Ideally you wouldn’t, but if there’s a long history of discrimination against that race/sex/orientation/identity then you need to do that to correct for the historical bias.
I’d rather it not exist, but there isn’t really any other corrective measure you can make.
That's simply a false dichotomy. You can very easily tailor social programs to help correct for the effects of historical injustice without resorting to discrimination by simply targetting the effect itself, not the group that was discriminated against. Any group that is disproportionally affected by the effect will be disproportionally helped by the alleviation and remediation of said effect.
The argument that we need more racism because of racism is a vicious cycle. I hate all racism, no matter if it's well intentioned. The road to hell is all too often paved with good intentions.
Groups do not endure injustice, individuals do. The moment we start thinking of people as competing groups rather than individuals, individuals become devalued and get thrown under the bus without regard for their unique personhood. Under a program like this a well to-do black immigrant who is not the product of a history of injustice would receive preferential treatment over a non-black person trapped in generational poverty who may have personally endured injustice.
Why do white leftist think that blacks are dependent on special treatment from whites? Isn't that white supremacist in and of itself? They are still denying us the dignity of succeeding on our own merits on a level playing field.
But what evidence is there that these kinds of projects actually help the people they are trying to help?
I mean, not every black person in America today is descended from slaves. It's kind of racist to assume that if you see a black person, they must be a slave descendant. So this project is not necessarily going to benefit the people who were historically discriminated against.
Additionally, how do you prevent this project from helping people who are already well off? Since people who have money, or the children of people with money, are more likely to be able to participate and do well. I would argue that there is a good chance that this will benefit rich (or well off) people, who happen to have a particular skin color.
I'm cynical at heart. Anyone else that thinks that some higher up have done something racist and now the PR/HR machinery is working full time preemptively wash the brand?
It's more just likely people at the top are not very passionate about technology but are very passionate about social issues.
I know a lot of people look to Firefox and therefore Mozilla as being a beacon against the big three and browser monoculture but there is evidently a disconnect between what most of us want from Mozilla and what interests the people in charge of Mozilla, judging from the engineers who were let go the other week.
But what "systems of oppression" is there really against people of color in America?
It seems like there is more systemic oppression against caucasians, that don't get easy access to stuff like affirmative action.
I agree that there is systemic racism in the US, but it is the other way around. Caucasians gets shot by police every single day without as much as a media mention. But lo and behold if some black drug dealer fails to comply with basic instructons.
As an outsider, I only have laughs and shrugs left for America. And the past months of so called protest made me open the eyes for how big a problem black violence is in America. All the footage of innocent people getting killed trying to protect their businesses, zero mainstream media mention.
BLM takes offense to all lives matter, and after seeing BLM protesters run over a racoon and then beat it while its screaming in pain and fear - That made me realize that absolutely no lives matters for the BLM.
We can all be thankful that BLM funding will take a drop after the elections are over.
What happened that caused that? I remember from about a decade or two ago it was already relatively involved (on par with OpenOffice and the likes), is it worse now?
I've known for a while that Mozilla's focus is not on producing technically excellent software. However, their latest actions and messages have only accelerated my desire to move away from Firefox - they are now just another "socially-aware" activist group, complete with ambitious ladder-climbing upper management, and apparently burdened with maintaining a browswer.
Yeah Mozilla really need to make it so you can donate to certain things i.e Firefox or TOR browser development. Until they do my money is going elsewhere.
Right. The have absolutely nothing to do with each other, because the Moz Foundation has probably no say whatsoever in the Corporation's decision. Especially since the Corporation is not only wholly owned by the Foundation but they also have a common chair.
The first line of "About the Mozilla Corporation" [0]:
>The Mozilla Corporation was established in August 2005 as a wholly owned taxable subsidiary that serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent, the Mozilla Foundation (emphasis mine).
I’m not sure why you’re being snarky and uncivil. Yes they are related (never said they weren’t), but the Foundation cannot transfer $245k to the Corporation to help fund salaries of workers. The Corp exists to be run as a business and the Foundation exists primarily for advocacy.
Why not? I mean, seriously. Why cannot the Foundation transfer $245k to the Corporation to help fund salaries of workers?
Apparently they can award $245k to an artist, so why cannot they award $245k to a developer?
I'm a big fan of Mozilla. Really big fanboi. I've been using a Gecko-based browser since the painful days of the Mozilla Application Suite. When Mozilla released the standalone Firefox, I was sold and it has been my primary browser ever since.
But the shenanigans that Mozilla (be it the Corporation or the Foundation) has been up to is really starting to doubt the long-term ability of Mozilla (be it the Corporation or the Foundation) to deliver what to me is their primary product; a software libre browser that is competitive in terms of feature set, usability and speed (and nowadays; respects my privacy).
I grant you; the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation are two different legal entities. But for me that doesn't really matter; I want them to deliver the bloody best browser there is, that's why I gave them (the Mozilla Foundation, not the Mozilla Corporation, my bad) my money.
If Mozilla (the Foundation) really wants to do advocacy, let them do advocacy for a secure, private, decentralized Internet. That's what their (Mozilla the Corporation) primary product is all about. Trying to have the fingers in all the jars is just bad optics and confuses the heck out of people that want them to focus on a good browser and maybe the surrounding technology. Like for example Common Voice[0] or Servo[1], two projects that are after the layoffs by Mozilla (the Corporation) seriously in danger of failing.
Well, I don't think the Foundation would need to transfer 245k to the Corporation. From what I understand, the Google search deal was done with the Corporation. So the cash transfer is rather Corp -> Found. Instead, it would be enough for the Foundation to give the Corporation a better deal on their various trademarks.
This is published in their financial statement for 2018 [0]. I'm not an accountant nor am I familiar with US Tax law, but from what I understand they received $6M in donations (contributions line) and spent $33M on "programs" (other than software development, which gets its own line). So the difference must have come from somewhere.
Apparently the various trademarks are owned by the Foundation. The Corp has to pay royalties to use them. It's not clear how much, but I don't see why the Foundation wouldn't be allowed to set its own rate and / or give discounts. Internal cash flows are omitted from the consolidated report, though.
What I gather from this is that basically the Foundation is getting most of its money from the Corporation. The Corp. being mainly concerned with Firefox, it could be argued that the Foundation gets money thanks to Firefox.
I can see how people who want to support the browser may take an issue with the Foundation's other, non browser-related activities. Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits).
I'm not a tax attorney, but I know that there are serious restrictions on how two companies (non profit or otherwise) owned by the same people or entities are allowed to use them to benefit each other. Those restrictions exist for obvious reasons: being able to easily shift around money can lead to all kinds of tax evasion and other corruption.
And I'm also fairly certain that suddenly renegotiating a licensing agreement in which the obvious purpose is to secure more revenue for the Corporation at the expense of the Foundation would be considered self-dealing, and there would be severe penalties, the least of which being the loss of tax-exempt status for the Foundation.
Being controlled by the same entity does not mean that they are allowed to shift assets and money around or spend their own resources resolving each others' financial issues, and doing something sneaky like trying to hide such transfers as part of a trademark licensing renegotiation would not pass a smell test.
> Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits)
How disingenuous and trollish to put this at the end of your post. In the reply to an argument explaining that the Foundation is a separate entity with its own charter acting independently, you simply ignore the argument and say the same thing over again instead of addressing it.
So after years of scrutiny by their actions, they decided to double down on the marxism? Cool, I guess.
I won't be supporting Firefox in the future, I will never test in firefox. If something breaks I will put on a 90'esque message of "Please install a real browser".
33 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 83.7 ms ] threadI’d rather it not exist, but there isn’t really any other corrective measure you can make.
The argument that we need more racism because of racism is a vicious cycle. I hate all racism, no matter if it's well intentioned. The road to hell is all too often paved with good intentions.
Groups do not endure injustice, individuals do. The moment we start thinking of people as competing groups rather than individuals, individuals become devalued and get thrown under the bus without regard for their unique personhood. Under a program like this a well to-do black immigrant who is not the product of a history of injustice would receive preferential treatment over a non-black person trapped in generational poverty who may have personally endured injustice.
Why do white leftist think that blacks are dependent on special treatment from whites? Isn't that white supremacist in and of itself? They are still denying us the dignity of succeeding on our own merits on a level playing field.
I mean, not every black person in America today is descended from slaves. It's kind of racist to assume that if you see a black person, they must be a slave descendant. So this project is not necessarily going to benefit the people who were historically discriminated against.
Additionally, how do you prevent this project from helping people who are already well off? Since people who have money, or the children of people with money, are more likely to be able to participate and do well. I would argue that there is a good chance that this will benefit rich (or well off) people, who happen to have a particular skin color.
I know a lot of people look to Firefox and therefore Mozilla as being a beacon against the big three and browser monoculture but there is evidently a disconnect between what most of us want from Mozilla and what interests the people in charge of Mozilla, judging from the engineers who were let go the other week.
It seems like there is more systemic oppression against caucasians, that don't get easy access to stuff like affirmative action.
I agree that there is systemic racism in the US, but it is the other way around. Caucasians gets shot by police every single day without as much as a media mention. But lo and behold if some black drug dealer fails to comply with basic instructons.
As an outsider, I only have laughs and shrugs left for America. And the past months of so called protest made me open the eyes for how big a problem black violence is in America. All the footage of innocent people getting killed trying to protect their businesses, zero mainstream media mention.
BLM takes offense to all lives matter, and after seeing BLM protesters run over a racoon and then beat it while its screaming in pain and fear - That made me realize that absolutely no lives matters for the BLM.
We can all be thankful that BLM funding will take a drop after the elections are over.
Does no one realize that stuff like this is as racist as it gets? They literally base the competition on a skin color.
I dont even know what a gabster is, is this the new "alt-right" label to throw around on people you have a mild political disagreeance with?
This post is now at -1 score and I still don't know what a gabster is, can you elaborate?
Ah I think I figured it out. Just like we call twitter users "Twits" we apparently call gab.ai users gabsters.
https://gab.com/
This might not be the best move, right after they had to let go so many developers.
The first line of "About the Mozilla Corporation" [0]:
>The Mozilla Corporation was established in August 2005 as a wholly owned taxable subsidiary that serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent, the Mozilla Foundation (emphasis mine).
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/moco/
Apparently they can award $245k to an artist, so why cannot they award $245k to a developer?
I'm a big fan of Mozilla. Really big fanboi. I've been using a Gecko-based browser since the painful days of the Mozilla Application Suite. When Mozilla released the standalone Firefox, I was sold and it has been my primary browser ever since.
But the shenanigans that Mozilla (be it the Corporation or the Foundation) has been up to is really starting to doubt the long-term ability of Mozilla (be it the Corporation or the Foundation) to deliver what to me is their primary product; a software libre browser that is competitive in terms of feature set, usability and speed (and nowadays; respects my privacy).
I grant you; the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation are two different legal entities. But for me that doesn't really matter; I want them to deliver the bloody best browser there is, that's why I gave them (the Mozilla Foundation, not the Mozilla Corporation, my bad) my money.
If Mozilla (the Foundation) really wants to do advocacy, let them do advocacy for a secure, private, decentralized Internet. That's what their (Mozilla the Corporation) primary product is all about. Trying to have the fingers in all the jars is just bad optics and confuses the heck out of people that want them to focus on a good browser and maybe the surrounding technology. Like for example Common Voice[0] or Servo[1], two projects that are after the layoffs by Mozilla (the Corporation) seriously in danger of failing.
[0] https://commonvoice.mozilla.org/en [1] https://servo.org/
This is published in their financial statement for 2018 [0]. I'm not an accountant nor am I familiar with US Tax law, but from what I understand they received $6M in donations (contributions line) and spent $33M on "programs" (other than software development, which gets its own line). So the difference must have come from somewhere.
Apparently the various trademarks are owned by the Foundation. The Corp has to pay royalties to use them. It's not clear how much, but I don't see why the Foundation wouldn't be allowed to set its own rate and / or give discounts. Internal cash flows are omitted from the consolidated report, though.
What I gather from this is that basically the Foundation is getting most of its money from the Corporation. The Corp. being mainly concerned with Firefox, it could be argued that the Foundation gets money thanks to Firefox.
I can see how people who want to support the browser may take an issue with the Foundation's other, non browser-related activities. Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits).
[0] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201...
And I'm also fairly certain that suddenly renegotiating a licensing agreement in which the obvious purpose is to secure more revenue for the Corporation at the expense of the Foundation would be considered self-dealing, and there would be severe penalties, the least of which being the loss of tax-exempt status for the Foundation.
Being controlled by the same entity does not mean that they are allowed to shift assets and money around or spend their own resources resolving each others' financial issues, and doing something sneaky like trying to hide such transfers as part of a trademark licensing renegotiation would not pass a smell test.
> Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits)
How disingenuous and trollish to put this at the end of your post. In the reply to an argument explaining that the Foundation is a separate entity with its own charter acting independently, you simply ignore the argument and say the same thing over again instead of addressing it.