this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
120 points (91.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35726 readers
1342 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] macattack@lemmy.world 122 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Their current userbase is not their target userbase. They are trying to reach a more mainstream audience but all of their attempts to monetize are seen as useless by their current userbase.

  • They want to increase revenue w/ ads - A loud swath of FF users are tech savvy and have adblocking enabled
  • They want to pivot towards AI - A loud swath of FF users see AI as gimmicky

Repeat ad-nauseum

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 63 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It really is strange. They really should be copying the success of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia.

Especially right now as Google is truly finally breaking a lot of adblocking and pushing a fight with adblockers in the YouTube space.

It's a perfect storm of opportunity to stand out as a solid, differing offer, but they're going to blow it as usual.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm willing to bet that the people who switch to Firefox for ad-blockers and ad-free YouTube aren't the kinds of people who are donating much to Mozilla. People in online forums talk a big game about wanting to pay for products and not be the product. But it seems like people don't really want to pay any meaningful amount of money for a browser.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the people who switch to Firefox for ad-blockers and ad-free YouTube aren't the kinds of people who are donating much to Mozilla

I went to donate to Mozilla when I switched back to it from chrome early last year. It said on their website by the donate link, which was very difficult to find, that the proceeds from those donations did not go towards firefox but towards their other projects.

I don't know if that's the case today, but there was no way to contribute to firefox directly when I sought it out, or at least not in a way I could find. Maybe it was a stipulation of the Googlegeld, idk.

They really should be copying the success of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia

Step 1: Be hilariously wealthy from prior investments and businesses Step 2: Do a thing nobody has ever done before at a time when interest rates mean money is free Step 3: Blind luck

I'm not sure how they're supposed to reproduce those at this point.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah, the amount of money they get from donations is so tiny compared to what they need for developing Firefox, that they don't even divert it for Firefox.
They use it for activism, community work and in the past, they've also passed it on to other open-source projects, which are also important for the web but don't have the infrastructure or public awareness to get donations directly.

[–] oldfart@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

I'm not donating to them because of where the money goes. Would donate to Firefox the moment it becomes possible.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They also used that money to pay one of their C-suite employees a $7m dollar salary.

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

That's unnecessary. Everything upwards of like 300k is not salary, it's business money. That person is a natural business.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Big difference to the Wikimedia Foundation is how much money they need. The Mozilla Corporation (which develops Firefox) has around 750 employees.

Optimistically, only 500 of those are devs and work on Firefox. If you pay those a wage of 100,000 USD, that makes 50 million USD of costs just for wages.

Firefox has less than 200 million monthly active users, so everyone using it would need to donate $0.25, or alternatively 1% of users would need to donate $25, yearly.

That's a lot of money to hope people donate, and this is a very optimistic ballpark estimate.

[–] mayo@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't understand why cryptocurrency isn't an accepted solution to this. Open firefox, attach wallet, drip $0.25/month/user. It's good for tiny transactions.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because crypto just has such a stink on it.

It may well be a reasonable solution for this specific problem, but still... no one is going to get behind this.

[–] mayo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes now it does, it's beyond soured. But it's a strange disconnect. Ignoring all the social commentary and looking for the most practical solution for making small pay-per-use payments - it was right there.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Maaaaaybe. I think the actual advantages over other methods are fairly intangible.

If "surfing the web" required making many very small anonymous payments every hour then yeah, there's advantages. I'll admit that doesn't actually sound terrible - I'd rather pay a few cents to read articles than the current advertising & subscription model.

As a solution for mozilla in isolation though, it would be an over engineered solution with too much baggage. Current mozilla users might have the aptitude for something like this but Mozilla wants to seduce a larger market share which is not people like us.

[–] mayo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh man. What a shit show honestly.

I'm a strong supporter of paying for things but this is not the way.

[–] mayo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yes. I actually shared it before I started reading, and ya it's bad.

[–] mayo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Ya I think the ship has sailed, maybe one day. Right now it would be a loony toons move.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 month ago

They've had to hire three new interns just to carry around my enormous pile of tabs.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The hatred is partly fuelled by people in the open source community getting really riled up when they find out some open source projects are developed by organizations that need to earn money and pay their employees, be it Red Hat, Canonical, GNOME, Mozilla, or anything else. Female leadership will tend to push people over the edge.

In addition to the usual rage-fuelled misogyny of open source forums, there is however also valid concern out there. It can be difficult to hear through the noise.

Mozilla's job listings provide some insight to what many consider to be a red flag for the way forward. To work on FireFox, they are looking for:

  • Senior Staff Machine Learning Engineer, Gen AI
  • Senior Director of Product, Firefox Growth
  • Principal Product Manager, Generative AI
  • Senior Software Engineer - Layout (CSS and ICU4X Support)
  • Staff Machine Learning Engineer, Gen AI
  • Staff Full-stack Engineer - Generative AI
  • Senior Front End Engineer, Gen AI
  • Senior Front-End Engineer, Firefox
  • Front-End Engineer, Firefox
  • Staff Software Engineer - Credential Management
  • Staff Software Engineer - Release Engineering
  • Senior Front-End Software Engineer, New Tab

For fairness I include every position, highlighting in bold the ones I think are likely to do more harm than good. This is not the direction I want FireFox to take, and I believe Mozilla are misguided to try to place themselves as the ethical AI actor. That said I'm not 100% against it all of the time - I do think the local in-browser machine translation feature of newer releases is great. But I don't think I want much more than that, and even this feature should probably have been an optional plug-in.

There's also some former empolyees voicing valid concerns.

In short, I think the legitimate criticism boils down to:

  1. Buying into the AI hype
  2. Flirting with "more ethical" ads and tracking, rather than being unquestionably on the user's side of just blocking it all
  3. Doing too many things nobody asked for, arguably while not paying enough attention to FireFox
  4. Appearing distant from the community and unresponsive to its preferences
  5. Paying company leadership too much

I don't really buy into point 3 personally. I use FireFox every day and it's by far the best browser I have ever had. It never gives me any problems at all, and password sync with Android is really useful. I wish it would support JPG XL, but that's pretty much it in terms of complaints on my end.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I really wanted Mozilla to solve the unintrusive ads problem. A couple of years ago it seemed they were the only ones barely capable of working with it and not being destroyed.

But it looks like I overestimated them. They seem to be getting destroyed.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 month ago

Capitalism, fucking everything up, same as everywhere.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 month ago

Can we start a petition to NOT add AI bullshit to our browser?

Just point to all current shitty machine learning models and how fucked up they are

[–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

wasn't there a thing that google was paying them tons to be default search and that likely will soon stop due to antimonopoly cases.. so they need a new cash cow.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Google pays them millions to be competition to stop an antitrust lawsuit.

This was always the conspiracy. I don't really buy it though. Having firefox' user base default to Google search is worth something.

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What caused you to ask? I feel like this is a very loaded question

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

They recently announced that they are shutting down their mastodon instance.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

They're trying to be the MSN of the 2020s but their userbase has zero interest in advertising or AI slop. It's not going well and they refuse to focus on their core product.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

I just want to point out that recent court rulings on Alphabet's business may threaten the future of Mozilla because they may not get revenue from making Google the default search engine.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Not much, what's going on with you?

[–] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago

It's been fighting King Kong.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 7 points 1 month ago

The best we got on the browser front. Use forks tho.

[–] Harvey656@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Just Mozilla things. /s

[–] monsterpiece42@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

They're selling out.

[–] Alice@hilariouschaos.com -3 points 1 month ago

They shut down recently actually