<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>scrollaway</author><text>The lack of interest in pushing Persona forward has made me wildly change my stance on Mozilla. Third party authentication is an important building block of the web which is currently dominated and virtually owned by Google and Facebook.&lt;p&gt;Persona does everything right, yet it is not being pushed forward anymore; I have my doubt as to whether it ever was. In &amp;quot;keeping the web open&amp;quot;, it is such a low hanging fruit I simply don&amp;#x27;t understand the complete disinterest behind Persona - is Mozilla just waiting to see if a protocol with a cuter name comes along?</text><parent_chain><item><author>pbiggar</author><text>&amp;gt;  No matter how well-intentioned the folks at Mozilla Foundation&amp;#x2F;Corporation might be, it&amp;#x27;s difficult for human beings to avoid getting side-tracked when their wallet are running thin and there&amp;#x27;s easy money up for grabs out there.&lt;p&gt;As a former Mozillian, I can&amp;#x27;t begin to describe how inaccurate this is. Discussion of money, or revenue, were relatively rare compared to the things that Mozillians actually care about. Here&amp;#x27;s a list of things that were discussed about 100x more than advertising revenue:&lt;p&gt;- building the mozilla community
- open source
- rust and servo
- where to go for lunch
- javascript performance
- keeping the web open
- making firefox builds fast
- firefox memory usage
- proprietary codecs vs vp8</text></item><item><author>kijin</author><text>It is indeed disturbing that Mozilla&amp;#x27;s finances depend so much on advertising. No matter how well-intentioned the folks at Mozilla Foundation&amp;#x2F;Corporation might be, it&amp;#x27;s difficult for human beings to avoid getting side-tracked when their wallet are running thin and there&amp;#x27;s easy money up for grabs out there.&lt;p&gt;But I don&amp;#x27;t think the author&amp;#x27;s suggestions are compatible what what we (or at least, I) want Firefox to be, either.&lt;p&gt;1. Spinning off a variant named PrivateFox just sends the message that the regular Firefox will no longer respect your privacy. It will also make regular, free, not-private Firefox users second-class citizens of the Internet. People deserve to have their privacy protected, regardless of whether they can pay or not. In fact, people who can&amp;#x27;t pay (minors, the poor, citizens of oppressive third-world regimes, etc.) are often in need of the most protection. Moreover, even if you can afford PrivateFox, the payment creates a paper trail that might negate the benefit of using PrivateFox.&lt;p&gt;2. Crowdsourcing sounds cool, but only if everyone benefits. There&amp;#x27;s no point in creating &amp;quot;The World’s First Fully Private Browser&amp;quot; and keeping it proprietary. If there exists technology to improve everyone&amp;#x27;s privacy, it should be included in every copy of Firefox by default.&lt;p&gt;3. Intentcasting is an interesting concept, but in the context of a web browser it sounds like just another &amp;quot;Ubuntu sends my searches to Amazon&amp;quot; debacle waiting to happen. If I want good privacy, I probably don&amp;#x27;t want to tell faceless multinational corporations what I want to buy, either.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the only alternative that I can think of is a variant of Wikimedia Foundation&amp;#x27;s annual donation drive. As a long-time Firefox fan, I would certainly donate as much as I can. (Is there someone at Mozilla who can give creepy stares in a banner ad as well as Jimmy Wales does?) But again there&amp;#x27;s a problem: Mozilla&amp;#x27;s budget is several times the size of Wikimedia&amp;#x27;s (300MM vs. 80MM), and I&amp;#x27;m not sure that the moral value of Firefox, although significant, exceeds that of Wikipedia. Mozilla needs to be seriously trimmed down if they&amp;#x27;re ever going to be supported by donations.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Earth to Mozilla: Come back home</title><url>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2014/04/12/earth-to-mozilla-come-back-to-us/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sentenza</author><text>Thank you for thinking about and alleviating the memory usage problems. Firefox has seriously improved in this regard and now runs decently even with pathological numbers of open tabs (Yeah, I know.).</text><parent_chain><item><author>pbiggar</author><text>&amp;gt;  No matter how well-intentioned the folks at Mozilla Foundation&amp;#x2F;Corporation might be, it&amp;#x27;s difficult for human beings to avoid getting side-tracked when their wallet are running thin and there&amp;#x27;s easy money up for grabs out there.&lt;p&gt;As a former Mozillian, I can&amp;#x27;t begin to describe how inaccurate this is. Discussion of money, or revenue, were relatively rare compared to the things that Mozillians actually care about. Here&amp;#x27;s a list of things that were discussed about 100x more than advertising revenue:&lt;p&gt;- building the mozilla community
- open source
- rust and servo
- where to go for lunch
- javascript performance
- keeping the web open
- making firefox builds fast
- firefox memory usage
- proprietary codecs vs vp8</text></item><item><author>kijin</author><text>It is indeed disturbing that Mozilla&amp;#x27;s finances depend so much on advertising. No matter how well-intentioned the folks at Mozilla Foundation&amp;#x2F;Corporation might be, it&amp;#x27;s difficult for human beings to avoid getting side-tracked when their wallet are running thin and there&amp;#x27;s easy money up for grabs out there.&lt;p&gt;But I don&amp;#x27;t think the author&amp;#x27;s suggestions are compatible what what we (or at least, I) want Firefox to be, either.&lt;p&gt;1. Spinning off a variant named PrivateFox just sends the message that the regular Firefox will no longer respect your privacy. It will also make regular, free, not-private Firefox users second-class citizens of the Internet. People deserve to have their privacy protected, regardless of whether they can pay or not. In fact, people who can&amp;#x27;t pay (minors, the poor, citizens of oppressive third-world regimes, etc.) are often in need of the most protection. Moreover, even if you can afford PrivateFox, the payment creates a paper trail that might negate the benefit of using PrivateFox.&lt;p&gt;2. Crowdsourcing sounds cool, but only if everyone benefits. There&amp;#x27;s no point in creating &amp;quot;The World’s First Fully Private Browser&amp;quot; and keeping it proprietary. If there exists technology to improve everyone&amp;#x27;s privacy, it should be included in every copy of Firefox by default.&lt;p&gt;3. Intentcasting is an interesting concept, but in the context of a web browser it sounds like just another &amp;quot;Ubuntu sends my searches to Amazon&amp;quot; debacle waiting to happen. If I want good privacy, I probably don&amp;#x27;t want to tell faceless multinational corporations what I want to buy, either.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the only alternative that I can think of is a variant of Wikimedia Foundation&amp;#x27;s annual donation drive. As a long-time Firefox fan, I would certainly donate as much as I can. (Is there someone at Mozilla who can give creepy stares in a banner ad as well as Jimmy Wales does?) But again there&amp;#x27;s a problem: Mozilla&amp;#x27;s budget is several times the size of Wikimedia&amp;#x27;s (300MM vs. 80MM), and I&amp;#x27;m not sure that the moral value of Firefox, although significant, exceeds that of Wikipedia. Mozilla needs to be seriously trimmed down if they&amp;#x27;re ever going to be supported by donations.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Earth to Mozilla: Come back home</title><url>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2014/04/12/earth-to-mozilla-come-back-to-us/</url></story>