I think that with the whole #Mozilla fiasco, we're just witnessing once more the limit of the green/open/fair/inclusive discourse when it is essentially used as a smoke screen for commercial activities. For many years now Mozilla has used the model of running a non-profit org in front of their for-profit company. It's quite well documented and as such is not a surprising model, it is used by corporations to interface with different audiences, contexts, etc. There is however always a risk of cognitive dissonance with these models, and this is clear with Mozilla's PR right now, stuck between financial priorities and the need to maintain their image of social justice endorsers they have been working hard to promote until now.
In practice, even though they are often pitched one against the other, I see little difference between the marketing strategies used by #Google
and Mozilla. And why should they be? They both come from the same context, they are part of the same dominant tech infrastructure, and they have used the same tricks to appeal to wide audience, build upon participatory and unpaid labour, and are constantly trying new, sometimes short lived, products to try to expand their market. It does not matter that Mozilla was presenting itself as defender of the open web when free culture was peaking, or was saying its #browser was organic in the early days of food industry critique, or presented itself as a privacy safe harbour in post-Snowden times, or positioned its
community as inclusive and diverse more recently. It still remains a black box that needs to survive following the same logic and principles as any other tech company, specially if it is one that is not necessarily in the most powerful position and depends on the wealth of its competitors to provide most of its earning (basically whoever is paying Mozilla to be the default search engine).
To be sure, I don't want to make it sound like Google or others are any better, but I just want to emphasize that we keep on being sold the same product, the same culture. It's just the packaging that changes, that's all. It also does not mean that what these companies are producing are systematically crap or should be dismissed. But it's unfortunate to realise that the good stuff is impossible to decouple from the crap, specially in an age where surveillance capitalism has been shaping the offering for the worse.
There has been several threads about the possibility of turning Mozilla into a #coop and I think that trying to imagine other modes of production, and dissemination of something as ubiquitous as the web browser is very important. In the most recent years there has been a growing concern that it has became impossible to enter this space given how complex the technical, economical and political landscape around such applications is. But what is presented is often an extreme scenario: giant companies on one side, and small projects lead by single or few devs on the other side. These small efforts are important and deserve attention, but surely there can be other options between these two opposites? Concretely, how many persons do you need to develop, maintain and support a web browser and its community? How much money is necessary for that? What kind of revenue model can be put in place to make it happen? How many paying patrons/supporters/subscribers would be needed to keep it affordable or free?
These are important questions I think, not because we are missing a third voice in the browser debate, but because we don't even have an alternative to start with! And for a piece of software that has became even more important than the underlying operating system it depends on, this is quite worrisome.
@320x200 I think the only way to go forward longterm a non-profit developing a browser with native webpayments support. Browser development is financed by also being a payment provider. Native webpayments APIs allow websites to implement patreon-like sponsorships etc with minimal external stuff, browser gets a minimal service fee. Browser as a public utility.
@rra this would induce feedback loops/optimisations toward the payment system... decoupling the tool from the commercial aspect is the most important point imho : the future of the web is _not_ commercial, it's what has killed it (with the plateforms acting as intermediaries/pseudo browsers ...)
And that why this turn by Mozilla toward supposedly bankable projects is a lure from my pov @320x200
@rra well, it would be a good idea to integrate such micro payment system as a "killer feature" but I really see a danger to link it's dev to it's commercial impact, as it's not the point at the base
(beware Libra !)
we could think EU would implement GNU-Taler in it ; and why not together with Duniter as base "glocal" money (in a fork if it needs)
but a base browzer as a way to "read and write" should be public funded and future proof as a "common" outside commercial threats imho
I find it interesting how often the suggestion comes up that the browser as a utility should be funded by the public and users. In general I agree, but how many donations did Mozilla get? Apparently not enough to focus on their non-profit narrative. The possibility for the browser to become supported by users or the public has been there all the time, but obviously didn't work.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!