this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
393 points (97.8% liked)
Firefox
17898 readers
60 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
- Mozilla Manifesto, Principle 6, emphasis mine
So how does not running a virtual soapbox that is niche and most do not care about affect the public's ability to participate in the internet from where they are?
I'm not sure if you didn't understand the point or are cherry picking words to satiate your feelings?
Because if Mozilla can't practice what it preaches, while it spews $65 million of venture capital at AI companies, something is wrong.
And I'm not cherry picking words, I'm responding to your question with their answer: centralization and non-interoperability are problems, and decentralization with interoperable protocols is the answer they propose.
Btw, I scanned through some of your posts and noticed you aren't a fan of AI either. While running this little social network and GenAI do not have to be mutually exclusive, Steve Teixeira was fired because he refused to "innovate" in GenAI and, if I recall correctly, Mozilla.social was one of his projects.
You might not care about the lives of birds, but if a canary in the coal mine dies...
Something is wrong.
They do not propose them for the internet, simply opting out of hosting Mastodon. A glorified look at me RSS feed with built in validation (likes). They're not even suggesting they'll move away from posting on it.
I do not believe in GenAI and do believe it'll fail. I do not believe I'm guaranteed to be right. Folk seem to like confidently incorrect answers and are hooked on them. Mozilla need to diversify their revenue streams and maybe they get it right. If users expect that integration, and rivals do it, then they will perceive it as rubbish and not use it or move to it, which could be a failure.
I do not know this Steve chap, but I do know devs are asked to work on stuff and if they refuse, they're not doing their job. In that case, you do it, or leave. He got fired and ultimately if he wasn't running it, they even find someone else (was there anyone willing?) or can it. It got canned.
It's less suspicious than you want it to be.
It's wild to see a Mozilla defender throw away their own beliefs and principles in order to defend a corporation wasting $65 million.
I do not buy "Mozilla must diversify" which slips in the assumption that they are diversifying into the right thing, the "right thing" in this case being AI and other random crap, including a direct competitor to their own Relay service. If you believe this, you need to deal with the cognitive dissonance that comes from this, and explain the basis for why you believe in them while simultaneously believing in the opposite of them.
And if you don't know about the Steve Teixeira lawsuit, and you are still being authentic, you'll have an even harder time reckoning with that. I don't know how you drilled this deep into a conversation without stumbling across it, but my hope in your honesty springs eternal.
You must be one of the few that do not believe they should diversify. Most Mozilla haters criticise the fact they are dependent on Google money and therefore not independent. I did not say it was the right thing. I said I do not believe it is, but iI could be wrong. Not sure if you aware about humility.
It is not cognitive dissidence to believe positive and negative things about a company or thing. It's call a balanced decision. It requires nuance, a key component in adult decision making. Usually children struggle with that as something is all great or all bad. Black and white thinking isn't really fit for the adult world.
You are surprised that you are supposed to back up your opinions and bring references to a discussion. This is the first time I have heard of this Steve guy. If you think it's common knowledge, you've probably been stuck too deep in the Mozilla haters echo chamber.
This is an incorrect read of what I said. I said I don't buy the assumption that Mozilla is diversifying into anything good:
If you believe this, you need to deal with the cognitive dissonance that comes from this, and explain the basis for why you believe in them while simultaneously believing in the opposite of them.
Unlike you, I provided explicit examples of bad diversification, where are your examples of the good?
You are surprised that you are supposed to back up your opinions and bring references to a discussion.