←back to thread

MDN Plus

(hacks.mozilla.org)
630 points sendilkumarn | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.502s | source
Show context
jefftk ◴[] No.30792694[source]
Everyone who's been saying "I wish they would just charge money for this", here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is!
replies(11): >>30792806 #>>30792864 #>>30793192 #>>30793538 #>>30793573 #>>30793838 #>>30793922 #>>30793951 #>>30795050 #>>30795213 #>>30795499 #
reitanqild ◴[] No.30793192[source]
I didn't say that I think but I am tempted to pay anyway.

The big question is:

Does the money go to Firefox or to funny projects and (what I consider) insane exec salaries?

replies(7): >>30793292 #>>30793379 #>>30793402 #>>30794267 #>>30794592 #>>30794695 #>>30795077 #
ygjb ◴[] No.30794592[source]
I always wonder at the thought process behind these questions.

Yes, Mozilla (.org) is a non-profit, and Mozilla (.com) is a regular corporation. Yes, Mozilla has commitments about transparency. Yes, exec salaries are insane.

Do folks who ask this question scrutinize every purchase or business they make to this degree? In the laundry list of entertainment, learning, and professional subscriptions, what portion of spotify, github, or other popular subs end up contributing to just the feature or service you like as opposed to the entire organization and other initiatives that the organization supports?

replies(7): >>30794662 #>>30794738 #>>30794746 #>>30794933 #>>30794978 #>>30794992 #>>30795172 #
dsr_ ◴[] No.30794662[source]
It's idealism. We still hope, despite the evidence, that Mozilla can be unadulteratedly good, as long as we only look at the open source side of it.

We already know that Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook and Oracle are evil.

replies(1): >>30794741 #
Vinnl ◴[] No.30794741[source]
It's not just the classic "evil" companies though. When you buy a jar of peanut butter, do you demand every cent to be going to production of the jar without overhead? Do you check the peanut butter company's CEO's salary to ensure it's not too high? I sure don't.
replies(3): >>30794823 #>>30795185 #>>30796268 #
SECProto ◴[] No.30795185[source]
For this to be an accurate comparison, there should be two free sources of peanut butter, one that I want to donate to because it helps keep the peanut butter playing field level, while the other has a massive majority of the peanut butter market and uses that to do various anticompetitive things. But the one I want to support doesn't accept donations, only the parent conglomerate does.
replies(1): >>30799491 #
Vinnl ◴[] No.30799491[source]
I feel like you might be missing the point I'm (and GGP's) trying to make. If you're considering whether to give your money, why would you focus on exec salaries rather than results? So the comparison is: if you're buying a jar of peanut butter, why would you focus on what their execs are paid, rather than the peanut butter it will get you?

(And to pre-empt that: I'm not saying you can't criticise results. I'm saying that focusing on exec pay rather than on results feels misdirected.)

replies(1): >>30801192 #
1. SECProto ◴[] No.30801192[source]
> So the comparison is: if you're buying a jar of peanut butter, why would you focus on what their execs are paid, rather than the peanut butter it will get you?

I think we both agree on this. What they pay their execs is irrelevant. What I'm saying is, I'm not buying peanut butter, it's available for free. I am considering donating money for the peanut butter I already get for free, but the grocery conglomerate that accepts donations on behalf has already fired half the peanut farmers, and discontinued the Crunchy variety that I really liked.

replies(1): >>30810645 #
2. Vinnl ◴[] No.30810645[source]
I usually bring this point up when discussing donating to charities, so I'd say: you're not buying access to MDN for yourself, you're buying it being available for free to the world.