Recent searches
Search options
If Mozilla were Greenpeace, they would be getting half a billion dollars a year from ExxonMobil and working with Shell to propose new environmental policies.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attribution-for-advertising/
@aral Oh damn. Thats a burn
@aral I'm not sure of your starting point. Do you think all advertising is unethical? Surely not?
@underlap @aral
I think the philosophical root is one based on privacy. Rather than blindly advertising these companies are trying to put in place systems to track and identify one's interest's so that you can be targeted. I don't believe it's a rejection of advertising as a whole, but rather the commoditization of one's personal information.
That's my current understanding at least.
@aral The underlying thesis here is that Mozilla is to G and F what Greenpeace is to E and S. Whatever that means. It is tempting to single out M as the mainstream actor in that sector working for "good". As you pointed it out, that does not hold true. M has been collecting money from G for years now. Probably from T, A and F too which are listed in the default "home" page. It may be time for a reality check. As for Greenpeace, check out ANGRY INUK by Alethea Arnaquq-Baril.
Your analogy is more accurate than you might expect - Greenpeace in Germany has been for 20 years running Greenpeace Energy, a company that sells actual fossil gas. After shit hit the fan last year, they rebranded the company to “Green Planet Energy” but kept the shares and the role as authority over “criteria for clean energy” for the company and as such it happily accepts 89% fossil gas as “clean” 
@aral Because we're living in this twisted world, I had to check that the thing you said about Greenpeace wasn't actually true.
@aral Perhaps one day the Alphabet conglomerate will tell Mozilla that they are much better at managing everyone's passwords and that the Mozilla's will have to turn them over to the Alphabet conglomerate, otherwise the money tap will be closed.