On 2014-11-25 12:45 PM, Adam Porter wrote:
If Google or Yahoo have been complicit in doing so, or coerced to the point of being legally unable to resist, then a strong argument could be made against Mozilla's making deals with them, as well. Perhaps that is a conversation that also needs to be had.
No, it doesn't.
There are degrees of nuance here, sure, but if we refuse to participate in places where people's use of the network might be tracked, or refuse to work with organizations that also, willingly or not, collaborate with government organizations, that is precisely the same as refusing to use the modern Internet at all.
You're already arguing about degrees of abuse on the one hand and insisting on ideological purity on the other, but you can't have both. And, sure, there's nuance here as well. But if Mozilla refuses to engage with the internet as we find it, where our users find themselves, if we just washed our hands of the whole thing, it's hard to see how we'll ever turn this into the internet we want.
Ideological purity is a way to feel smug about doing nothing, and if we want to change the world for the better, doing nothing isn't an option.
- mhoye _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
