Mozilla: The right attitude for a Web gatekeeper

I'm all for capitalism and bare-knuckled competition. In fact, much as I bag on Microsoft, it's precisely because I respect it as an organization that I devote any time to it at all.

However, there are some areas where I'd rather have a "public utility" running the show, and the Web browser is one of them. (The operating system is another, which is one reason I'm a big proponent of Linux.) For this reason, I loved this Seattle Times interview with Mozilla CEO John Lilly, in which he expresses the precise attitude that we want from an organization serving as a gatekeeper of the Web with a browser:

Q: You've said Mozilla is there to make the Web better. Is that all? No dreams of empire?

Lilly: No, no, no. We talk about our mission literally every day, which is to keep the Web open and participatory. When Mozilla started 2003, it felt that 96 percent of the Web being controlled by Microsoft wasn't good for anyone.

Our goal is to make the Web better. We have a single agenda. Beyond that, we're proud about a few things. Our open-source nature is significant. Our community is significant.

Q: If someone ever comes up with a better open-source browser than Firefox, and Mozilla disappeared, would that be a success or a failure for the company, or a little of both?

Lilly: It's not exactly plan A, but the mission is to keep the Web open.

I love that. No talk of kidney-punching its way to the top. No talk of FUD and other common mechanisms for gaining or keeping market share. Just open source and community, duking it out for market supremacy. That's the kind of Web domination with which I can live.

[farker1]

There's more on this page about Matt than about Mozilla. I am well aware of the trend toward microblogging, but this is clearly a ploy to post anything and get some eyeballs on his name (leaving aside the ad revenue). I plan to keep away from now on.

[galacticcruiser]

In a way open source is more capitalist than proprietary approaches. Open implies (or should) more transparency etc, which capitalism needs more of to avoid the messes it often finds itself. Proprietary approaches can reek of protectionism (at the wrong stage of development), or an agenda of monopoly capitalism, or even mercantilist capitalism depending on which industry we talk about. Open source is not automatically socialist just because it is open and involves people etc that a lot of people think.

(This is an oversimplification of open source, capitalism, socialism, and various other isms, but the other point I guess is that they are not black and white, either.)

[ctfoley]

of course, pretty much all open source contributions are from people who are paid to do it. also, remember that mozilla gets most of its money from google. so nobody does anything for anyone without getting paid for it. i still like mozilla, though.

[pbr90king]

Part of the frustration of the internet is the innovation of unnecessary "type-pad" style log in/membership requirements in order to leave messages like this - that imposes a need where none exist. Gatekeeping may not be something the internet needs at all, and may serve to reduce what otherwise would be anonymity and privacy - two of the most valued privileges in America.

Profits made from human misery are very closely related to profits made from human frustration. Neither should be idolized, enhanced, or tolerated as ideal commercial objectives. If free trade means addiction, capture, and kidnapping, who needs or wants free trade?

Respectable business seeks respectable outcomes, and that means providing beneficial goods and services, not those meant to harness, isolate, expose to risk, etc.

How hard a concept is that for industry or government to embrace?

Apparently hard, and getting harder all the time.