this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
172 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37713 readers
483 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The author may be a right-wing fellow. Nonetheless, the data he exposes are taken from official Mozilla docs.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 196 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This "report" is exactly what I would expect from Lunduke. It is really sad that this reactionary content comes from someone who I once thought was cool.

The only part I can agree on : the execs at Mozilla are getting paid too much in the current situation.

Now to get to the real meat.

The combined spendings to political organizations make up around 1m$. This is less than the donations made to Mozilla foundation. Considering the very political nature of the foundation, these spendings were likely authorized there.

Now, why would a technology company spend on political organisations? Well, simply put : technology is political. People trying to peddle that technology is not political are trying to sell you the status quo.

Technology companies spend insane amounts of money on lobbying.

Now, why would Mozilla spend money on left-leaning organisations? Well, simply put : left-leaning politics (though embedded in neoliberal Californian ideals of the internet) are embedded at the core of Mozilla from the start with Mozilla manifesto.

I'm not gonna get into why Lunduke thinks that these organisations are bad but consider it a red flag.

Now, what I would ask to anyone reading this : why do you think Lunduke is ignoring this? Why would Lunduke try to paint this picture?

[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 63 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'd say the CEO is the only one who's overpaid. The other executives make between $200k to $370k, which is a lot of money but barely noteworthy imo.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 38 points 1 year ago

If they're living in SF, then it's even less money. It's a lot, don't get me wrong, but it takes a lot of money to afford to live in (or around) that city.

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago

Yeah, for sure, the CEO is the clear outlier. I just count them as an exec though that might be misusing how that term is used colloquially.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This “report” is exactly what I would expect from Lunduke. It is really sad that this reactionary content comes from someone who I once thought was cool.

It's sad. When I discovered the Linux Action Show back in 2006 or 2007, he seemed like a fun and interesting person. But it's amazing how quickly that perception proved false. And his Twitter feed in 2020 was a dumpster fire.

Well, simply put : left-leaning politics (though embedded in neoliberal Californian ideals of the internet) are embedded at the core of Mozilla from the start with Mozilla manifesto.

Which is so fascinating given the involvement of people like Brendan Eich, and also descending from noted Libertarian and capitalist Marc Andreesen

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, the neolib Californian ideals of the internet was anarchist so always anti-gov but not anti-corporate. That's how you end up with compromise points in the Mozilla manifesto like this:

Commercial involvement in the development of the internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical.

Principle 9

Worth mentioning that Eich came from the Netscape days and was highly influential on a technical level.

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Worth mentioning that Eich came from the Netscape days and was highly influential on a technical level.

Oh yeah for sure. Foundational on the browser, and with developing JavaScript. But a shit person. I guess the Prop8 business was finally a bridge too far, PR-wise

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, of course. I'm not defending Eich, just some insight on how he got there :P

[–] zaphod@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Disregard everything below. I mistook the comment about neo-liberalism for a quote from this guy.

I'm leaving the text up for context, but this criticism is misdirected.

==

It says everything you need to know that he (I suspect deliberately) confuses neo-liberal for left-wing ideology.

Neo-liberal = capitalist with a smoking jacket and a fancy degree on the wall.

SV is absolute rife with anarcho-capitalist ideology. I can only dream of a version of SV that actually carries some measure of economically liberal ideology.

My guess is this guy is confusing social liberalism with economic liberalism. But, of course, that's the entire right wing schtick these days.

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

I might be confused but Lunduke doesn't mention neoliberalism or left-wing ideology in that article - I did.

Of course neoliberalism is to the right of what I'd consider to be left-wing and it works very much hand in hand with conservatism but it's usually socially liberal. I think Mozilla definitely fits a weird bill, it's hard to pinpoint because the principles are largely about individual rights yet the addendum definitely feels atleast socially liberal. That said, it seems most of the causes they support are left-wing.

[–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem isn't that they're spending money on political causes and I wouldn't even expect them to do some false balance bs where they'd spend money on left and right wing politics, but spending money on political causes with almost zero transparency (like what do orgs do with the money, how effective are they, are they actually aligned with certain values, who is involved in these orgs, etc) seems fishy as fuck.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] honk@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

Ieft leaning? These orgs sound more like the typical liberal right centrist orgs from america lol

[–] SmoochyPit@beehaw.org 137 points 1 year ago

It is stated within the article that Mckensie Mack is non-binary, however the author chose to refer to them with she/her pronouns. Regardless of “politics” and “beliefs”, I don’t agree with ignoring or disrespecting somebody’s identity.

[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 103 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So where’s Lunduke’s articles on the numerous right-wing shady organizations? I haven’t listened to or read anything by this hack in many years now because of the fact that he has a clear agenda motivated by his own political bullshit.

Maybe find an article that is written by someone reputable and post that to numerous communities.

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 33 points 1 year ago

This right here.

He was always a shit. But seeing him in 2020 parroting alt-right talking points and defending the Proud Boys showed exactly what kind of person he is.

[–] ichbinjasokreativ@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't really care if someone fights in both directions if their points are valid. Misgendering or not, mozilla has had some troubling developments internally and it's good people shed light on it.

[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Shedding light with bias is the whole problem with media in the current landscape. They're never done objectively. All it does is provide a feedback loop within the echo chamber, further dividing people with the result of "see, I told you the other side is bad." Motivations matter. Lunduke has, in the past, proven where his motivations are. If he actually reported on all political, economic, technological goings-on in an objective manner, given he is a pretty good communicator, then I'd withdraw my opposition to him. Until such time, I keep to my opinion of him and have no interest in his articles. I can form my own opinion of Mozilla independent of what Lunduke or FOX News or MSNBC tries to get me to ingest.

[–] Quexotic@beehaw.org 88 points 1 year ago

Given the author's political affiliation and the apparent lack of coverage of this anywhere else I find it difficult to make any conclusions other than those that would indicate the author's politically makes.

[–] CyberCatBytes@kbin.social 66 points 1 year ago

It's so painfully obvious that the article was written to push a personal agenda rather than objectively address the topic

[–] SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Without having read the whole thing, so I'm not sure how clear the article is about it: the important part is that donations to Mozilla go to the Mozilla Foundation, which does the political campaigning/social justice etc. stuff, while Firefox development happens in the Mozilla Corporation funded with search engine deals etc.

So again:

Donations to Mozilla do not go towards Firefox development

[–] sab@kbin.social 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And looking independently at what the Mozilla Foundation does: Thank God for the Mozilla Foundation. The do incredibly important work and is as far as I know the strongest advocacy group for a free and open net.

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 30 points 1 year ago

The EFF is probably competitive there. But clearly they’re both on the same side of most issues, so not really a competition.

[–] mathemachristian@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The author may be a right-wing fellow. Nonetheless, the data he exposes is not fake!

This should not be noteworthy much less be sufficient to make the article seem credible.

[–] TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org 25 points 1 year ago

Hey folks - Just want to note that the !Technology mod team is aware of the reports on this post. After some discussion we decided to leave the thread up, since it had already generated a decent amount of good discussion despite the problems with the article itself. However, I do want to make it clear that we do not condone intentionally misgendering people.

If you have any questions or feedback, feel free to reply here or DM me.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 year ago

Besides the CEO thing, this makes me wanna donate even more to the foundation

[–] elouboub@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And this is one of the many reasons I don't donate to Firefox. Firefox employees should really fork that project and make it better than what it is now instead of just being Google's dog + an excuse to pay millions to a single person and hundreds of thousands to random individuals, who have nothing to do with Firefox.

400M in cash could go to a lot of development efforts. They could rewrite Firefox entirely in Rust, make it run on any platform, move the needle on web technologies in a big way, hell, they could make their own damn phone with that kind of money, or even write their own competitor to ChromeOS.

But instead...

[–] swnt@feddit.de 26 points 1 year ago

And what do you do after three years? Then the cash will be used up.

Mozilla isn't just developing the Firefox browser. Technology is inherently political - and educating people and influencing actors politically on the free and open web is very important. Firefox is much less likely to mis-align away from their browser users than chrome simply because they don't have the misaligned incentives like the chrome Browser which is equally made by the largest internet advertising firm of the world.

They even has created FirefoxOS for phone at some point in the past 10 years. But I don't remember what happened with that.

[–] astraeus@programming.dev 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They tried making a phone already and it failed to gain steam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS

[–] aranym@lemmy.name 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's worth noting that KaiOS, a fork of Firefox OS, has been successful - particularly in developing markets.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you on about? This is super confusing to me. Mozilla does a lot of great work. It's insanely hard to make and develop a web browser... Are you aware of that? Apple probably spends a large fraction of the amount Mozilla does and yet safari benefits more from open source than Mozilla and is still one of the biggest shit piles on the planet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] totallynotfbi@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've heard that it wouldn't it be possible due to tax laws, but I do wish that you could donate directly to Mozilla Corporation itself. The foundation's advocacy work is important, but it would also be important to ensure Firefox's continued development without them having to rely on Google

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago

You could just buy one of their products (Pocket, VPN, etc.) and not use it if you want.

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Audacity9961@feddit.ch 5 points 1 year ago

To the foundation for their advocacy.

[–] MrApples@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A Lunduke article??!? Ewww. To the unsub button I go! Thought beehaw was better than this..

load more comments
view more: next ›