Mozilla just ditched its privacy partner because its CEO is tied to data brokers - eviltoast
  • 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.
  • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 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
      21
      ·
      8 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
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 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
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 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.

        • jeffw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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

          • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            So they’re always immune to losing money ? are they protected by law in this regard ?

            • jeffw@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

                • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Kindly get fucked, if you don’t mind (I hope my English comes across well)

              • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Ok it all makes sense in retrospect… thanks (synonymous with “They cannot afford to lose money”)