On Monday, November 24, 2014 12:58:51 AM UTC-6, Majken Connor wrote: > These search deals aren't with the governments of these > countries. Just like in the US, people in different regions > prefer different services. Those happen to be the preferred > services in those countries. The previous Google deal was more > hypocritical because we stopped tailoring the default to the > best options for people in those regions. Our mission is to > provide an open internet for *all.* That includes users in > China and Russia. Giving users in those countries the best > experience possible is in line with our values and it supports > the free exchange of information, which is a mighty tool in > empowering oppressed people.
I would like to quote from Tim Babych's--a Ukrainian citizen's--comments on <https://bugzil.la/1102323>: "While in other mentioned countries Yandex either dominates the market (Russia) or at least has similar market share as Google (Belarus, Kazakhstan), the situation in Ukraine is different - Google has 63% here, Yandex has only 34%." > Also, I think it's a bit unfair that you are saying this is > hypocritical simply because those business are in those > countries. You should at least have some evidence that the > companies themselves are supporting the governments. We have > volunteers and contributors from those countries, just because > they are in those countries, or from those countries, doesn't > mean they don't support an open internet, and it doesn't mean > they support government injustice anymore than being in the US > means you support government injustice here. More from that bug report: "Yandex is a Russian company, and that raises security concerns among users. Russia has been tightening the screws on internet for years, and currently has laws requiring companies operating in Russia to physically place their servers on Russian territory for easier access by security and police agencies. And Russian government is serious about this. This spring CEO of Vkontakte (largest Russian social network), Pavel Durov, was dismissed from his post for his refusal to hand over personal details of users to Russian security service." "Russia is currently at war with our country. This makes Ukrainian users even more concerned about possibility of their data being accessible to Russian officials. Yandex as a company might not be as strongly tied to government as Mail.ru is, but they still must obey their laws. And they expressed their corporate position clear enough by removing from his post head of their Ukrainian office, Sergey Petrenko, for expressing his pro-Ukrainian position." > Boycotts should never be the first tactic for change, it makes > an enemy out of the best person to help you bring about change, > they just happen to be the easiest tactic to execute. No, I would think that the first tactic should be to not take money from such entities in the first place. > Working with and supporting companies within those countries is > the best way to bring about change. So as I said, unless there > is evidence that these companies *support* the government > suppression of its citizens rather than being victims > themselves, then I don't think it's hypocritical at all. This attitude seems naive. Whether the individuals working for these companies agree with their corporate or governmental policies regarding censorship, et al, that is beside the point--the companies are in fact subject to such laws and are required to cooperate with their governments in execution of them. They are in some ways de facto arms of their governments, and so by aiding one, you aid the other. Instead, Mozilla should point its users toward services which explicitly advocate for liberty, encouraging them to use intermediary services such as Tor if necessary. Mr. Babych puts it well: "Those concerns will seriously undermine Mozilla values among users of Ukrainian Firefox. They will doubt the company really cares about privacy if it makes user's search history less secure against obviously interested third party. The fight for digital independence may sound hypocritical when fight for real-life country independence is ignored. And it would be difficult to perceive Mozilla as an open project and collaborative effort if community opinion on such symbolic matters is not taken into account." The bottom line is that Mozilla is now funded by what are arguably de facto arms of the Chinese and Russian governments, one of which commits egregious human rights abuses, and the other of which is actively involved in the illegal invasion and annexation of a sovereign nation.. Whether or not this has actual detrimental effects on Mozilla (not that they would necessarily be obvious) is beside the point. I can't see how this could be considered acceptable in light of Mozilla's stated mission. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
