I don't know why Mozilla thinks it's okay to politically align themselves. Shouldn't they stay neutral if they want to make a browser for everybody and all of that? Reminds me of the Tor project calling themselves a "human rights project"
Every software project has values, even if they're only implicit in the idea that the function of the software will have value for people. So even if there were something wrong with a non-profit having a set of other values (and I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Mozilla having such values any more than there's anything wrong with the EFF having such values), it'd be perfectly consistent for someone making software to facilitate a given activity to also have a position about what kinds of legal, social, and economic policies facilitate that activity.
Mozilla makes a web browser based on a vision of the web. Net neutrality is a policy that serves that vision of the web, and there's a boatload of well-considered argument that vision facilitates a lot of economic enterprise and personal freedom better than the alternatives.
They see that their strategy aligns with the majority of their users and the user's they wish to attract.
You have the freedom to not use their product if you don't align with them.
If you're not from the US what country are you from that would have a benefit from eliminating net neutrality?
What are your reasons for not supporting it?
The argument is whether net neutrality is for the common good or not.
Are you saying the only companies that can take a stance are ISPs? And they can lobby governments but an independent company cannot?
They are just virtue signalling.
>If you're not from the US what country are you from that would have a benefit from eliminating net neutrality? What are your reasons for not supporting it?
I am from a country in the EU. I don't support NN because I want to have access to zero-rated services. As a consumer, they make my life easier and my bill lower. I want to have the freedom of choosing whether I want NN in my connection or not. I don't want the government to take that freedom away from me.
>Are you saying the only companies that can take a stance are ISPs? And they can lobby governments but an independent company cannot?
They surely can. I was just surprised because Mozilla pride themselves so much in diversity and the common good. I suppose their diversity does not include diversity of thought.
They've filed court cases against the FCC. They're activly trying to change legislation.
If that's virtue signalling then it's a stupid phrase that means nothing.
>I am from a country in the EU. I don't support NN because I want to have access to zero-rated services. As a consumer, they make my life easier and my bill lower. I want to have the freedom of choosing whether I want NN in my connection or not. I don't want the government to take that freedom away from me.
An ISP zero rating facebook, Netflix or Spotify just entrenches a big player in their dominant position.
That's bad for the market and shouldn't be encouraged. How can a new entrant into a market compete when the ISP or mobile operator is giving the major player preferential treatment.
As a consumer sure you don't care but these are exactly the scenarios that a government should ensure a level playing field in.
Even in the sense of if a mobile operator is Zero rating a music provider then the operator must allow a choice and all music vendors must be able to easily join the programme.
Hacker news is quite focused on startups, creating barriers for market entry isn't very startup friendly.
>I suppose their diversity does not include diversity of thought.
LOL. So a company can't stand for anything because they might upset someone?
Have a bit of self awareness. Having a persecution complex when you're on the winning side is pathetic.
Of course... they have to spend the donations on something. Anything but improving Firefox or Thunderbird, lol
>An ISP zero rating facebook, Netflix or Spotify just entrenches a big player in their dominant position.
No because in the EU by legislation ISPs are forced to zero-rate all services in the same category. If they zero-rate Netflix they have to zero-rate YouTube and everything in between.
>LOL. So a company can't stand for anything because they might upset someone?
Exactly. They should not alienate possible users or customers.
>Have a bit of self awareness. Having a persecution complex when you're on the winning side is pathetic.
I, and all customers, are on the winning side by now. But we have to keep fighting so evil doesn't win, :)
You know what the technical term for that kind of legislation is, right? Yeah, you guessed it, that is net neutrality regulation!
So, I suppose you are against this type of legislation then, correct?
Which is government regulation, which you claim to be against.
Why not just enforce neutrality, eliminate the silliness that is zero rating, and offer reasonable data allowances instead?
Great, I would be fine with that. So, how do we ensure then that I have the option of choosing NN for my connection?
It fundamentally is a human rights project.
Being pro equal access to internet for every party is not politically aligning themselves anywhere else in the world, but in the U.S. where the right-wing has been successfully co-opted into thinking that every bit of regulation is a communist plot to take over Nebraska.
Another thing is it is their domain (Internet) they are not fight for global warming or wars in syria or anything else.