mozempthrowaway

9 ms·

1.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
If you knew the amount of project changes, reorgs, CEOs, products, executives, etc we’ve went through you’d realize Googles behavior had little do with it. In fact, if it weren’t for their corporate generosity we’d be finished by now. We’re
2.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
You should actually read the link you posted. That had nothing to do with Firefox and has everything to do with ad blockers. Looks like YouTubes goal was to bring parity between those using ad blockers and those not, as to not incentivize a
3.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
Basically, follow the money. To keep nonprofit/tax benefits, the work has to be done for some sort of public benefit. That work never gets done, instead it’s constant reorganizations, hiring/firing, and shuffling money around. We’
4.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
Web standards are open but that doesn’t mean you can’t build on top of them. YouTube is not an open standard. If Google wanted to end web support for YouTube and force everyone to use some sort of YouTube app even on desktop, they could do
5.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
It’s not monopolistic to not support shitty browsers with little user base. This isn’t even the basis for the current antitrust ruling against Google, for what it’s worth. As the parent comment points out, if YouTube isn’t buggy for most of
6.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
The perception of corruption is not without merit. Mozilla is pretty corrupt at this point. (Source: I work here). I really don’t get where this whole “the EU should fund it” idea came from and why it’s repeated so often. Why would the EU t
7.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
The rendering engine portion of the whole Firefox vs Chrome debate gets way more attention than it should. It’s really not that important. Someone could fork any piece of the chromium project and have an “independent rendering engine/b
8.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
Without that deal, there wouldn’t be a Firefox. If/when it’s gone, there’s no one capable/willing to fund Mozilla to that amount. Really there’s only 1 other company who can throw that level of money at us and it’s Microsoft. With
9.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
Just so you know, the money users donate goes towards political causes not towards Firefox. When you are donating, you are donating to the Mozilla Foundation (which is a non-profit). All Firefox development is done through Mozilla Corporati
10.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
No we won’t. We all knew this gravy train was coming to an end. In terms of revenue it’s ~500M per year/~80-something %. Once this stops, there’s no way for us to keep funding operations at the level they’re at.
11.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
Working 10 hours per week was nice while it lasted.
12.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
The bar for how savvy you have to be to use an ad blocker is a lot lower than it used to be. There’s 2 different issues here: privacy and user experience. A lot of YT users are probably signed in to YT through their gmail/google accoun
13.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
No one (and I mean that in the sense of a significant number) is switching to Firefox over this. Our user numbers are consistently heading downwards. Besides Google does other things to slow YouTube down on Firefox so this isn’t really a co
14.
Mozilla Buys Ad Firm Anonym(theregister.com)
5 points by mozempthrowaway 2y ago|2 comments
15.
Steve Teixeira Is Suing Mozilla(archive.org)
34 points by mozempthrowaway 2y ago|1 comments
16.
by mozempthrowaway 2y ago
Mozilla
17.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
It would be if you were willing to pay an ungodly amount for that box of crackers that not only made Walmart a viable business but was also an amount no one else was willing to pay. Mitchell got Google to pay nearly double what Yahoo was wi
18.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
Did you read my post that you’re replying to? > Principles come at the expense of your salary sometimes, and sticking to your principles isn’t pragmatic if you can’t effect greater change. It’s not about having moral qualms or not. The c
19.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
It was really illegal. But what are you going to do? You can report your employer but once your culture has gotten to the point Mozilla’s has - where you can openly say these things, your problem isn’t one person. And your employer has a to
20.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
I’ve been on hiring committees at Mozilla where being a white male hurts the candidate. The committee wants a racial minority, LQBTQIA+, etc. The best white males can do is claim to be neurodivergent. That one lets them get passed the filte
21.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
You’re partly right. MoCo only cares about money. MoFo though is/was Mitchell’s political slush fund. TBD how things will shake out once there is a permanent CEO but Mitchell is remaining chair of the foundation. She’s also got really
22.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
Gentle reminder that Mozilla Monitor is just OneRep, albeit marked up for Mozilla Corporation’s profits (yes Mozilla is a for profit, its foundation is not).
23.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
I’d imagine Google’s culture is more Mao-ist public shaming. Here at Mozilla, we like Stalin. Go against the orthodoxy? You’re disappeared and killed quickly. We have hour long pronoun training videos for onboarding; have spent millions on
24.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
Maybe you’d forgotten how it’s structured or maybe you hadn’t read through the foundations financial filings before. I don’t know. But somehow you think the foundation/corporation boundary is somehow relevant to Mitchell increasing her
25.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
I work at Mozilla, there is no Firefox LLC. Please don’t post stuff like this if you’re unfamiliar with the corporate structure. There is Mozilla Corporation a for profit entity that is responsible for virtually all development of products
26.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
You don’t understand how it works either. Mitchell is both the chair of the foundation and until like 2 weeks ago was the CEO. She had full control over where the money goes hence why she increased her pay so much. The foundation is sole ow
27.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
I think it’s a reminder of what Mitchell’s priorities were as CEO: lining her pockets and funneling money to her political projects. She has deep ties at Google and after getting out of the Yahoo deal when Verizon bought them, she got a swe
28.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
I think the point is that is the number Mitchell jacked her salary up to while presiding over FF’s demise.
29.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
The other products are very unprofitable. FF profits actually fund everything else. Search deals on FF are over 80% of revenue yet less than half the company works on FF.
30.
by mozempthrowaway 3y ago
It fluctuates a little bit but 80-85% of revenue comes from search deals with Google being the dominant one. Everything else has a lot of overhead because nothing is developed in house; it’s just white labeled. VPN is Mullvad, Monitor is On

More ›