But it means we’re probably more susceptible to propaganda that accuses corporations of corporate bullshit, whether the accusation has merit or not.
Exactly. It's a different variation. I think the Mozilla stuff is more a sleepwalking echo chamber than an intentional campaign, but at a certain point the difference doesn't matter.
I still don’t want to see any unsolicited ads and this feels like the initial steps to try to make it more palatable to eventually try to force users to accept ads back into their lives.
Right, there's still a slippery slope issue here. I actually think it was a good thing that Mozilla was coming up with add-on products to create a revenue stream. I would love to, for instance, pay for a 2TB Mozilla Drive over Google Drive. I would rather do that than the ads.
Thank you for breathing a bit of sanity into this thread. Same here. Some commenters were like "oh there's already too many adds" and I was like wait, what? They're not adding more adds to Firefox, are they? The article doesn't suggest that.
The "Mozilla bad" crowd echo chamber has gotten completely out of control in my opinion, and it's an avalanche of low effort comments, dozens of upvotes, and it's kind of a self sustaining echo chamber that exists because it exists.
I think the only real path forward is for a developer to figure out a way to decentralize video hosting
That's what Peertube is all about. It's like the Lemmy version of Youtube. And it seems to have real funding and development mojo.
I would emphatically reject that any progress is being made. I'll be moving on to other conversations.
I was using them interchangeably. I guess one is understood to be kind of a general foundation or overall company, whereas Firefox is just the browser itself
Your argument that hitting at the CEO ignores the whole context of market dominance of Google could IMHO also used against your argument: If the CEO is so powerless that she cannot take the responsibility for the decline of Mozilla, than why does she get payed at all.
That's my argument? I don't recall supporting the CEO pay. Pretty sure I said I don't like it. And just to be clear, I am finding it hard to justify that much for a CEO. So that's not turning my argument against me, because that was never my argument.
What it would really look like to, as you say, "turn my argument against me" would be something that speaks to Google's search monopoly, ads monopoly, and hundredfold advantage in revenue, and why, in light of those facts, they would imply that Mozilla should have more market share. Like if I forgot to carry a two somewhere in my math, or why they are actually proof of a synergy that Mozilla is benefiting from that I'm not accounting for. Those would be examples of turning the arg against me, and I'm happy to hear it if there is one.
Non-profit doesn't mean that there's no employees. They're still organizations that have a cash flow, seek to raise funds, and employ people to serve their mission. Most non-profits have paid employees.
Right and that has existed long before today. And I can't find anything in this article suggesting that the start page, or anywhere else, is going to be reallocated towards new ads which is what it sounds like the commenter above me was suggesting.
I mean I don't love it, but I'm also not sure what the argument is supposed to be about how this ties to browser market share. Mozilla made $593 million from their most recently released financials. The CEO made $6.9 million. My calculator tells me that's 1.16%.
So is the argument that Mozilla that if they set the CEO salary to $0, used it all on more developers, that would spin up a browser experience that's so improved it would lead to more market share? A 1% change in Mozilla's spending will bring them to 50% market share? 40%? 20%?
What's the cause and effect here? Do we even actually know that that's true, that it even has anything whatsoever to do with development choices at all? I get that the CEO is an easy target but I think assuming that is explaining market share ignores things like Google's dominance of search and ads, and how those piles of cash drive initiatives like Android and Chromebooks, which helps propel Chrome to dominant market share. Those are the drivers of market share. I don't even think people have even tried to begin to think through this argument in real terms, it's just a lot of knee-jerk reaction to news stories disconnected from any specific idea of cause and effect.
Did I miss something? I don't think the browser is going to be full of ads?
It's comments like this that concern me. It's extrapolating on a worst case hypothetical, and setting it equal to a present day reality of Google's hundred billion dollar advertising empire.
It doesn't mean there's nothing to be concerned about, but I think you need to understand the difference between possible bad thing, and fanning the flames of mob mentality.
You know who also also wasn't always evil? VLC. And guess what, they're still not evil! Even though they have turned town tens of millions of dollars that would have compromised their software. So, what does that prove? Maybe that measured concern should be combined with an ability to be nuanced on a case by case basis.