Unnacceptable Mozilla Principle #9

Now all of Mozilla’s principles are milquetoast. The high point is their mention of free software as in freedom software. Also points for stating that end user privacy and security are not optional.

But #9 shows they cannot be trusted. It screams it.

“Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical.”

There is no balance. The only stake holder is the end user. It has to be that way. End user get total control over the end user interface and really over end user software and hardware with all the privacy and security they need. Everything is default opt in. No bargaining or capitulating. If an end user wants to bring over a bunch of friends and watch a 4K movie in low res, that is just how it is.

1 Like

Okay. You go ahead and use the internet your way – No CNN, No MSN, No ESPN, No Yahoo. No Google, No skype, no youtube, No Amazon. No Overstock. No Bitcoin… Usenet forever? Gopher kinda rocked.

in other words, Whatever.

You can go back to the compuserve model where the consumer paid 25 dollars per month to dial and live in a walled garden…

The internet exists in its current form because it delivers goods that people enjoy consuming in a very cost effective and convienient way. Without commercial entities. the Data network wouldn’t be built out and continue to expand, because it wouldn’t have anything of use to anybody in any quantity.

1 Like

It was a phase, its in the past. SAFE and similar work will make what we have now look like Compuserve.

If SAFE has no commercial appeal it will be about as mainstream as TOR…

You need Commercial adoption in order to scale and in order to make it unfeasible for Governments to block traffic…

If it has a legitimate commercial use then governments tend to have a very hard time interfering with it. If it is just a den of thieves anarchists and other hoodlems then no harm no foul for the government to try to interfere…

Like I said the internet without Youtube or Google or Yahoo, or MSNBC or CNN or NYtimes, amazon etc etc etc wouldn’t be an internet anyone would want to use.

1 Like

Time for some comedy… When you spell Tor backwards it says Rot.
Rot or rotting may refer to:
Decomposition, the process by which organic matter breaks down.

Now the funny part, when you spell SAFE backwards it says EFAS.
Essential fatty acids, or EFAs, are fatty acids that humans and other animals must ingest because the body requires them for good health but cannot synthesize them.

We need to stop comparing SAFE to Tor or other systems out there. There is totally no logic to compare an secure environment to an unsecured environment. SAFE is secure & commercial by it’s nature, all the people who don’t realize this can stay on the old internet. It’s up to us as a community to create fun stuff on it. The reason why I’m buying Maidsafecoin like a mad man, is only because I want to run apps on the SAFE Network. I don’t care about the price, because if I can start a new Youtube that’s way better than the current Youtube, that is priceless.

Eris Industries made a decentralized Youtube, there is MailPile and Openbazaar. It’s up to us to make these services available on the SAFE Network. If you think about all the people who can’t make use of some services on the current internet due to restrictions (no creditcard, no you can’t buy/sell = your country is blocked for this service) then you just see a huge market. I’m sorry, but I rather have conversations and take action towards building our own stuff. Forget about the old world, explore the new one. Everybody here is a entrepreneur.

It’s funny that we still have these ideas, while the real thieves ruing lives of millions of people are protected by the governments.

Btw send me some bitcoins if you thought that my backwards talk joke was funny.

1 Like

I have the same logic, I am also buying maidsafe to support the network, I want to bring content from artist over to the network by introducing maidsafe by using my free safe coins to fund their work on the network. I believe what I give to the network will return 10 fold in value by bringing the people to the network. I want to see my mom and dad using maidsafe, The main stream internet will not exist in the future in my house apart from moving valuable content to the maidsafe network.


It will be important for people to be able to sink their livelihoods into safe and pursue it full time to to bring it to scale. It also follows as above that governments don’t like to kill the golden goose so cash flow can work to protect the network. Also as above that proper investment devoid of unacceptable strings builds the network and can at least accelerate its growth and development.

I agree as above that we should not compare SAFE to what came before, except possibly out of gratitude and to help people understand how to use it. At the same time it does seem that SAFE follows very precisely Richard Stallman’s freedom (free) software model. There is apparently a big difference between simply “open source” and “free” and a much bigger difference yet with what Mozilla has in mind with #9. Mozilla would be right of Open Bazzar on this which is way right of SAFE. There is a reason why Mozilla allows easy manipulations that allow sites to mess with scroll bars and why Mozilla took away or shrunk back and forward buttons or allows having to frenetically press back to get away or not at all. Mozilla has the mentality that if they upset the ad industry too much they they won’t get market penetration for their free product. The former head of Mozilla was spending his money to discriminate against gays and stepped down as a result. That wasn’t too long ago. Note that his goal was to spend money to censor the expression of gay people and that was the top of the organization. See how free Mozilla is with its forums, it doesn’t want request that might embarrass its intentions with too much freedom.

Its not necessary to be hostile to commerce but capitulation on slippery slope stuff is not what will serve commerce or the public or align their interests. The interests are aligned and served with level playing field systems and markets. That is not what Mozilla has in mind with #9. #9 is a wink and nod indicating the rest of their tepid principles are lip service, that they are dirty. Mozilla is a sponsored organization that tries to wear a good guy hat, and it succeeds with that image too often. Who are all of its sponsors? We won’t know but they aren’t all end users acting as end users.

What exactly do the large corporations this Senitel group wants sponsoring Firefox get in return for their money and schmoozing? Pepsico wants to sell children glyphosate saturated gmo corn syrup in cans lined with BPA plastic. How is Mozilla going to help them do that?

Corporations that sponsor Mozilla get benefits like RUST… Which they can use to further their own computing agendas.

Mozilla wouldn’t be able to fund projects like that without funding…

Seems to me that in Warren’s way of thinking Corpoarations are evil if they keep their greedily keep their profits. But they are still evil if they Give away profits to sponsor projects for the public good… They can’t win for losing.

@jreighley for my education is Mozilla going to be coded in RUST or is it presently coded in RUST? Some of the core SAFE team have expressed their positive sense of Mozilla. And of course Mozilla has come under intense scrutiny and that can move organizations in the right direction.

Mozilla wrote and funded Rust in order to make it easier to write their next generation web browser. (And anything else that needs coded i.e. SAFE)

1 Like

Well I feel kind of stupid. Let that be a lesson to me about generalizing. It also puts principle 9 in sharper focus. It seems SAFE without Rust would a tougher possibly even longer term venture. A lotus can grow out of muddy water. And of course Mozilla was very important to birth of the web part of the net in the early 90s. Easy to forget the storied beginnings when focused on the negative.