On 01/07/2014 10:04 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
On the other hand, we have to make sure we’re being pragmatic about
our goals. Many have argued that things like quirks mode,
document.all detection and other compatibility hacks were against web
standards, but they were necessary for adoption. When we first
announced a revenue deal with Google, many accused us of “selling
out” or even being corrupted by money. But without both of those,
where would we be? We needed revenue to scale and compete, we needed
enough compatibility with enough web content that we could grow
enough share to convince more sites to target standards compliances.
I’m all for doing the right thing in as many cases as possible, but
we should also be very intentional about how those decisions impact
the big picture and the overall mission.
I haven't spoken up on this subject yet but feel I must respond.
Although on the surface, this appears to be a reasonable response I have
to disagree. I believe you are conflating engineering and financial
decisions with a decision that violated our users' trust.
We did have to make concessions to standards purity in order to compete.
Some people disagreed, but the we did not hide the decision or base it
on monetizing our users.
We did make a revenue deal with Google and many people did and still do
accuse us of being under their control. Although Google is the default
search engine, we provide alternatives, provide for the addition of
other search engines and make it easy to switch between them. The mere
fact that Google had to release their own browser to achieve their goals
is sufficient proof of our independence and our dedication and loyalty
to our users. I believe there has never been a case where we modified
Firefox under Google's direction.
The case at hand is one where Mozilla China modified a user's bookmarks
to add affiliate tracking for the purpose of monetizing the user without
notifying the user. I believe this crossed a moral line that endangers
the trust our users have in us. I believe we would reject any any
extension submitted to AMO which modified a user's bookmarks in such a
fashion.
I do not believe this is about "doing the right thing in as many cases
as possible", but is about *never doing the immoral thing*. [1]
Treating our users as commodities to be monetized is wrong. I believe
losing our users' trust would have a very large potential for impacting
"the big picture and the overall mission".
/bc
[1] Please don't raise religion due to my use of the word "immoral". I
am not religious and I base much of my morality on the Golden Rule also
known as Ethic of reciprocity. This belief is common throughout the
world and is not restricted to any single religion or region. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule>.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
