I may be in the minority but I'm perfectly fine with Mozilla's approach here.
replyThey link to the full document which lists their VPN subscriber count near the top of the about Mozilla section.
It would sound like an advertisement though, so in some way it’s better they don’t mention it
replydeleted
replyIt’s better to hide conflicts of interest?
reply(Edit: I don’t disagree with Mozilla’s position, but failure to declare an obvious conflict of interest undermines their credibility.)
It’s in the document they link pretty early on. You can argue they could make it more obvious in the blog I guess but that’s flimsy IMO and calling it hidden isn’t accurate
replyFair enough. Yes, it is in the linked document. I agree that's sufficient. I was responding to people suggesting that Mozilla didn't need to declare this at all.
replyAll good. I also tuned down my language a little bit there, that came off as a little harsh and lecturing, sorry about that
replyBy your logic it's also better if Ray-Ban and Oakley don't publicly state that UV light is dangerous and that people should use sunglasses if outside.
replyThat sounds silly.
I said that they should have declared the conflict of interest, not that they shouldn't have made the statement.
replyThis is the Mozilla foundation, the VPN seller is Mozilla corporation.
replyThe foundation does get some of its funding from the corporation, though.
reply[dead]
replyThey also advocate for if not enforce HTTPS. Would this be bad if they were also a trusted CA selling signed TLS certs to companies?
reply