asu_thomas

> It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him.

It's more likely (and all but certain) that persons involved with him or his ventures have meaningful influence at the NYT. Sympathy has little meaning in the presence of structural interests.

Your efforts come across as facile to me. You're wanting a democratic organization, or at least one capable of acting in the interests of the consumers despite the fact that more consumers does not necessarily benefit the organization. This is an unrealistic expectation given the political economic circumstances, being those of late-stage capitalism. Even the most benevolent leader is constrained by their circumstances and hard power. You cannot resolve this through the consumer marketplace; you need to engage in politics one way or another.

> Capture of a non-profit for personal benefit is a longstanding phenomenon in the USA.

No. Capture of a non-profit for personal benefit is key to the express purpose of non-profits in the USA.

The foremost function of non-profits in the US is to displace community organizations, especially democratic worker organizations which remotely resemble a workers' political party like you can find in other countries. Non-profit law in the US makes such organizations perfectly illegal while providing anti-democratic resemblances of them instead.

Thanks for explaining. I can't help but ask why you believe these things have happened? What went wrong and what is the alternative to Firefox?

I am approximately as cynical as they come, and I'm not sure how Firefox could even exist if Google weren't keeping Mozilla alive (on life support), so I am intrigued by your criticism. I'd like to understand your viewpoint and what ideology is behind it, if any. In your view, what should be done?

Why?

Yes, and it's going to take a whole lot more.

Historically, labor organizing and honestly communists were behind any kind of labor law like this. Good luck.

Being a working class single mom in Australia is no walk in the park either.

Why are we so anxious to prevent pregnancies instead of addressing the economic issues that make so many hard working people unable to afford raising kids?

The current status quo is only poor and rich people have children, but the middle class often cannot afford to, and we try rationalize that by saying the poor children will make up for it, but children raised by poor families are much more likely to be a net cost to society, not to mention the moral failure.

Even if for environmental reasons, the results of not acknowledging the real problem have been disastrous. We know that people struggling to pay rent will never prioritize environmental causes because they simply can't afford to, so addressing the economic issues will need to be part of the formula anyhow.

Checks out in my observations.

Jokes aside, the infant simulators used in the study could not possibly replicate the economic and emotional turmoil of being a working class single mom in 2023 United States. In this respect, the dudes might be even better simulators.