• Mozilla ends partnership with Onerep due to CEO’s ties to data broker
  • Onerep’s data removal service bundled into Mozilla’s Monitor Plus subscription
  • Onerep CEO admits to owning people-search websites, leading to end of partnership with Mozilla. Transition plan in progress.
  • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Mozilla is one the most important tech entities in the world at the moment. Web browsers and email are currently people’s bedrock interface with the internet and Firefox (and to a lesser extent Thunderbird) are the only such mainstream applications which remain outside the complete dominance of commodification.

    We might disagree with some things that Mozilla have done but they are in the increasingly unique position of having to maintain integrity and accessibility in a constantly narrowing space. That’s because we, as users, keep using them, keep supporting them and keep demanding the best of them.

    Big up Mozilla!

  • underwire212@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is there any service like onerep that is reputable and folks could recommend? Luckily I didn’t use onerep, but would like a similar service to explore.

  • Dojan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is fantastic. That said, Mozilla should really reconsider their own CEO too.

    • Manalith@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Are you referring to the foundation president Mark Surman or the corporation CEO Laura Chambers? She seems to be an interim position holder, so I guess whatcha referring to?

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Laura. Her past affiliations are concerning. I’m aware she’s seated on an interim position, but I can’t imagine that there weren’t any better candidates.

  • laverabe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    very deceptive title from the source author. OP please insert [, the privacy partner, Onerep’s ] in place of “its” to make it clear Mozilla didn’t do anything wrong here.

    Mozilla could do something wrong, but I entirely read this as Mozilla’s CEO had ties to data brokers and ditched Mozilla’s privacy partner because of that.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    If only politicians were held up to the same standards when it came to being in positions of conflict of interest.

    • Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      We’d have to abolish everyone currently in office and start over.

      Which would be beautiful.

  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is what companies that actually care about privacy do. People over profits

    Edit: actually, I’m not quite that naive, there’s certainly a business motive here. Cut the dead weight before it drags you down. Still, a good move nonetheless

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      its a good long term business move. And mozilla is a nonprofit, not beholden to the whims of shareholders, so they can do long term moves in peace.

      • jeffw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nonprofits can’t lose money. They still got bills and are motivated by revenue. I say this as someone who has worked in non-profits for most of my adult life

        • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Am I wrong in saying the lack of shareholders makes it easier for non profits to make long term profitable business decisions, compared to companies with shareholders, who seem to often care about short term revenue above anything else?

          • jeffw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            For-profits don’t all have shareholders. Non-profits still have boards (and with non-profits it’s at times more difficult to rid your company of toxic board members). I’ve seen non-profits that move like snails and for-profits that move like cheetahs.

            And I wouldn’t really say it’s easier, no. For two companies of the same size, I don’t think it would be any different just because you’re a public company. Plenty of them don’t mind posting a loss if they defend it with investments. Investors, especially institutional ones, don’t just look at revenue. Assets, liabilities, equity, it all frames investing decisions.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I had a car with a bad alternator and took it to a shop, manager quoted me $150 then called an hour later to say he’d picked the wrong version of my car on the computer, mine would be $100 more but he said “a deals a deal so we’ll do it for the 150.”

        Every other car problem I had after, straight to that shop cause I knew they’d do solid work and charge me fairly. Putting people before profits means retaining workers and getting loyal customers

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          It definitely makes sense to anyone with the ability to see past their nose. I wish companies like Comcast and Verizon could see it.

          • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Monopolies for modern necessities (the internet and phone) don’t have to worry about customer retention.