I think a handful of research examples. For instance, I used to work at a non-profit that does donor-based fundraising that apparently had an account compromised, and the bad actor just sat and waited until the right time.

Then, when a donor asked for details about how to contribute, that was when the attacker sent an email from the compromised account with instructions to wire to some outside account we had never heard of. It was caught right away and nothing bad happened but it was still too close for comfort.

I don't believe in the fatalistic assumption that it's impossible to communicate about. It happens to real people after all. But I think you have to be specific and have specific action steps in mind.

Does any know of a pro-union or pro-cooperative startup incubator?

I don't know that Mozilla actually does this in a values-aligned way, but they do have their own seed funding venture arm. I know Mozilla gets a lot of guff, 99% of it unfair imo, but I think it's one of the smartest things they're doing for long term viability.

Part of what they value and are looking to fund are "healthy communities" but for their purposes that might mean something like FOSS principles and privacy rather than healthy ownership/governance structures for orgs.

Every corporation invested in unhealthy ventures will say it is necessary, and they can do it ethically, regardless of how misleading or untrue it is. They will launder their bad behavior through an organization to make it appear more ethical and healthy.

My guy.... you linked to a youtube documentary about the questionable economics of gold and a blog post about an unreliable certification group associated with Rainforest Alliance. Not because of anything specific to gold or certifications, but... to illustrate the general idea that corporations can be bad?

The level of generality you have to zoom out to, to associate those to Mozilla, is the same level of zooming out typically used for Qanon conspiracy theorizing.

This is exactly the kind of thing that people make fun of with Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. If you're willing to zoom out to six degrees, you can connect Kevin Bacon to anyone in the history of cinema. It doesn't prove that Kevin Bacon is personally connected to everyone in the history of cinema, but what it does prove is the frivolousness of reasoning from such stretched out connections. That goes for historical connections, but also funding connections, and, perhaps most importantly here, for conceptual connections. And I would venture that trains of thought hinging on such remote connections are a hallmark of fuzzy thinking, which is why it's terrible to go from "Rainforest Alliance bad" to "... and therefore Mozilla ad privacy is bad."

That's not to say one shouldn't be concerned about Mozilla's venture into advertising, but that this is a terribly incoherent way of showing it, that's as liable to produce overextended false positives connecting anything to anything as it is to produce any insight.

As the other commenter noted, this is kind of a nonsensical article. I am not by any means a fan of Mozilla's decision on Ublock, it seems egregious and indefensible. But the convoluted logic of making Manifest V3 about Mozilla is completely emptyhanded, and there's no rhyme, reason, logic, or precedent suggesting we should make anything of their absence of a statement.

Also, this is especially nuts because Mozilla HAS in fact criticized Manifest V3! They just happened not to have done so within a particular randomly selected window of time.

What is the insight from your perspective?