations are lost to walled gardens like Facebook, but there are efforts that could be made to fight this.
I keep in touch with so many friends who I probably wouldn't have otherwise using social media. You could argue that maintaining so many relationships is unhealthy but I think it's a good thing to keep friends that I've cultivated over the last decade of my life. And usually when I need to get stuff done it's nice to have friends to call upon who are interested in helping.
The internet can be used for a lot of good and it sounds like you're argument is akin to saying telephones are bad because of call center scammers.
I've completely stopped my donations to Mozilla until they get rid of her CEO and management. They're completely irresponsible, answer to no one, and have totally screwed up that org by diverting funds to all kinds of nonsense instead of concentrating on delivering a good product. I've also stopped using FF because I've lost confidence in the team managing security of it.
I agree with you, but the only alternative is Chrome. If it comes down to Chrome or nothing, I'm probably just going to quit using the internet and go live in the forest.
Checked the article. 100% politics mixed with product advertisement and general "oh we're so caring" virtue signalling, 0% actual care about the Internet.
Netflix releases, Facebook containers and regulated political ads is what the Internet needs? Fuck that.
(Just to clarify - I'm not saying those are invalid or non-issues, but that it's extremely hard for me to think of those as priorities for one of the last remaining [semi-?]independent browser vendors.)
Maybe this a stupid question but why does Mozilla even need a separate Corporation with top heavy (and fairly inept) execs and CEO?
Mozilla the _Foundation_ is the recipient of donations, why can't the developer teams work under the foundation directly, as they would for an NGO? Maybe my ignorance but I assume that is more or less the model of the Linux Foundation?
There's some content in the Mozilla Foundation wiki page:
"Unlike the Mozilla Foundation, the Mozilla Corporation is a tax-paying entity, which gives it much greater freedom in the revenue and business activities it can pursue. From 2004 to 2014, the majority of revenue came from a deal with Google, which was the default search engine in the Firefox web browser."
I know this is probably just their new marketing campaign, but there's this nugget of truth to it. I used to be so optimistic about the internet--about bringing the entirety of human knowledge to everybody's front door. But, the reality has proven to be so much more... complex. I really hope we do find a way get past this awkward teenage phase it seems to be having.
I really wish Mozilla would just focus on making Firefox the best browser it can be. Stop with the gimmicks like VPN and DoH. Give us (back) keyboard shortcuts and fix bugs; unfuck Mozilla first.
> Stop pandering and go back to making a decent browser...
Once I saw that they expended significant resources and thought on changing 'Master Password' to 'Primary Password,' I knew that there was no hope for them. They are fundamentally unserious.
This is even worse. 'As such, comments on the bug outside of those which advance completing the task at hand will be removed.' In other words, dissent will not be tolerated.
I don’t trust Mozilla these days. Normandy. When that certificate expired it also disabled NoScript in the Tor browser which disabled some security. Might not be a coincidence.
There are also a couple of other things Mozilla has done that seemed not in the good will of its users.
Firefox 47 was probably one of the last few good releases.
Good idea on paper but hypocrisy is disturbing because it is obviously not obvious to Mozilla.
"It’s noisy out there. We are inundated with sensational headlines every minute, of every day."
Firefox home page with clickbait from Pocket is not helping. Maybe start with introspection?
"Let’s take back control from those who violate our privacy just to sell us stuff we don’t need."
Maybe continue by not taking a giant check from Google every year before telling others to boycot companies violating privacy.
Mozilla is in such giant conflict of interest and common sense and that reflects on the main product. As a result, web suffers. So as others said, it first has to unfck itself. Sooner the better.
So, the "UNFCK the internet" landing page is transmitting the x-clacks-overhead header [1] which is heartwarming, but then I noticed that https://xclacksoverhead.org/ itself tracks you with google-analytics.com, which I find rather against the spirit, both of the whole GNU Terry Pratchett effort and the UNFCK the internet campaign.
[+] [-] lewisflude|5 years ago|reply
I think Mozilla might need a little bit of self-love.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-lays-off-250-employees...
[+] [-] e737eyrhehrh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zimablue|5 years ago|reply
It's weirdly common and makes no sense to me this line of argument, I've seen independent newspapers attacked for paying less than (evil) big media companies. The devil pays well! That's the deal! Good guys can't/don't because they're trying to venture outside the huge raw capitalistic currents, and the employee-consumer effect. Ironically companies trying to do good which do pay well then get attacked for their profligacy with limited resources.
Underneath all this (especially on a still semi-elite tech site) I think a (societal) system with big problems pushing people into complicity creates a compulsion to attack anyone seemingly slightly nobler in their mission, in an to quash pervasive cognitive dissonance.
[+] [-] ConsiderCrying|5 years ago|reply
[0]: https://news.slashdot.org/story/20/09/23/1528219/firefox-usa...
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24563698&ref=hvper.com
[+] [-] lewisflude|5 years ago|reply
I think one of the main reasons anyone uses Firefox nowadays is because they believe in the mission and find good values alignment with a player that has more independence than Google.
With a constant string of red flags and negative press, I wonder what the next version of Mozilla will look like. Personally, I wouldn't bet on them surviving and thriving for much longer.
I feel a core part of the Firefox-using crowd vouch for it because they believe in the Mozilla mission from years back, and feel a strong value alignment with the company. I don't think they've got enough goodwill built up to ride things out forever.
[+] [-] NoImmatureAdHom|5 years ago|reply
I'm sure Mozilla gets a benefit from being not-evil in that they can successfully pay a little less, but I'm also sure it's not all that big a benefit.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bityard|5 years ago|reply
It is thus ironic in the extreme that Mozilla is spending time and money on a campaign called "Unfuck the Internet" at a time that they're coming under fire for squandering their financial resources on CEO pay and pet projects instead of focusing their efforts on disrupting the Chrome/Webkit monopoly.
[+] [-] s17n|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdekoz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ksk|5 years ago|reply
How do you know they're not doing that? Its a large organization.
Also, it is very hard to hire quality people at lower salaries, its just the nature of the beast. I work in life sciences and we work primarily in the public health sector (vaccines) and it is amazingly hard to find talented scientists when the larger companies in our area vacuum up the talent pool each year. We're not a non-profit, so our salaries are bit higher, but I can imagine how hard it must be hiring for a non-profit. Especially STEM grads. If you're a quality dev at FAANG or some-such, how much of a salary hit are you willing to take to work on an open source browser?
[+] [-] skim_milk|5 years ago|reply
Why don't we have more advocates for unplugging from the internet? A reasonable person that has lived both online and offline lives would certainly come to the conclusion that online life is inherently inferior to an "offline" life. Social media is inherently unhealthy and attracts people with unhealthy lifestyles and choices. Why should Mozilla's mission be to promote a "healthy" and "online" life when "healthy" and "online" we know cannot coexist?
Like, instead of donating to Mozilla to promote good social media use for teenagers/children, how about donating to $NONPROFIT to give low-income families a quality Boy Scouts/camping experience and learn how to live and enjoy life through healthier means for example? We do not have to make online life the norm.
[+] [-] Mediterraneo10|5 years ago|reply
Yet many older members of HN spent a significant portion of our lives on the internet of the late 1990s and early 2000s, and we don’t feel that that online life was destructive. If anything, it was often liberating: someone growing up in a strict conservative community or in a relatively poor country could discover there was more out there. A broad range of smaller special-interest forums instead of a feed-generating one-stop-shop like Facebook or Reddit, tended to keep partisan politics and conspiracy theories away.
I’m not pessimistic that that kind of good internet socializing can’t be restored for much of the population – I deleted my Facebook and Reddit accounts years ago and yet I still have found enjoyable connections with other people on various hobby forums. Some independent forums are struggling as younger generations are lost to walled gardens like Facebook, but there are efforts that could be made to fight this.
[+] [-] xmprt|5 years ago|reply
The internet can be used for a lot of good and it sounds like you're argument is akin to saying telephones are bad because of call center scammers.
[+] [-] zajio1am|5 years ago|reply
Internet is not social media.
[+] [-] Jerry2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] encom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dblohm7|5 years ago|reply
Would you care to elaborate?
[+] [-] troughway|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] drdaeman|5 years ago|reply
Netflix releases, Facebook containers and regulated political ads is what the Internet needs? Fuck that.
(Just to clarify - I'm not saying those are invalid or non-issues, but that it's extremely hard for me to think of those as priorities for one of the last remaining [semi-?]independent browser vendors.)
[+] [-] ForHackernews|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoingIsLearning|5 years ago|reply
Mozilla the _Foundation_ is the recipient of donations, why can't the developer teams work under the foundation directly, as they would for an NGO? Maybe my ignorance but I assume that is more or less the model of the Linux Foundation?
[+] [-] kamikaz1k|5 years ago|reply
"Unlike the Mozilla Foundation, the Mozilla Corporation is a tax-paying entity, which gives it much greater freedom in the revenue and business activities it can pursue. From 2004 to 2014, the majority of revenue came from a deal with Google, which was the default search engine in the Firefox web browser."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation?wprov=sfla1
[+] [-] atomicfiredoll|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teamspirit|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nix23|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] banachtarski|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cherrycherry98|5 years ago|reply
"Back to Mozilla -- in my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only:
1. Building THE reference implementation web browser, and
2. Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
3. There is no 3."
http://archive.is/umaau (edit, using archive link)
I couldn't agree more.
[+] [-] bambax|5 years ago|reply
Mozilla is fcked up. May we humbly suggest you unfck yourself first; then we can talk.
[+] [-] greatgib|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vsviridov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeveb|5 years ago|reply
Once I saw that they expended significant resources and thought on changing 'Master Password' to 'Primary Password,' I knew that there was no hope for them. They are fundamentally unserious.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1644807
This is even worse. 'As such, comments on the bug outside of those which advance completing the task at hand will be removed.' In other words, dissent will not be tolerated.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1643142
[+] [-] utopian3|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Santosh83|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iJohnDoe|5 years ago|reply
There are also a couple of other things Mozilla has done that seemed not in the good will of its users.
Firefox 47 was probably one of the last few good releases.
[+] [-] ksk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 1023bytes|5 years ago|reply
While reading this on the Mozilla blog...
[+] [-] detaro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freediver|5 years ago|reply
"It’s noisy out there. We are inundated with sensational headlines every minute, of every day."
Firefox home page with clickbait from Pocket is not helping. Maybe start with introspection?
"Let’s take back control from those who violate our privacy just to sell us stuff we don’t need."
Maybe continue by not taking a giant check from Google every year before telling others to boycot companies violating privacy.
Mozilla is in such giant conflict of interest and common sense and that reflects on the main product. As a result, web suffers. So as others said, it first has to unfck itself. Sooner the better.
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|5 years ago|reply
_______________
[1] http://www.gnuterrypratchett.com/
But note there's two google trackers on that page.