Ask HN: Would you fund Mozilla to become independent of Google?

Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall sentiment

  • Majority say they would not fund Mozilla as it currently exists.
  • Strong distinction is made between valuing Firefox as a product/engine and distrust or dislike of Mozilla’s broader organization and direction.
  • A minority would fund it, but only under strict governance and spending constraints.

Firefox vs Mozilla: structure and funding

  • Many commenters learned or reiterated that donations go to the Mozilla Foundation, while Firefox is developed by the Mozilla Corporation.
  • It’s repeatedly claimed (and debated) that donations legally cannot flow from the nonprofit to the for‑profit, so effectively 0% of donations fund Firefox development; instead, Firefox revenue (mostly from Google search royalties) flows upward to the Foundation.
  • This structure is viewed as opaque and “backwards” by many who want a way to fund the browser directly.

Conditions under which people would pay

  • Many would pay $5–$20/month or ~$20/year if:
    • Money was guaranteed to go only to Firefox/browser engineering (and possibly MDN/Thunderbird).
    • Work on “user-hostile” projects like ad tech, data sales, or “private tracking” stopped.
    • Telemetry was drastically reduced or removed, or made strictly opt‑in and transparent.
    • Focus shifted to privacy, security, ad‑blocking, and resisting Chrome‑only APIs.
    • Firefox were split into a minimal, no‑extras engine/browser plus optional “Mozilla” add‑ons.
  • Some argue the stated willingness to pay (~$20/year) reveals that users don’t actually value privacy that highly.

Governance, salaries, and politics

  • CEO and top-exec compensation, especially relative to Firefox’s market decline, is a major sticking point; several cite tax filings and charts showing rising pay vs falling usage.
  • Multiple comments express frustration that Mozilla spends heavily on marketing, “pet projects,” and non-browser advocacy instead of core engineering.
  • Political stances (e.g., on deplatforming, crypto donations, broader social/activist messaging) are a key reason some stopped using or donating, arguing a browser vendor should stay out of partisan politics.
  • A smaller group defends diversification and non-Firefox initiatives as necessary to reduce dependence on Google and sustain the org.

Alternatives and forks

  • Several prefer donating to or using alternatives: Ladybird, Servo, LibreWolf, Firefox forks, or even a hypothetical Wikimedia- or nonprofit‑run browser.
  • Some suggest Mozilla should have become a broader privacy‑centric suite (mail, calendar, groupware) or that others (e.g., Wikipedia) should fork Firefox.
  • A few would rather fund a de‑Googled Chrome under an independent nonprofit than anything managed by Mozilla.

Business model and ecosystem concerns

  • Some argue small-donor funding is inherently fragile compared to large corporate deals, but acknowledge the risk of capture by a single major funder (as happened with Google).
  • Others insist Mozilla should “just” live off its endowment and index-fund returns while focusing purely on Firefox.
  • There is broad agreement that an independent engine is critical for an open web and as a counterweight to Chrome; disagreement is mainly over whether Mozilla is still the right steward.