120
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 63 points 1 month ago

It really is strange. They really should be copying the success of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia.

Especially right now as Google is truly finally breaking a lot of adblocking and pushing a fight with adblockers in the YouTube space.

It's a perfect storm of opportunity to stand out as a solid, differing offer, but they're going to blow it as usual.

[-] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

I'm willing to bet that the people who switch to Firefox for ad-blockers and ad-free YouTube aren't the kinds of people who are donating much to Mozilla. People in online forums talk a big game about wanting to pay for products and not be the product. But it seems like people don't really want to pay any meaningful amount of money for a browser.

[-] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 40 points 1 month ago

the people who switch to Firefox for ad-blockers and ad-free YouTube aren't the kinds of people who are donating much to Mozilla

I went to donate to Mozilla when I switched back to it from chrome early last year. It said on their website by the donate link, which was very difficult to find, that the proceeds from those donations did not go towards firefox but towards their other projects.

I don't know if that's the case today, but there was no way to contribute to firefox directly when I sought it out, or at least not in a way I could find. Maybe it was a stipulation of the Googlegeld, idk.

They really should be copying the success of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia

Step 1: Be hilariously wealthy from prior investments and businesses Step 2: Do a thing nobody has ever done before at a time when interest rates mean money is free Step 3: Blind luck

I'm not sure how they're supposed to reproduce those at this point.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah, the amount of money they get from donations is so tiny compared to what they need for developing Firefox, that they don't even divert it for Firefox.
They use it for activism, community work and in the past, they've also passed it on to other open-source projects, which are also important for the web but don't have the infrastructure or public awareness to get donations directly.

[-] oldfart@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

I'm not donating to them because of where the money goes. Would donate to Firefox the moment it becomes possible.

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They also used that money to pay one of their C-suite employees a $7m dollar salary.

[-] abbadon420@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

That's unnecessary. Everything upwards of like 300k is not salary, it's business money. That person is a natural business.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Big difference to the Wikimedia Foundation is how much money they need. The Mozilla Corporation (which develops Firefox) has around 750 employees.

Optimistically, only 500 of those are devs and work on Firefox. If you pay those a wage of 100,000 USD, that makes 50 million USD of costs just for wages.

Firefox has less than 200 million monthly active users, so everyone using it would need to donate $0.25, or alternatively 1% of users would need to donate $25, yearly.

That's a lot of money to hope people donate, and this is a very optimistic ballpark estimate.

[-] mayo@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

I don't understand why cryptocurrency isn't an accepted solution to this. Open firefox, attach wallet, drip $0.25/month/user. It's good for tiny transactions.

Because crypto just has such a stink on it.

It may well be a reasonable solution for this specific problem, but still... no one is going to get behind this.

[-] mayo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Yes now it does, it's beyond soured. But it's a strange disconnect. Ignoring all the social commentary and looking for the most practical solution for making small pay-per-use payments - it was right there.

Maaaaaybe. I think the actual advantages over other methods are fairly intangible.

If "surfing the web" required making many very small anonymous payments every hour then yeah, there's advantages. I'll admit that doesn't actually sound terrible - I'd rather pay a few cents to read articles than the current advertising & subscription model.

As a solution for mozilla in isolation though, it would be an over engineered solution with too much baggage. Current mozilla users might have the aptitude for something like this but Mozilla wants to seduce a larger market share which is not people like us.

[-] mayo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Oh man. What a shit show honestly.

I'm a strong supporter of paying for things but this is not the way.

[-] mayo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yes. I actually shared it before I started reading, and ya it's bad.

[-] mayo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Ya I think the ship has sailed, maybe one day. Right now it would be a loony toons move.

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
120 points (91.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35764 readers
322 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS