Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Compromised morals? WTF is the CEO of the Mozilla Foundation doing to earn $7M per year in salary? What about the Mozilla Foundation forcing out Brandon Eich because of a personal donation he made to a cause they didn't like?

Morals my ass!

I stopped using Firefox the day they kicked Brandon out and here's the kicker: I don't agree with the cause Brandon supported but I agree his employment shouldn't be affected by donations he made to support a ballot issue.

So yeah, the Mozilla Foundation can go straight to hell with that shit.

Good riddance!



Brendan Eich was not forced out. He made the donation, he couldn't stand the heat of defending it, he left.

Also, personal donations can make you unfit for some positions. Significant parts of the community felt his donation was not in line with the values they wanted to see represented. And since you didn't agree with them you decided to leave.


So you shoot yourself in the foot to teach Mozilla a lesson?

We all lose if it's only Chrome.


Last I looked Safari isn't Chrome.

Also, anybody can use the Gecko web rendering engine, yet project after project after project has picked the WebKit or Blink rendering engines.

And no, I haven't "shot myself in the foot" - when I replaced Firefox I found two great browsers: Brave and Vivaldi.

The better question is why you continue to support a compromised organization?


Just to make sure I'm following along, we were talking about how youtube includes a delay of several seconds if it detects a certain ad blocking browser extension. Firefox has that browser extension, and therefore Mozilla is a "compromised organization."


You violated YouTube's T's & C's and you're complaining about Google putting you in timeout for doing so. You steal from YouTube's content creators yet present Mozilla as the good guys. Have I summed that up accurately?


None of that was my question, so, no.


Gecko being a mess for embedded use pre-dates the Eich affair and Baker's payday.

As for Mozilla being compromised - maybe, but it's still less compromised than advertisement companies, crypto companies, tax evaders, and their likes.


Safari is a niche and is missing features.

And Brave and Vivaldi are based on Chromium, so they help Google that Chromium sets the standards for the web.

You already shot yourself, just didn't recognize yet.

Why do you support a crooked company like Google?


> Why do you support a crooked company like Google?

Get back with me when the Mozilla Foundation has done a fraction of what Google has done in furthering our knowledge of computer science. Other companies making significant contributions to our knowledge of computer science are AT&T, IBM, and Microsoft. Would you prefer them to Google?

Also, the Firefox against the world meme is juvenile.


It's not about Firefox against the world, it's we against Google and at the moment Firefox is all we have.

>Get back with me when the Mozilla Foundation has done a fraction of what Google has done in furthering our knowledge of computer science.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/


Like I said, get back with me when the Mozilla Foundation has done a fraction of what Google has done in furthering our knowledge of computer science.

I would also consider which Big Tech company you're fighting. Last I looked, Google wasn't cited as the cause of a significant uptick in US teenagers committing suicide and being plagued with mental health issues. I could go on, but in the realm of Bad Actors in the land of Big Tech, Google is actually one of the least problematic entities.


What really moved me away from Firefox was using Brave search. I had been using DuckDuckGo since the Snowden leaks. When DuckDuckGo announced they would derank results if they thought it was Russian propaganda or disinformation, I moved to Brave search. A week or so later, I decided that Mozilla was too woke for my liking, and started using Brave's browser, too.


You seem to value integrity, are you aware that Brave browser replaced affiliate URLs with their own? So if you wanted to support someone and use their affiliate link they took the liberty to replace that. I wouldn't touch that spyware if I got paid.


Don't know, the pro LGBT stance of Mozilla/ Mozilla Foundation was not new in 2014 I believe.

So not having leadership with opposing view does not seem strange to me; donation was done privately but it end-up being public enough. There's enough hypocrisy and pink-washing ...


Is the Mozilla Foundation a software organization or a LGBTQ+ advocacy organization?

If it's the former then what business do they have caring about Brandon Eich's personal donation to support a ballot initiative?

If it's the latter then it's a conflict of interest and Brandon Eich should be asked to leave.


At the moment they appear to want to be both.

Might at times be at the detriment of Firefox but it's not like there is any alternative imo. So I don´t mind, it's not like if they remove their LGBT manifesto they suddenly will become relevant again and people will start to care about privacy.

Might be that LGBT people care more about privacy and that this manifesto will help them stay relevant.

And it's not like 2% is not a lot of people, TOR browser is certainly even less and it does not change the fact that I believe it's an highly important piece of software.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: