top | item 44578424

(no title)

rishav_sharan | 7 months ago

I think the key here is that they didn't have money to do both.

If they had money enough for medicine, then why beg for donation?

discuss

order

sothatsit|7 months ago

I'm not trying to defend Mozilla begging for donations when they really don't need them. My point is that cherry-picking one expense that you don't like, and then saying all the donations go to that, is cherry-picking the financials, and is misleading.

tete|7 months ago

> I'm not trying to defend Mozilla begging for donations when they really don't need them.

They essentially do. The problem is they have a greedy, self-obsessed CEO taking it.

closewith|7 months ago

You're arguing that money isn't fungible. It's absurd.

Forgeties79|7 months ago

You gift me $100 on Venmo or cashapp or whatever to go dinner with my partner. I transfer it to my bank. It’s in the same bank account as all my other liquid cash. How can either of us ever say whether or not I spent that specific $100 on dinner?

Mozilla/FF has a pot of money that donations go in to, which is the same pot they use to operate as well as pay people, which includes their CEO.

chii|7 months ago

> How can either of us ever say whether or not I spent that specific $100 on dinner?

there's no such thing as a specific $100.

The donation of the $100 was contingent on you not having $100 for dinner. If it turns out you _did_ have $100 for dinner, but now that you received $100 in donations, you can choose to also spend the extra $100 on something else (which the donor may or may not like).

It is on the donor to figure out whether donating the $100 is worth it - at least the recipient needs to declare all their financials, so they'd have the info to make a judgement on future donations.