Directly from the source:
https://x.com/mozilla/status/1895553315884122217
Mozilla confirmed that it was set to receive the (tax payers’)money from the US gov. My question is, how in the world a browser, or any browsers for that matter, that generates hundreds of millions a year has anything to do with tax payers’ money?
Wow! This is dark and deep. Good job, president Trump 
Hm, not sure if PG forum is the best location to discuss this specific topic (i.e. The scope of USAID).
the us gov/dhs/cia/etc. heavily subsidizes a ton of (open source) projects
we’d still be in the stone age without them
I am not arguing about the scope of USAID. It’s the trustworthliness of Mozilla, hence the privacy aspect we can expect from them in the future, especially after the ToS mess.
One thing that’s for sure, no one has ever discovered this funding before. Did Mozilla announced any where before regarding how would they use this money for? I for one can’t find it.
Should US gov. subsidize Chromium also? Let’s be honest. I would not consider a millions company/org to be the one in need for the funding. Should they cut their chef’s salary in half, no one would have to pay for it.
Actually various governments fund / support a wide range of projects, even TOR takes government funds / support.
My point being, whether the piece of software could be trusted or not, shall rest on that actual piece of software, and the actual, current userbase.
I personally won’t automatically distrust a software just because it takes government grants.
The Mozilla Foundation isn’t “a browser”, it is a non-profit with a global focus. That is inline with USAIDs mission…
Mozilla Foundation, does a lot of traditional non-profit work, and has various charitable initiatives, including:
One thing the Mozilla foundation does not fund is Firefox (you seem confused on this point).
3.5 million … Good job, president Trump
Trump has cost Taxpayers over 100 million dollars on his golf outings alone…
It seems mean spirited and shitty and petty to cheerlead a pair of billionaires cutting funding to charitable programs intended to create opportunity and accessibiliy in regions that don’t enjoy the same access or opportunity to the digital world, while ignoring that that same billionaire is wasting upwards of 100 million dollars of taxpayer money on his golf habit (particularly when you consider that much of that money goes from taxpayers to Trump’s own businesses (Golf clubs and hotels), and makes his own secret service detail pay for rooms in his own hotels).
It means you agreed that even Chromium should get funding support from tax payers’ money. I disagree. The size of the project in terms of revenue should matter.
I would argue that any investment on Mozilla is a waste at best. They, along with their codebase, will come to oblivion in no time at this point.
Either due to ignorance or bias, you are making a disingenous comparison. The Mozilla Foundation doesn’t fund Firefox.
One thing that’s for sure, no one has ever discovered this funding before
Don’t mistake your own ignorance for “no one has ever discovered…” There is literally nothing to discover, both the Mozilla Foundation and the US government, have publicized their collaborations on multiple occasions, they are initiatives that they are proud of… here are some examples. And Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit, their financials are public. You are grasping for a conspiracy where there is none…
A specific example of the type of initiative USAID has funded is Mozilla foundation’s Responsible Computer Science Challenge (RCSC) and Responsible Computing Challenge (RCC) which has provided support to faculty who integrate a focus on ethics and social impact into their computer science curriculum at Universities in the US, India, Kenya, South Africa, etc,
You can argue with this BS when 80%+ of their revenue came from their browser business.
You should add a reference for this 
Do you mean that Firefox will survive without Mozilla? Seems 99% of the sane internet would disagree with you.
Hm I think there are several issues here.
I am not sure whether you would like to discuss
a) USAID’s aim / goal / purpose
b) USAID’s decision making process when considering application
c) The value for money of these grants (i.e. whether the applicants worth the grants)
d) Does getting USAID grants undermine grantees’ credibility
e) something else(?)
But for a)-d), I don’t really think it is something related to the theme of this forum. That’s why I said PG might not be the best location to discuss this.
Discussion is closed because it is leading to off-topic conversation.
For the record, you are welcome to ask questions or criticize Mozilla if it’s on-topic.
Either I or both of you is confusing here. Despite of the name, USAID initiative, it doesn’t mean that USAID will spoon money to anyone.
You need to apply for it.
Here is the link for the application (has been taken down now, obviously ):
https://www.usaid.gov/div/apply
The point is not USAID granting, of which has been exposed already. The point is why would Mozilla apply for such a grant/grants. It’s people money that they wasted.
It’s totally on-topic here, unless the company/org/dev reputation doesn’t matter to the site’s privacy criteria.
That is the Trumpian worldview with regard to foreign and domestic aid programs, social programs, and charitable giving.
That isn’t a worldview I subscribe to (or have much respect for).
Good for you, I would argue that your comment is off-topic, though.
I would argue that your comment is off-topic, though.
You’re right, it is off topic, this (your) entire post is off topic (my comments included)
If you make an off topic post, you get off topic responses. You can’t have it both ways.
Unfortunately, I’ve observed a pattern on this forum that whenever there’s even small flecks of politics, very especially American politics, people just jump in with their red herring fallacies or similar, and thus the original topic becomes derailed.
So I believe whenever those flecks are present, the team should keep a close eye on it. Otherwise, it’ll just end up like this, which, quite frankly, was poorly-moderated. And that “discussion,” personally, made me re-evaluate my view on some people.