• BentiGorlich@gehirneimer.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Actually no, I don’t want to hold both to the same standard. Google is a for profit company. I expect them to do shady shit. I expect more out of Mozilla. Doesn’t mean that they screwed this up the way the media says they did. They screwed up the communication big time

    • Gerudo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Just being non-profit doesn’t mean an org won’t do shady stuff.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Yeh, I have higher standards for Mozilla, but I’m also more willing to trust them if they say they are making it right.
      I trust and expect very little good from Google, other than convenience.

    • vapeloki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      A company that is able to pay 20 millions a year to a ceo is for profit. Change my mind

      • BentiGorlich@gehirneimer.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The company itself is not for profit. The CEO gets payed way too much, but a for-profit company would return money to the owners (mostly shareholders/investors), which Mozilla is not

        • vaguerant@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Before continuing, I want to specify that I’m agreeing with you but clarifying the situation because there is a business interest involved here.

          The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit with several wholly-owned, for-profit business subsidiaries, most notably the Mozilla Corporation. The Corporation markets and distributes several Mozilla products, including the Firefox browser, as well as its other commercial ventures like Pocket. The corporate subsidiaries’ profits do get returned to the owner of those businesses, which is the Foundation.

        • vapeloki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          16 hours ago

          That is a very American definition of for profit.

          Here in Germany, a non-profit is not allowed to do any profit. They are allowed to cover their costs, that’s it. (Of course it is more complicated but that is the essence).

          For years and years, Mozilla is doing shady stuff.

          Let’s for example look the way how they enabled DoH. Or their decision to let themselves pay by google for making google the default search engine. Or now, spinning up their own ad network.

          And on the other hand, if google does something like their new ad auction stuff (that is run completely in your browser and the api is open btw) than there are only bad intentions, according to some folks.

          If we keep argumenting this way, Mozilla will make itself the very thing we hate, and we are loosing a very important alternative to chrome

          So, now, I am not willing to give them any more slag. They have to change

          • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Google the company only has bad intentions, despite what many working for Google might want to achieve. It’s proven time and time again that it couldn’t care less about anything other than profit, and if you don’t think profit over everything isn’t nefarious, then we just disagree.

            That said, I agree with everything else you said.

            • vapeloki@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Just to clarify. Google is not good. Google sees us as the product.

              But: just because it is this way, misrepresentation of a real privacy feature, just because it is Google, is still bad. And treating Mozilla with silk gloves does make this worse, because it seems to lack objectivity.

              And we, as a privacy loving, opensource breathing, community can not campaign for our goals successfully if we lack objectivity in communication.

          • BentiGorlich@gehirneimer.deOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Here in Germany, a non-profit is not allowed to do any profit

            That is just not true… You are not allowed to pay your profits to anyone, but investing it or building reserves is absolutely permitted and a really important thing to do especially if you’re dependent on donations…

            So, now, I am not willing to give them any more slag. They have to change

            I agree, but that will never make me use Chrome or any Chromium based browser. Like probably a lot of people here I do not use vanilla Firefox, but rather LibreWolf and the like

            • vapeloki@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Here in Germany, a non-profit is not allowed to do any profit

              That is just not true… You are not allowed to pay your profits to anyone, but investing it or building reserves is absolutely permitted and a really important thing to do especially if you’re dependent on donations…

              As mentioned, it is of course more complicated. But I guarantee you, that german courts and the “IRS” will revoke your non profit status if you pay 20 millions to your CEO. I was chairman in a few german non profits, and the requirements are high.