- 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.
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
People over profit generally seems to be the best business practice anyways
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
It definitely makes sense to anyone with the ability to see past their nose. I wish companies like Comcast and Verizon could see it.
Monopolies for modern necessities (the internet and phone) don’t have to worry about customer retention.
I mean, in some situations those two I mentioned are but I’ve been in the position to easily switch service to another company and that doesn’t change their behavior at all.
“So the problem is it’s too easy to switch. Let’s change that!” - some CEO, probably
Some CEO to another, at a ski chalet where they totally don’t collude at the spa.
They 100% have been having that conversation since the 50s if not earlier
deleted by creator
Plot twist: The right version was actually cheaper, but they figured they’d tell you that story to make you a more loyal customer.
Where I live changing the price after agreeing on it would even be illegal :0
Probably, but they might “just find out they don’t have the part in stock and can’t do it”" and refund
How did you get to this conclusion? Tesla, amazon, McDs etc are top tier companies who are notoriously shit both to work for and in how they operate in terms of skirting regulation etc.
investing in people(customers) brings slow but longterm sustainable profits (Linux for example)
profits don’t bring customers, they bring investors
Profits are the goal though, look at the car industry, they have reduced production numbers to increase profits with higher margins.
They dont care about customers, only profits and investors.
The point is that if they get complacent, they get replaced (example: what tesla and new Chinese companies like BYD are doing with the car market)
That doesn’t change the fact that you’re both not taking the real issue into account; the biggest, wealthiest shareholders are demanding a sustained 25% RoI. That is inherently unsustainable and by design. They want companies to die because monopolies are profitable and the market was booming (until they decided to milk everything dry) so there is money to be made IF you don’t value human civilization.
I fucking hate the rich.
…you’re holding up Linux as a successful business entity? Compared to Tesla, Amazon, and McDonald’s?
You need some new hobbies bro
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.
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
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?
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.
Today I learned!
How can’t non-profits lose money ? I don’t understand
They need to make money. They need to pay bills and pay employees. If you’re losing money, you have to fire people or downsize, just like any other business. Or borrow money
So they’re always immune to losing money ? are they protected by law in this regard ?
Sorry, I think I wasn’t clear. They can’t lose money if they want to remain in business is what I should have said.
Ok it all makes sense in retrospect… thanks (synonymous with “They cannot afford to lose money”)
You were clear. The other guy was being a pedant or an idiot.
It’s sorta the other way. Mozilla constantly does stuff like that and backs off when they get called out on it.
This one is cool but I’m still going with Librewolf, thanks.
This is fantastic. That said, Mozilla should really reconsider their own CEO too.
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?
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.
What exactly did she do that is concerning?
Not everything in her past is stuff I like, am interested in, or agree with, but I don’t see anything in her history that means she can’t be a CEO or that her appointment should concern me.
What has she done that makes you worry?
It’s not her actions, it’s her past workplaces. AirBnB in particular is concerning. It’s not exactly a secret that thanks to AirBnBs business model, and the lack of regulation of it, that the housing markets in several countries have gotten fucked completely. Something she chose to work with and directly support.
I somehow rank the right to have a place to live slightly above the right to have open access to the internet (though not by much), and as such I wouldn’t want anyone with her affiliations in any such senior position at Mozilla, temporary or no.
I 100% agree with your stance on AirBnB.
I just don’t see how that would make someone ineffective as an interim CEO for a web browser company
Shit, I have history working for McDonald’s, HP, and IBM. All companies that have also done a litany of questionable shit. Does it make me bad? Am I not pure enough for Mozilla either?
Ah, zoomer purity tests.
Ok, that’s why she’s interim and they’re looking for someone else.
Pretty sure he’s saying there should be no ultimate head. Which…umm…if you get rid of CEO then someone below them is in charge and then you just keep cutting people until nobody is left lol
That’s not at all what I said. You’re conflating my comment with that of someone else.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like for the most part, at least for big decisions, the corporation answers to the foundation which is more of a commitee anyway. Maybe they’re kept more separate than that, but that’s the impression that I got.
They should not have a CEO, period. Useless do-nothing job.
It’s always funny to see someone who thinks they know how it works but in reality has no clue whatsoever how it works.
how the hell do you expect to run a company (any company of any sort, non-profit included) without a proper legal representative
What do you think that job consists of? Lol
what do you think
I think you’re identified their problem!
People. This is talking about the CEO for Onerep, not the CEO for Mozilla.
A good example that average reading comprehension is terrible.
This isn’t a reading comprehension issue.
English is weird. Technically the second “its” refers to [Mozilla’s] privacy partner but just… wow.
I think they are taking advantage of the fact that Mozilla just changed CEOs; folks will be skeptical, and that is worth a few clicks. Even the beginning of the article is more ambiguous than it needs to be. These organizations (not Mozilla) exist solely to get attention, and should not be given the benefit of the doubt here.
It 100% is.
Context is an aspect of reading comprehension.
Articles and headlines do not exist in a vacuum. ‘Context’ is not even remotely straightforward.
Yeah. I didn’t say it was easy. I implied it’s a skill that you should have been taught.
Oh thank God I was like bruh now what do I do
If only politicians were held up to the same standards when it came to being in positions of conflict of interest.
We’d have to abolish everyone currently in office and start over.
Which would be beautiful.
I’ve always been doubtful about these privacy “protection” services. Giving a bunch of personal data and money to a commercial entity making seemingly dubious claims it can compel other services to remove your data has never seemed like a great idea. Data is the new oil, it’s incredibly valuable, and there is too much incentive for companies like that to become just another data collector.
The “incentive” is just greed. Customers could be paying a million dollars a month and there will still be some greedy, slimey executive pushing “if we sold their data too we could make a million and one dollars off them each month”.
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.
I’m not a native speaker, but the right meaning is the one that came to mind reading this title.
I think context makes it clear, and the most likely meaning. If it was Firefoxs CEO the one at fault, I would think it’s a ver weird way of saying it.
But I also see people saying this is why Firefox is the worst and I’m not sure I got it right by accident, people have low reading comprehension or just a massive bias.
I am a native english speaker and the headline absolutely makes sense and is clearly worded, some people just dont think about what they are reading and gloss over it.
On lemmy in particular, you’ll see a lot of the following scenarios
-
statement could be taken one of two ways
-
option #1 makes sense and is reasonable
-
option #2 is absolute gobbledigook
-
lemmy users: “I literally cannot understand which of these interpretations is accurate”
Perhaps it’s related to the large numbers of self-professed neurodivergent people here?
Neurodivergent, my ass. I literally have been diagnosed with Aspergers’/Autism Spectrum Disorder/whatever since I was 8, that was 25 years ago, and knew it had to be the “privacy” “partner” CEO that had data broker connections. This is either lack of knowledge (reddit was easy to use and then turned evil) or lack of brain cells, but to be fair… That grammar is implausibly awful, like someone was trying to punish Mozilla…
-
yea “their” instead of “it’s” imo would be a little clearer but it still makes sense
You’re not wrong. But also keep in mind that headlines prime readers to think in a certain way before they even get a chance to read the context. No one will admit it, because headlines make money, but all it takes is one carefully worded headline to change how people interpret, feel about, and react to a story. Even when you’re aware of this trick, it’s impossible to avoid all the time. That’s just how our brains work.
What I mean context is not the article, but the title as a whole. I don’t think Firefox is going to announce “our CEO traffics with data, so we are no longer working with our privacy partner”. If verge or somebody else speculated that’s the reason, I would expect the title to include " Y person thinks/told".
It’s like “Judge sentences rapist to death after raping a child” and “Judge sentences rapist to death after careful consideration”. The context of the sentence itself makes it think that the rape was performed by the sentenced, and the consideration by the judge. They could be switched and be technically correct, but would be a very unusual way of wording.
I don’t think this title is specially clickbaity or malicious. Specially given this is the fucking Verge.
But again, might be how my brain is wired to read a foreign language.
Oh! I think I see what you mean now. I think I get it.
Same, not a native speaker and I understood the title.
Same, not a native speaker and I understood the title.
No I read the title as Mozilla’s CEO being tied to brokers.
A better title might be “Mozilla just ditched a privacy partner whose CEO was found to have ties with data brokers”
But it clearly does not say that if you take your time to think about the words you are reading so clearly you glossed over it without any real reading comprehension going on…
From the title I was so disappoint in Mozilla. So glad. No longer disappoint.
A masterbaiter, perfect fit for making Youtube titles.
@AnActOfCreation@programming.dev please edit :)
Honestly it’s a great way to get people who just read the title to self-report.
Good. Just another reason to keep Firefox.
They initied the relationship like a month ago without any safety check. Is that also a good reason?
When questionable decisions are seen as a virtue because they are reversed.
Dunno about you, but recognizing a mistake and taking action to correct it is usually a sign of maturity in my book.
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!
common Firefox W
I kind of feel like the only job of CEOs is to not intentionally fuck shits up. But they often seems to fail at that somehow.
If you do a good job as CEO we’ll pay you $1 million
If you mess up as CEO we’ll pay you $900,000
If you really mess up as CEO we’ll pay you $800,000
If you completely tank the company … we’ll pay you $2 million
Looks like Mozilla will always depend on that google check lol.
The headline is ambiguous here. The CEO in question is from Onerep, not Mozilla.
And that is not related to the comment. If this partner is gone, Firefox lost a big deal.
Context. People seemed to be complaining about Mozilla’s CEO. That’s why I wanted to clarify for anyone reading the comments first.
This CEO has been a problem from day one, and there needs to be a movement to get rid of them.
Didn’t the CEO recently step down or am I confused?
She did. People are dumb.
I’m not entirely sure I get this, so a company that will and does force other company’s to remove personal data has ties to a broker and Mozilla dropped them for those ties, I mean its not bad but its definitely harsh and removes a useful service from a subscription they offered,hopefully Mozilla can at least find a new implementation or change the pricing to shadow the lack of this feature.Edit: different article Mozilla did the right thing. I still think Mozilla should adjust pricing or implement a similar service.
Personally, these services are all a bit sketchy anyway. Mostly because they advertise themselves as the magic bullet to remove all your unwanted personal data from the internet, but ignores that this removal relies on the cooperation of the third parties in possession of your data. Most notably, this won’t work if your data has been exposed in a data breach.
To me it very much feels like VPN ads. Technically a working product, but advertised in a very dishonest way.
i agree, its more that if the vpn advertised a roster of features and removed one id still like to see the pricing reflect that reduction.
VPN use should warrant the same privacy concerns. They can tell they respect your privacy all they want, nobody can control that.
And they’ve got a huge incentive to sellling your data.
Privateinternetaccess.com’s VPN servers log nothing, and run their entire systems in RAM. If you want a VPN that’s truly private, use them. They can’t sell your data, because they retain nothing to sell.
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.
I made a post on lemmy a while here: https://lemm.ee/post/22988838
Thanks!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Though customer data was never at risk, the outside financial interests and activities of Onerep’s CEO do not align with our values,” writes Mozilla’s vice president of communications Brandon Borrman, in a statement provided to The Verge.
The service let users hunt down their personal information on the web and submit takedown requests across dozens of websites — all through Mozilla’s partnership with Onerep.
However, an in-depth report from Krebs on Security found that Onerep’s CEO Dimitri Shelest started “dozens” of people-search websites over the course of several years.
Shelest later published a statement admitting that he still holds an ownership stake in Nuwber, which lets visitors search for people based on their name, phone number, address, or email.
“In truth, if I hadn’t taken that initial path with a deep dive into how people search sites work, Onerep wouldn’t have the best tech and team in the space.
“We’re working now to solidify a transition plan that will provide customers with a seamless experience and will continue to put their interests first,” Borrman tells The Verge.
The original article contains 308 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 43%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
