Gregory's Server@liaizon I have mixed feelings about this… 🤔
|
23 comments
 Similarly (mainly because a large instance is going to have many problems caused by size and lack of shared expectations), but I hope that this might also cause Mozilla to do interesting things to Firefox (e.g. start developing a fedi client as an extension? not a mastodon client, but something that can display activitypub posts/activitystreams collections with user-chosen UI?).  @robryk @dalfen well @thunderbird already started supporting @matrix so we will see if we might get some sort of interaction like that from mozilla... The statement "looking forward to working on the challenges that crosscut the Fediverse" got me thinking. Mozilla is great, but the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned, for-profit subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. Although well-intentioned, it concerns me that the company might see opportunity not just to assist in the development of a better, people-centered internet, but also for financial gain and dominance. @dalfen @tom4okstate @liaizon Yeah, I’m getting some “embrace and extend” vibes here that I definitely don’t like. Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla, but am speaking for myself. Yes, Moz Corp is for-profit, owned by the Foundation. But most tech cos are either public or funded by VC money. In both cases, there's a ton of pressure to maximize growth, forever. Profitable isn't enough, gotta maximize that shareholder value. At Mozilla, nobody's extracting the $. In fact, Moz Corp *can't* give too much to its owner, or the Foundation will lose its nonprofit status. @nonsequitarian @tom4okstate @liaizon Mozilla corporation is wholly-owned. Does it have shareholders? This means the incentives and demands are different. For Moz Corp "maximizing shareholder value" means serving the shareholder's mission. Since nobody is extracting the money that Moz Corp makes, there's no capitalistic pressure for perpetual growth. As long as Mozilla can pay the bills, it can keep operating. Being for-profit means no operational constraints like non-profits have. And the legal structure is more protected from co-option than most, IMO. @nonsequitarian @tom4okstate @liaizon So what you're saying is that you "maximize the value" to the stakeholders, or the users (the public) who benefit from Mozilla's services (which run according to its principles); And all operations are overseen by the non-profit Mozilla Foundation? @dalfen @tom4okstate @liaizon@social.wake.st The operations aren't overseen by the foundation, exactly. Mozilla Corp has a board, as does the foundation. Leadership of the two overlaps. What I'm really saying is that unlike other companies, Mozilla doesn't need or want to dominate a market. It needs to *compete* on the market, but its interests align with a vibrant ecosystem supporting open standards and user choice. How does the mission of the Mozilla Corporation compare to that of the Mozilla Foundation? Can't find the missions at the moment, but both organizations serve the manifesto: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ @dalfen Anyway, Vivaldi Browser already maintains a Mastodon instance, so we already have some prior art to study, even if recent. I understand integrating a Mastodon instance into a browser, but the statement "looking forward to working on the challenges that crosscut the Fediverse" got me thinking. Mozilla is great, but the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned, for-profit subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. Although well-intentioned, it concerns me that the company might see opportunity not just to assist in a better, people-centered internet, but also for financial gain and dominance. @dalfen |
@dalfen I mean mozilla has made some bad moves in the past but personally I think this is a positive experiment. we will have to see as we go if they start fucking it up like Raspberry Pi did