Comment on Mozilla under fire for Firefox AI "bloat" that blows up CPU and drains battery
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month agoI thought mozilla was a non profit?
Non profits do have corporate leeches too. The executives at Mozilla have executive salaries. That is, hundreds of thousands, or millions.
They don’t work out of the goodness of their hearts. And Mozilla has to find a way to earn the income to pay their bloated salaries.
Why would an organisation choose to over spend on executive salaries?
Obviously, it’s because thats what it costs to get people with the right skills.
But these executives clearly don't have the right skills, so they should get less pay.
Non-profit isn’t the same as not-for-profit
Take American Red Cross
They make bank on blood donations. Also, they take in way more than they put out.
The red cross fucking sucks too
I couldn’t agree more
This smells like BS.
Is mozilla non-profit, not-for-profit, or for-profit?
You dont really know do you.
“I dont like mozilla so ill just assume they must be profiteering assholes somehow”
“Its the vibe of the thing”
I only use Firefox. I’ve only used Firefox since 2000.
They, by their own statements, are a 501( C )3, which is a non-profit, not a not-for-profit.
Sit down.
You seem to be able to google “mozilla non profit” but unable to elucidate whether it is in fact a non-profit and why that is so.
Again, you’re offering hand wavy vibe based explanations as to why mozilla is “bad”. What exactly is the problem?
Profit can be distorted based on how much employees are being paid.
They’re a “non-profit,” but their CEO makes millions of dollars per year. I’d say that’s a profit.
Believing otherwise is just falling for rhetoric that exists to take advantage of our naivete so people richer than us can be even richer.
Many of you will disagree with this (because you’re greedy consumerists), but their employees also typically don’t need to be paid nearly as much as they are. Their employees are also working to maximize profit, only from a different, less-effective angle.
Money brings out the worst in people. I don’t really value the input of people going to bat for the businessmen taking their money. Too often I see useful idiots proud to be ripped off and getting angry whenever someone points it out. It’s really the norm at this point, which is sad.
Calling whatever you like “profit” cant really be rebutted, it’s subjective semantics.
Yes CEOs are paid lots of money. Why would mozilla choose to over pay staff?
Are you really asking why would the people at the top of an organization choose to pay themselves a lot of money?
Sorry boss it’s kinda laughable to suggest they choose their own salaries.
Obviously it would be negotiated, with a panel overseeing the procurement and hiring process.
That panel has no interest in overpaying executives. Obviously they would pay just enough to secure someone with the right network and skills. Just because they earn more than you does not mean they’re overpaid.
dantheclamman@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Mozilla is a bizarre Matryoshka doll with a for profit company inside of the nonprofit. If anything, I believe this structure is responsible for Mozilla’s problems
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
So the profit from the for-profit is passed up to the non-profit.
This is a really common organisational structure and not bizarre.
There’s loads of worthy criticisms to make of mozilla but this is not one of them.
Grapho@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Sure, whereupon the CEO alone can receive an 8 figure compensation package. That is not at all an issue to the viability of a non-profit.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
It’s not as simple as just deciding to hire people at lower rates of pay.
Cost cutting is a tricky game. When an organisation is not on a positive trajectory, cost cutting has a very high risk of re-enforcing the underlying problems.
That’s not to say cost cutting isn’t a worthy objective, but it needs to be carefully considered.
If you want a CEO with the right skills and connections you need to pay.