this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
258 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

59116 readers
3327 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/46655413

The Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit arm of the Firefox browser maker Mozilla, has laid off 30% of its employees as the organization says it faces a “relentless onslaught of change.”

top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 15 points 58 minutes ago (1 children)

Did the CEO take a pay cut?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 6 points 24 minutes ago

does a bear shit in your mouth?

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.one 17 points 1 hour ago

GODDAMMIT MOZILLA. YOU ARE MAKING ADVOCATING FOR BETTER INTERNET HARD

[–] snowcrushed573@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

Everytime I see comments regarding Mozilla''s financials,I have the same effing question: How does a company like brave or opera maintain their browser ?? AFAIK both don't have the level of community backing that Mozilla does nor do they have any (again AFAIK) agreement with a company like google for default search engine placement

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 20 points 3 hours ago

That'll certainly make it easier to pay the CEO.

[–] PetteriPano@lemmy.world 115 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Gee, I can't imagine why they chose to drop this bomb today.

It's like they wanted it to be drowned in other news.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 6 points 39 minutes ago

It's Mozilla. No one is going to see this anyway.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 57 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

I suspect their financial position has changed. Perhaps Google's being found as a monopoly has made them decide not to help fund Mozilla's efforts as substantially.

Ashley Boyd lead the advocacy team, here's the kind of stuff they were doing:

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-welcomes-ashley-boyd-vp-of-advocacy/

In fall of 2016, Mozilla fought for common-sense copyright reform in the EU, creating public education media that engaged over one million citizens and sending hundreds of rebellious selfies to EU Parliament. Earlier in 2016, Mozilla launched a public education campaign around encryption and emerged as a staunch ally of Apple in the company’s clash with the FBI. Mozilla has also fought for mass surveillance reform, net neutrality and data retention reform.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/05/mozilla-foundation-lays-off-30-staff-drops-advocacy-division/

“The Mozilla Foundation is reorganizing teams to increase agility and impact as we accelerate our work to ensure a more open and equitable technical future for us all. That unfortunately means ending some of the work we have historically pursued and eliminating associated roles to bring more focus going forward,” read the statement shared with TechCrunch.

Reading between the lines, I'd keep an eye on them collecting your data and consider one of the privacy-focused forks.

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 3 points 20 minutes ago

consider one of the privacy-focused forks

The Foundation is not linked to Firefox.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 1 points 12 minutes ago

Hundreds of selfies? Let's go ahead and strike that vein bullshit from the record.

[–] ravhall 146 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Regardless, don’t use chrome.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

If Mozilla does become defunct, it does raise the question of whether Chrome would be considered a Google monopoly, and therefore subject to antitrust legislation.

I can't imagine any governments would look kindly upon internet access being guarded behind a single company's product.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 43 minutes ago

I can’t imagine any governments would look kindly upon internet access being guarded behind a single company’s product.

laughs in 2001

[–] ravhall 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

There is a new browser based on WebKit (safari), called Orion that looks promising. However, it’s only on macOS and iOS at this point. Hopefully Linux and Android will be a consideration at some point.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Chrome's engine was originally forked from WebKit. That makes them too similar (even years later) for WebKit to count as a real alternative.

[–] ravhall 0 points 1 hour ago

The point is to leave a google controlled ecosystem… which means it counts as a valid alternative. What would you suggest besides chromium and gecko?

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Splitting Chrome from Google wouldn't make Chrome not a monopoly, though, right?

[–] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

The split might leave a monopoly still, if it's the only major browser.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 27 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

We'll go back to gopher if we have to, it's time for burning chrome.

[–] Gemini24601@lemmy.world 5 points 51 minutes ago

Also, Ladybird is looking very promising, so in a few years we should have a true fourth browser engine.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 hours ago

Let's just separate GOOG from Chrome / Chromium and Google Search completely. So that the direction of the most used browser, most used search engine and the biggest advertiser don't circle jerk each other.

[–] Marthirial@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

Their question is: how much would you pay for not using a Chromium based browser?

People switching to the browser and zapping all ads, demanding open source and vitriol for any kind of monetization. How can they survive? They would have to become a subsidized utility, which not even the Internet as a whole has achieved.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 67 points 5 hours ago

CEO first please. He's not worth it

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

WTF. They had $1b banked a few days ago. This is a bit reactionary perhaps?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 20 minutes ago

well you see. all the cool kids are laying off staff and Mozilla wants to hang out at their pool next summer.

[–] Nytixus@kbin.melroy.org 31 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Getting rid of the advocacy part. That's...not good.

So what does that mean in layman's terms? They're not going to have as much of a voice to sway heads about things like open internet, the flaws of copyright, the problems with privacy and surveillance.

[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 38 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It’s looking increasingly likely that the US Department of Justice is going to succeed in their antitrust efforts against Google. Currently, Mozilla gets something like 85% of their funding from Google for being the default search engine in Firefox. That may be deemed anticompetitive behavior by a judge, at which point Mozilla will be left with very little funding compared to their current situation.

I’d bet these actions are in anticipation of that happening.

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 15 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, and although it will be painful for Mozilla in the short term - it would be a good outcome. It was always bad that Mozilla's main source of funding was from their most powerful competitor. It's an obvious conflict of interest. And obvious way to skew decision making. ... But that money is just so addictive.

There will be some pretty severe withdrawal symptoms if the money gets taken away, but everyone will be healthier in the long run... unless the overpaid CEO continues to suck in all the remaining money and leaves nothing for the people actually doing the work. That would be bad. In that case, if the corporate structure chokes the company to death, I suppose we'd be hoping for Ladybird, or something like it to take Firefox's place.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh geez the leadership is making more mistakes.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 2 hours ago

Not necessarily. If they're low on cash then cutting unnecessary costs is not unreasonable. What is Mozilla's core goal? Perhaps the "advocacy" and "global programs" divisions weren't all that relevant to it, and so their funding is better put elsewhere.