On 25/11/14 17:29, Adam Porter wrote: >> Are you advocating we not ship one at all? > > I advocate sticking to the principles upon which one's mission is > founded. If you compromise them, what do you have left? > Utilitarianism does not lead to liberty.
Mozilla has always been a pragmatic organization which changes the world through products, not (primarily) through advocacy. That doesn't mean there isn't a role for both things, but that we focus on the former. Feel free to lobby the Chinese and Russian governments to change their policies, or to join with other organizations doing the same. In the mean time, we are going to provide them with the best Internet experience we can consistent with the law in their countries. > People seem to be missing the point here. Hearing criticism of a > government, they leap at the chance to criticize the United States, > a popular pastime now. Don't forget I criticised the UK (my country) as well. > They reply with whataboutism, complaining > about the "evil" United States, implying that it's therefore > acceptable to be funded by what are effectively arms of the Chinese > and Russian governments. Just out of interest: Tor is partly funded by the _actual_ US Government, not "an effective arm" or a company said to be influenced by it. Would you have them refuse the money? > One could make a case for shipping a functional default search > engine for a locale rather than shipping none out of protest. One > could also argue for shipping none out of protest; would doing so > really stop anyone from using the Internet? I think not No, but it would almost certainly stop anyone using Firefox. > --but taking > a principled stand might eventually contribute to positive change. I think that the situation where nobody in the country uses our product is unlikely to "contribute to positive change" in the way Mozilla measures it. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
