Hacker News Reader

Comment by hosteur | Hacker News Reader

I am probably just slow but why is that a bad idea?

Let say for a moment that it is acceptable for the CEO of a corporation working on the independence of the Web to not have her personal independent webpage.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume.

Let say for a moment that it is acceptable that the personal independent webpage is replaced by a monopolistic platform trying to centralize the web.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume

Let say for a moment that we don’t care that the platform is owned by one of the biggest competitor of the corporation. Historically and currently.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume.

Let say for a moment that it is not a problem that the platform is one of the worst offender when regarding privacy of its users and handling personal data, even if the new CEO is talking about privacy.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume.

Let say that to there’s no problem in requiring every person clicking this link to have an account on the linked platform to know who the privacy-oriented new CEO is.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume.

Let say that nobody at Mozilla considered it to be a problem as the introductory post of the new CEO…

It is literally difficult for me to understand the problem through your condescension

I’m sorry I’m sounding condescending. I was trying to be funny. The point is that there are so many problems that it is even a problem to list them. Those problems are so evident to me that I didn’t thought people might not understand it.

1. Linkedin is a platform promoting a closed-garden vision of the web while Firefox is seen a the last stand against that closed vision.

2. Linkedin is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has been the biggest opponent to Mozilla and still is, even if it may be topped by Google in that place.

3. Linkedin is known for its terrible security practices regarding personal datas. It is also a big seller of private data. Which goes against "promoting privacy".

This tells a lot from a symbolic perspective. But it is not only symbolic:

4. You need a Linkedin account to view the link. Meaning that the very first step of the news CEO is requiring users to have an account on a rival platform which harvest their data if they want to know who she is.

5. It means that the new CEO find her Linkedin account more important that any personal website, if any, which is philosophically the opposite of Mozilla self-proclaimed mission.

I hope it is is clearer and you understand that, yes, it is a big deal. CEO position is mostly symbolic. The very first move and the fact that nobody at Mozilla even realized that it could send a bad signal is enough indication that nobody there even understand the original mission anymore. Nobody there cares about privacy. Nobody there cares about the independence of the Web.

> I was trying to be funny.

You succeeded!

What he means is that as a CEO of a corporation that is supposed to defend things like openness, privacy, power to the users etc., it's ironic that the only tool to see her profile is from a Microsoft-owned company, which is quite the opposite of most of Mozilla's core values (well, mostly regarding privacy).

I don't find myself reacting to any of that with the angst it seems this inspired in you. If someone doesn't have a personal website, it doesn't make me think they hate independent websites or privacy. And if they don't have a personal website but someone on their staff needs to link to a persistent, business-oriented online profile, LinkedIn is about as good as anything I can think of.

Because you have to create an account, be logged in, and agree to be tracked. In other words, the opposite of the mission of Mozilla. They've long had a reputation as one of the worst offenders, and they're owned by Microsoft, which is obviously not known for respecting user privacy.

> even if the new CEO is talking about talking about privacy.

Intentional or a typo?

Absurd, how? Can you be more specific and plain about what you believe is wrong, without the oratory rhetoric? You’ve presented a list of evidence in support of some point you have in mind, but we need you to plainly state your beliefs — not just your arguments in support of them — if you’d like us to consider your views.

These things are somewhat ironic, given the focus of the states mission. But is it /really/ a reflection or explanation of any serious problem that the organization has? Is is really an indication that the interim CEO is not capable?

Chambers doesn't look like she has any other digital footprint in general apart from the one LinkedIn page that still doesn't contain any personal info other than her workex and education.

I would argue this is much better than having your own website and putting out more information about yourself than is needed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com