The author may be a right-wing fellow. Nonetheless, the data he exposes are taken from official Mozilla docs.

  • Gargari@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Great post. Does it matter if it’s right or left wing? How did you concluded that

    • peotr26@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lunduke is known to have been defending quite extremist (on the right side of the political spectrum) view point on certain subjects.

      As such, many people, me included, do not really like him.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ad hominem applies to arguments. The source of an argument does not affect the soundness of that argument.

          But it’s not a fallacy to question an overarching narrative based on the source. If a person keeps selectively choosing facts and twisting words to forward a specific narrative, it’s not fallacious to view what that person says with skepticism.

          Edit: Typo. Also changed “valid” to “sound”.

          • zephyrvs@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            ad hominem: in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

            If you think his narrative is skewed and based on selectively chosen facts and twisted words, you could correct that.

            • darq@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote.

              People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That’s different to ad-hominem.

            • stillwater@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You really want to take the position that narratives can’t be skewed by the overall ethos of the author?

    • mplewis@lemmy.globe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It absolutely matters. We need to consider that a right-wing actor is likely to exaggerate claims against an organization that is ostensibly socially-minded and represents anti-corporate interests, like Mozilla.

      • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Organization represents anti-corporate interests.

        CEO gets paid almost all donations despite poor performance.

        Seems pretty corporate interests to me.

        • mplewis@lemmy.globe.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not denying that Mozilla has a history of poor governance. But they are the competitor to Google here. You need to consider these things in context to understand what anti-corporate means for the internet.

    • • milan •@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The author clearly has an issue with the money going to left-wing orgs specifically. They’re making a big point out of all the antiracism and one of their bullet points asks why Mozilla has no problem alienating their user base.