I want to narrow down the discussion to the finance revenue way for this specific case, because what Dr. Li's sharing on "self-defanse" and how bad behavior China internet companies can play, looks not so related to the problem we have now. People play dirty game, not means we have necessary to play it the same way.
I understand our colleagues in China is fighting a difficult war, faced many strong and powerful opponent. No doubt they'll need enough bullet for that. But the real point is that, what kind of the money we're using to purchase those bullet. There is a line laid in the middle of sensitive areas, of protect user's privacy and gain revenue, which indicate the "Mozilla's Principle". It maintains the user's trust of our behavior, once we cross the line, we'll easily to be judged as "the same company to do evil for profit as others". No-matter where on the world we're standing, it's not what we'd like the Mozilla's brand, and Mozillians to be treated as. Although it cannot easily to clarify the boundaries, we have Privacy principles and Manifesto to guide us once we faced the decision. Take this case (redirect user's traffic through 3rd party to gain revenue) as instance, it seems to counterpart our Privacy Policy[1], * No Surprises - Only use and share information about our users for their benefit and as spelled out in our notices. * Real Choices - Educate users whenever we collect any personal information and give them a choice whenever possible. * User Control - Do not disclose personal user experience without the user's consent. Innovate, develop and advocate for privacy enhancements that put users in control of their online experiences. We can also find it's related to the following Manifesto[2] clause of, * Individuals’ security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be treated as optional. * Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is critical. Thus this is my conclusion and suggest policy to prevent this 'incident' for future, "The revenue which gain from redirecting user traffic through 3rd party web service, without notice to user in advance and provide an opt-out option, is a non-moral money for Mozilla to earned." It should be obvious and self-explained, and I believe Dr. Li will also agree in this concept, or why shall we removed that part of code, after the news broke out? Irvin MozTW, Taiwan community [1] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/ [2] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Li Gong <[email protected]> wrote: > In this part of the world, and probably true elsewhere, influence (in > market) means market share, user numbers, net traffic, and revenue. > > Self defense in part because the ultimate payer (the company that pays for > traffic) in this particular case has been trying not to pay for for > legitimate traffic so there was a "get back from them" element. > > How the Internet functions in China would be considered highly complicated > and unusual from a Silicon Valley perspective. Just to illustrate -- a > vendor could send out (or sell) software that changes settings on > completely unrelated software from another vendor; competing vendors vie to > delete or disable each others software, publicly; a vendor could display > via pop up a personal attack message on the CEO of its opponent company; a > vendor could send another vendor to jail. All basically free of any > constraints legal and otherwise. And we, once damaged, would practically > have no recourse. And by vendors I mean largest Internet players, not bit > players. And if the above are "doable", imagine what else are being done > everyday. > > Li > > > 在 2013-12-5，7:29，"L. David Baron" <[email protected]> 写道： > > > On Wednesday 2013-12-04 15:32 +0800, Li Gong wrote: > >> Indeed we discovered the "joker" msg in the same way, and have > >> removed that part with an update. Joking aside, there are many > >> complicated sides to this situation, some of which you may or may > >> not be familiar with. In recent months, there are many severe > >> cases of traffic hijacking in China, prompted in part by various > >> promotional programs run by some large companies (whose names I > >> shall not name here right now). For example, a media player, once > >> installed, will change installed browser behavior so that all > >> browser traffic for some type get credited to the media company, > >> which will then obtain money from the beneficiary of that type of > >> traffic. There are many such cases, especially this year. We are > >> caught between some big land grab/battle among major internet > >> companies in China, coupled with everything-goes techniques. If we > >> do nothing and just stand there, we will be reduced out of any > >> significance or influence. > > > > How does our significance or influence depend on acting in this way? > > Is it because of revenue that Mozilla China earns through Firefox > > being credited as the source of traffic to sites? Or other reasons? > > > >> Having said that, our BD team, in counter-attack or maybe better > >> described as self-defense, did go overly aggressive in this > >> particular case. Once we are aware of the situation, it has been > >> immediately corrected. The teams and actual members involved are > >> definitely learning lessons from this episode. We continue to > >> watch closely over such sensitive areas and hopefully we won't > >> make the same mistake again. > > > > My understanding of what I've read in this thread is that Mozilla > > China distributed builds had code that rewrote user-added bookmarks > > to redirect them through another site, and thus somehow gain revenue > > from the referral. So, based on that understanding, which might be > > wrong: > > > > Self-defense seems like ensuring that the traffic that we direct is > > properly accounted for. (Defending others -- that is, ensuring that > > other bookmarks or links don't get incorrectly reattributed -- also > > seems like a reasonable move.) But changing a bookmark that a user > > has made seems to go beyond self-defense. > > > > But based on the reactions of others, it seems like I'm not the only > > person having trouble understanding what happened here. I think it > > would help other parts of the Mozilla community to better understand > > the situation in China that you're describing, and what we're doing > > there. For example: what mechanisms are being used for the > > "crediting" of traffic, and what mechanisms are being used to > > "hijack" that crediting or hijack traffic in other ways? > > > > -David > > > -- @ irvinfly: community liaison moztw.org Mozilla Taiwan community _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
