Not exactly correct. There was a lot of movement in Mozilla to become a services provider rather than just a software vendor. Firefox Account is the manifestation of that.
I can't tell what exactly their management is thinking, but from my sofa it looks like that just as everyone else, Mozilla wants you to be a part of their proprietary[1] ecosystem.
_______
[1] Proprietary as in "unique to the company, not compatible with anything else and in full control of that company", not as in "closed source" or "non-free/non-libre software".
I work for Mozilla. But I have absolutely no clue what you're going on about here. Our whole reason for existence is to support a standards-based web and avoid proprietary lock-in. Yes, you can use Mozilla services. But you don't have to. I imagine that if there were a privacy-preserving service that got popular, and allowed storing and syncing the sorts of profile data that FxAccounts is used for, then Mozilla might be interested in making an adapter (or defining an API layer.) But these things tend to be tightly integrated, so I'm not sure if it would be worth the trouble. (I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to share open tabs across different browsers...)
First of all, that's not what proprietary means. Second of all, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Mozilla is a registered non-profit. This means they are legally required to uphold their mission statement: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ . Mozilla Corp. (the for profit arm of Mozilla) simply exists as a funnel for money into The non-profit.
It is not in Mozilla's best interest to create any sort of walled garden. In fact, Mozilla has a long history of fighting against the concept of walled gardens on every front.
It's reasonable to be worried about Mozilla turning to the dark side, but claiming that they already have is simply false. What we need to do as people concerned with the well being of the internet and the people that use it is support Mozilla financially and politically to keep them on the right path.
Just as an example, if people were more willing to donate to Mozilla, do you think it would be necessary for them to take on search partnerships?
Looks like this has improved a lot since I used it a few years ago. That documentation even seems a bit outdated -- the new monorepo is here: https://github.com/mozilla/fxa.
I eventually abandoned it when I was cutting back on things I had to manage, but maybe I'll take another look soon...
No he can't always contribute himself because most people myself included can't contribute to whatever project just because it is open source. You need to have an intimate knowledge of the technology and the experience and since you suggesting that he "can always contribute" I'd ask you: can you?
I guess there's no sense in ever complaining about politics and laws since you can just run for office yourself. Didn't realize upfront costs don't matter :shrug:
Indeed, I didn't mean to suggest that it was a permanent decision; but rather that opting in to the program as a whole explicitly and clearly, but nonetheless perhaps undesireably, amounted to opting in to in to not just the present but also the future parts of it—perhaps such as, without any guarantee to the contrary, future stunts on the order of the Mr Robot promotion.
The Mr. Robot extension didn't send data about you to other people so that means it didn't invade your privacy. It was strange that Mozilla would allow such an extension but it wasn't spying on you.
Blocking ads that target us is the main reason we notice privacy invasion. The Mr. Robot extension was an ad, and Mozilla received money to distribute it to their "hacker" base. How is it not an invasion of privacy?
You're conflating different forms of ads. Ads that get your info through trackers are invading your privacy. The Mr. Robot ad is as invading of your privacy as an ad in a paper magazine. It didn't collect your data. Come on don't pretend you don't know how invasion of privacy works.
I have an account on Pinterest because I like the service but having to sign-in for the simplest of things surely bugs me. Sometimes I just want to see one image and I end up having to navigate a bunch of sign-in pages just to see something. Recently I've found myself skipping Pinterest pages just because of the hoop jumping that signing-in creates.
Speak the name loudly to someone and ask them to write it. I know all about the company but I couldn't stop laughing after reading the headline. It gets to me every single time.
The reason for his detention is mentioned near the end of the article:
"After several hours, Carrillo and another detainee were driven to a privately run immigration detention center in Adelanto, 85 miles outside Los Angeles in the Mojave Desert."
Privately run centers don't get paid based on citizenship or not but on services rendered.
What do you mean by "another move" here? Mozilla isn't gathering anything!