Advocacy emails

sgibson5150@slrpnk.net to Firefox@lemmy.ml – 121 points –

This is the second such email I have received recently. Seems legit but I don't recognize the domain in the link to sign, and it seems like the people who make Firefox would know that the people who use Firefox would be hesitant to click. IDGI. Anyone else getting these?

Edit 2024-04-10: Got a new email today and it appears all the links now go to links dot mozilla dot org. I won't flatter myself that this post had anything to do with that, but maybe the same thought occurred to someone at Mozilla. Nice. ✌️

21

Here's the direct link: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/whatsapp-must-act-to-protect-elections/

Huh. Thank you. Wish they'd put that link in the email instead of the one to cmail19 dot com.

Their marketing email provider rewrites the links to know who clicks on the links. Makes giving feedback to Mozilla more accurate so they can give open vs link click ratios.

I get the purpose and utility to Mozilla but I feel like the average FF user is more likely to ignore that link and hence the email.

Right, I understand that there are decisions that marketing teams make to make their email campaigns more seamless. But there are also ways to do this campaign while maintaining some transparency and making it clear that Mozilla is, in fact, the sender. I would expect that from Mozilla, but unfortunately they didn't do that here.

That domain appears to be associated with createsend who do bulk email.

I'm guessing that it's used to track who is clicking on a link.

I agree, seems a bit off for Mozilla to use such a process, but getting emails from the sender to each recipient is no longer trivial if you're doing it in bulk.

That's a great point. I helped set my employer up for a campaign once. Can't have too many hyperlinks, can't use certain words like "free", and IIRC can't use a domain in links that doesn't match originating domain. Too many points against and the destination server chucks it in the bin.

Steve? Is that you?

I get the feeling this is not the kind of question that particular Steve Gibson would be asking 😛

Unless he has a method of verifying the authenticity of unencrypted emails such as this one that literally no one else has, I don't see why he wouldn't be asking the same question. Also, I'm better looking.

Edit: For clarity

Emails

Emails, Traffics, Deers, Mails. Same reason, all wrong.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll try to do better next time.

Though I think you can use "deers" if you were referring to multiple species of deer.

1 more...
1 more...

Why is a communication platform responsible for the content on it?

Mozilla is part political advocacy group. This is part of the Mozilla Manifesto Pledge for a Healthy Internet:

We are committed to an internet that elevates critical thinking, reasoned argument, shared knowledge, and verifiable facts.

BTW, if you donate to Mozilla, your money goes to this.
Not Firefox development.
This.

Ironic because Mozilla subsidiaries break several of their principles now. Thanks to FakeSpot alone:

  • They now sell user data to advertisers (Principle 4)
  • They are using that data to build a price-checker into their browser that biases sites of its choosing (Principle 5)
  • The selected sites are the biggest hubs of centralized commerce in the US (Principle 6)
  • Nobody in the community was consulted about this or even requested it (Principle 8)

100%

They're advocating for moderation of the internet, Shadow banning of wrong think, it's antithetical to a free and open communication system.

They want to create a platform where essential authority decides what's true, and what's acceptable, and everything else just silently disappears into the void. Sure at the beginning, the " right people" Will run the system. But give it 5 to 15 years and the wrong people will kill public discourse on any critical conversation

They aren't. You misunderstand the point. Private interests are using media to skew the behavior of the people ingesting that media. Another business is asking a third party to act on behalf of the affected demographic because of the infectious and addictive nature of the media. It is hard to compel people to quit something that makes them want more of it. So this is a call to action to stop being abusive towards people.