Mozilla funding $245,000 for Black artists to show how #AI can reinforce/disrupt
foundation.mozilla.org
foundation.mozilla.org
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.
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).
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.
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.
I’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.