9 ms·

How do we define "failure"? Let's say we can measure how much Mozilla fights for the user and put it on a scale: |--------------------| anti-user

by zirak 3y ago

How do we define "failure"? Let's say we can measure how much Mozilla fights for the user and put it on a scale: |--------------------| anti-user pro-user Where on the scale is "failure"? Let's say Mozilla is on the M, and Google is on the G: |----G-------M-------| anti-user pro-user Is Mozilla failing? The sentiment I seem to see is that anything short of perfect is failure.

hypertele-Xii 3y ago
It's not about the absolute position on the scale, but the direction of change. Mozilla has been moving towards anti-user for years now.
- zirak 3y ago
  They went from A to B (exact magnitude of change is of course part of the criticism): |------------B---A---| anti-user pro-user Is Mozilla still, currently, a failure at their job? --- These kinds of discussions are frustrating to me since it feels like we've been dealt a very bad hand. But it's not just this hand, the dealer is firmly set on us only receiving bad hands in any game we play. Like in a card game, this is the only hand that we'll get. What other corporation do we have to push these kinds of values? What other avenue do we have? It's sad that we've come to this situation, but if the choice is the currently perceived-to-be-failing Mozilla and no Mozilla, I pick the failing Mozilla.
  - account42 3y ago
    > What other corporation do we have to push these kinds of values? The thing is, Mozilla shouldn't even be a for-profit corporation in the first place.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Didn't they try being just a non-profit and it failed? IIRC they had to establish a corporation to sell defaults like search or they wouldn't have had enough funding to continue.
lozenge 3y ago
They take so many active anti user steps. Pocket, cliq, Push Notifications for Mozilla Blog without user consent, Mr robot, Firefox Suggest etc they are littered with mistakes and scandals and have never improved their governance or process. I can give them a pass on technical decisions like Thunderbird or breaking extensions but when it's purely commercial it has to be judged differently.
- mlok 3y ago
  Ok, now write the same list for Google. And then we can compare.
  - Ygg2 3y ago
    List for Chrome might be smaller: DRM videos, Manifest v3, this crap, JPEG-XL, ... Problem is that Chrome is massive. If Chrome decides it will go left, most of websites will go left. If you want to compare with Google the list is way more subjective.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  The only one in that list that bothers me is the push notifications, and even that I can't care about too much. Seems like a good record to me.
  - cxr 3y ago
    Announcing that Pocket would be baked directly into the browser, against the will of users—rather than being a promoted extension and despite the fact that it was at the time a completely unrelated company selling closed source SaaS and in the business of collecting telemetry—and then proceeding despite the widespread backlash doesn't bother you? Issuing misleading PR statements carefully worded to strongly suggest that there was no money changing hands re Pocket integration while maintaining plausible deniability concerning the truth, which is that there was money changing hands—that doesn't bother you? That the subterfuge was so effective that Mozilla employees themselves who were not otherwise in the know took it as a statement that there were no kickbacks involved—and then showed up in places like HN comments outright saying that there weren't kickbacks—that doesn't bother you? The fact that when Pocket was bought, it was understood and even claimed that it would be open source (just like all the other Mozilla Foundation IP), and yet we are in our seventh year after the acquisition and it's no more open source today than it was then—this doesn't bother you? Is there any threshold for mendacity that if crossed would bother you?
account42 3y ago
How do we define "evil"? Let's say we can measure how much evil Putin does and put it on a scale: |--------------------| anti-user pro-user Where on the scale is "failure"? Let's say Putin is on the P, and Hitler is on the H: |----H-------P-------| anti-user pro-user Is Putin evil? The sentiment I seem to see is that anything short of sainthood is evil. The answer of course is that relativism is not a good way to judge people or organizations. Mozilla chooses to do a lot of shitty things. They should be criticized for that even if someone else is worse.
- zuminator 3y ago
  We have a lot of other comparison points between Putin and Hitler of national leaders who are not generally considered evil, so it's not accurate that the sentiment is that anything short of sainthood is evil. Besides, people aren't using relativism here. Relativism is the idea that nothing is truly good or bad, it's all a matter of personal or cultural preferences. That would mean that people were saying that that Mozilla's behavior about X, Y, and Z isn't really bad. But that's not really the argument here. People are generally saying that despite engaging in the bad behaviors X,Y and Z, Mozilla is still in balance better than Google, and arguably still worthy of some level of support. To phrase it in terms of Aristotelian ethics: "For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good". You're unquestionably correct that Mozilla should be criticized, even harshly so. But you can criticize a company (or person, or party, or country) and still support them. Or if short of support, still prefer them to the available alternatives.
- tentacleuno 3y ago
  I certainly wouldn't brand Putin as "pro-user".
VancouverMan 3y ago
> Is Mozilla failing? Firefox's usage dropping from about 30% down to likely less than 3% today, with almost no mobile usage, should be seen as a severe failure. This failure isn't just about the product's uptake, too. It's also about the Firefox developers losing meaningful influence over the way the web evolves.

by zirak 3y ago

hypertele-Xii 3y ago

It's not about the absolute position on the scale, but the direction of change. Mozilla has been moving towards anti-user for years now.

zirak 3y ago
They went from A to B (exact magnitude of change is of course part of the criticism): |------------B---A---| anti-user pro-user Is Mozilla still, currently, a failure at their job? --- These kinds of discussions are frustrating to me since it feels like we've been dealt a very bad hand. But it's not just this hand, the dealer is firmly set on us only receiving bad hands in any game we play. Like in a card game, this is the only hand that we'll get. What other corporation do we have to push these kinds of values? What other avenue do we have? It's sad that we've come to this situation, but if the choice is the currently perceived-to-be-failing Mozilla and no Mozilla, I pick the failing Mozilla.
- account42 3y ago
  > What other corporation do we have to push these kinds of values? The thing is, Mozilla shouldn't even be a for-profit corporation in the first place.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Didn't they try being just a non-profit and it failed? IIRC they had to establish a corporation to sell defaults like search or they wouldn't have had enough funding to continue.

lozenge 3y ago

They take so many active anti user steps. Pocket, cliq, Push Notifications for Mozilla Blog without user consent, Mr robot, Firefox Suggest etc they are littered with mistakes and scandals and have never improved their governance or process. I can give them a pass on technical decisions like Thunderbird or breaking extensions but when it's purely commercial it has to be judged differently.

mlok 3y ago
Ok, now write the same list for Google. And then we can compare.
- Ygg2 3y ago
  List for Chrome might be smaller: DRM videos, Manifest v3, this crap, JPEG-XL, ... Problem is that Chrome is massive. If Chrome decides it will go left, most of websites will go left. If you want to compare with Google the list is way more subjective.
dontlaugh 3y ago
The only one in that list that bothers me is the push notifications, and even that I can't care about too much. Seems like a good record to me.
- cxr 3y ago
  Announcing that Pocket would be baked directly into the browser, against the will of users—rather than being a promoted extension and despite the fact that it was at the time a completely unrelated company selling closed source SaaS and in the business of collecting telemetry—and then proceeding despite the widespread backlash doesn't bother you? Issuing misleading PR statements carefully worded to strongly suggest that there was no money changing hands re Pocket integration while maintaining plausible deniability concerning the truth, which is that there was money changing hands—that doesn't bother you? That the subterfuge was so effective that Mozilla employees themselves who were not otherwise in the know took it as a statement that there were no kickbacks involved—and then showed up in places like HN comments outright saying that there weren't kickbacks—that doesn't bother you? The fact that when Pocket was bought, it was understood and even claimed that it would be open source (just like all the other Mozilla Foundation IP), and yet we are in our seventh year after the acquisition and it's no more open source today than it was then—this doesn't bother you? Is there any threshold for mendacity that if crossed would bother you?

account42 3y ago

How do we define "evil"? Let's say we can measure how much evil Putin does and put it on a scale: |--------------------| anti-user pro-user Where on the scale is "failure"? Let's say Putin is on the P, and Hitler is on the H: |----H-------P-------| anti-user pro-user Is Putin evil? The sentiment I seem to see is that anything short of sainthood is evil. The answer of course is that relativism is not a good way to judge people or organizations. Mozilla chooses to do a lot of shitty things. They should be criticized for that even if someone else is worse.

zuminator 3y ago
We have a lot of other comparison points between Putin and Hitler of national leaders who are not generally considered evil, so it's not accurate that the sentiment is that anything short of sainthood is evil. Besides, people aren't using relativism here. Relativism is the idea that nothing is truly good or bad, it's all a matter of personal or cultural preferences. That would mean that people were saying that that Mozilla's behavior about X, Y, and Z isn't really bad. But that's not really the argument here. People are generally saying that despite engaging in the bad behaviors X,Y and Z, Mozilla is still in balance better than Google, and arguably still worthy of some level of support. To phrase it in terms of Aristotelian ethics: "For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good". You're unquestionably correct that Mozilla should be criticized, even harshly so. But you can criticize a company (or person, or party, or country) and still support them. Or if short of support, still prefer them to the available alternatives.
tentacleuno 3y ago
I certainly wouldn't brand Putin as "pro-user".

VancouverMan 3y ago

> Is Mozilla failing? Firefox's usage dropping from about 30% down to likely less than 3% today, with almost no mobile usage, should be seen as a severe failure. This failure isn't just about the product's uptake, too. It's also about the Firefox developers losing meaningful influence over the way the web evolves.