It may be viewed that way, but it’s also useful to empathize with someone and get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy.
I usually do the same thing when the medium is text and someone is not happy. Tone conveys a lot of useful information. Even better if you can see a person and their body language.
I don’t think the cynical view of the staff person’s intentions is fair, though I don’t know the person’s history nor do I have dog in this fight.
The request by itself is fine; it's not about that, but about the nuance within the word choice and what it conveys.
It appears the OP is an incredibly valuable community member that has been deeply affronted and hurt by the recent changes. Any attitude other than "I'll move heaven and earth to make this right for you" will likely feel insufficient. Even failing that, I'd at least expect an attitude of "I really, REALLY don't want this to ever happen again". I see neither.
The staff member comes off as robotic because there's zero conciliatory tone or admission of wrongdoing at all in the message. "I'm sorry you feel this way [about the workflow]" puts the onus on OP, and doesn't convey a hint of remorse -- even "I'm sorry our workflow has intruded on yours" would of course be better. "Would you be interested" should be "Would you be willing"; "to talk about this further" could be "so we can better understand what went wrong".
These nuances matter a lot when people are offended. If they're this incompetent at communication over text, I don't know that I'd bother with a video call.
Fair point. The non-apology is not helping I agree and would have been better left off altogether. I’m guessing this staff person is not very high level and just trying to help and connect the right people. That is, if you’re not very high up in an org, you may not feel you have the authority to speak on behalf of the org as a whole. I don’t have much context to know.
Mozilla could of certainly handled it better as an org, that I would agree with.
> It may be viewed that way, but it’s also useful to empathize with someone and get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy.
It can be, but maybe not when you're not actually replying to anything the other person wrote. The person who experienced the issues and chose to leave made a pretty clear list of "here is the exact reasons the bot is unbearable for us". This person who opened up the conversation is doing so via text, at least providing some sort of answer initially via the same channel before trying to get them to jump into a private call could have maybe came across a bit more empathic and collaborative.
How about something a human might write, like “Let’s talk and see if we can change things so you don’t have to leave, and so we don’t lose more people.”
Kiki is a corporate emissary caught between empathy and policy. I believe she genuinely wants reconciliation and understanding (“Would you hop on a call?”) but speaks in the soft dialect of institutional mediation. Her motivation is damage control through dialogue - to rebuild trust without ceding systemic control. She carries the company’s tone of “we’re listening,” but not yet its willingness to yield.
it seems like kiki(mozilla staff) want to talk on the phone because texting is not enough in this serious situation.
kiki has been working in the community forum, so i don't think it's just CS action.
I know that everyone has already given their opinions about what kinds of people are involved and their motivations, but this is really about two fallible humans, one listing grievances and another asking to open a communication channel.
That's it.
Anything else you read into this is going to be fraught with your own coloring based on a hundred words written in text (a notoriously difficult medium to establish emotional communication over).
Regardless of how nice or not-nice the text may sound to the various cultures that have weighed in so far, the right thing to do is talk voice/video and hash out what the problems are, and work together to come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone.
In my experience, long-term volunteers like this don't just up and quit without having already made multiple attempts at communicating first. The fact that those attempts are not detailed in a public "I quit" message, doesn't mean that those attempts didn't exist.
In my further experience, people with titles like "Senior Community Manager" (the title of Kiki, the person trying to "open communication") do not generally have the authority to make changes. Their role is like HR, to figure out how to calm down unhappy people.
This impression is further reinforced by the fact that later in the thread the leader of the Italian translation effort agreed with the basic list of complaints. And Kiki agreed with it as a list of basic problems with the bot. Which strongly suggests that Kiki agrees with the list of problems and already does not actually have authority to change them.
At this point I would classify this as opening up a channel of communication TO marsf, and not opening up a channel by which marsf can be heard in any meaningful way. Kiki is the wrong person, with the wrong message.
But one would assume you would mention the failure of the organisation to address your previously raised concerns in your resignation-and-criticise blog post?
Indeed. I feel for this guy. I volunteered with Mozilla for a long time and I have a lot of love for the org, but there are cultural/institutional problems it inherited from Netscape that are still there today. I think people of good conscience can't help but state why they're quitting in situations like this. We still want the problem fixed even if we can't fix it.
Yeah it seems fake, if it’s not already the number 1 priority for all the relevant decision makers at Mozilla by the second week of proven on the record disastrous changes… then none of them have any credibility left such that a community manager could make a difference. Regardless of how genuine or concerned they may be.
Even the most charitable interpretation would still implicate at least a few dozen at Mozilla to be deceivers and/or intriguers or turning a blind eye to it.
Maybe "open a communication channel" is what Mozilla should have done BEFORE they turned on this thing.
From the article: "It has been working now without our acceptance, without controls, without communications".
This person has been doing volunteer work for a long time, attempting to create a helpful environment. Then suddenly, from above a machine is turned on that shits all over that effort. Makes one feel unwelcome, and unseen...
> Maybe "open a communication channel" is what Mozilla should have done BEFORE they turned on this thing.
This right here is the crux of the matter. But it seems to be how Mozilla operates. They frequently show a lack of awareness and consideration towards their long time supporters. I doubt this particular incident will lead to any changes, but I really wish they'd do some introspection...
This is an easy mistake in large organizations. Any project often already has so many stakeholders and politics that they are incentivized to avoid adding more stakeholders to the project if they are politically capable of doing so.
Unless there is some sort of blowback, this sort of thing is likely to happen again to someone, and I understand how some people may not want to be involved anymore, and I understand how Mozilla will keep being Mozilla (just like other organizations will continue their current behaviors until some catalyst changes that behavior).
I was in same position as Mozilla guy when I slowly crawl through Cordova Russian translation. Then suddenly MS have initiative with Cordova Tools for VS, they redesign Cordova website (which is great) but completely drop docs website, and say - hey, we can use automatic translation if you want read in your mother tongue. Ironically I speak with MS manager and he was Russian speaking as well. So even if large corps made mistakes, their mistakes can const community contributors. But they are cheap, so who cares...
> This is an easy mistake in large organizations. Any project often already has so many stakeholders and politics that they are incentivized to avoid adding more stakeholders to the project if they are politically capable of doing so.
This person is already a stakeholder, you don't have a choice to add or not add them, you have a choice to include or not include them. And it's a gamble to not include them for this exact reason.
I'm all for keeping stakeholder counts as low as possible but you can't do it by just pretending some of your stakeholders don't exist, that's no good and in my experience, usually ends exactly like this.
In my experience, the corporate request of a "let's talk" by a staff member is literally like automatic ticket creation and a reference number being assigned to it, and then just sitting on it and possibly claiming "we had a productive discussion and looking forward to working with the community and we are always keeping Mozilla users in our hearts and minds... " and the person who raised the issue in public is like "…wait… what?… damn… why did I even agree to that call".
Seeing what that person has said in the first and seemingly last message, it indicates that; especially the history mentioned. Also, this should definitely be looked at with the colours of what has been Mozilla the Corp's modus operandi – again and again and again - w.r.t users and contributors.
So that thread has more than "one person listed grievance, another wants to talk" as you have kindly tried to put across.
Right. IF they were taking the issue seriously the response would be more along the lines of 'we didn't intend this outcome, and have paused availability of the bot while we re-examine the issue.' Mistakes do happen in large organizations where communication and project management is highly distributed, but but appears to be less of a mistake and more of a fait accompli, where a decision was made at a high level to roll out a new feature and objections are being treated as a PR problem.
The OP quit, publicly, and the response (and your post) miss that entirely. They aren't interested in a personal chat, and they aren't inviting anyone to help them process their feelings. They've left, and told everyone why.
And good for them honestly. This seems disrespectful as fuck, to just have their work overwritten by some fuckass bot nobody asked for, and have their feedback ignored. I'd tell Mozilla to kick rocks too.
Corpos have a nasty habit of, after so many years, feeling very entitled to the efforts of what are, at the end of the day, volunteers.
Community is also about communication. In fact, that's a primary aspect of a community.
Yeah, Mozilla introduced a bot that's stomping on things. Are they malicious? Twirling neatly waxed mustaches as they cackle gleefully as the little ants scurry about in a panic?
Or is this a case of humans doing what humans do: Screwing things up.
The first step is to open communications, and the most effective form of communication is face-to-face (the way we've evolved to do it).
Getting to the bottom of the issue in 1-1 communication with a representative of the community should be the common approach when complex problems arise, because then you can be sure that you're on the same wavelength before you do your mass communication with the rest of the community. Saves a TON of time and heartache and ill feelings.
Community is all about open communication, and cultivating it through active participation. There is no need to take further first steps here, as support.mozilla.org is the open platform that community agreed upon. For face-to-face communications there seems to be All Hands meetings, as mentioned by Michele.
This communication in particular is about how one member is sharing their "discomfort" of the non-communicated automation efforts done by Mozilla, and is also expressing their resulting action - leaving that community.
Please don't conflate the efforts of institutions (Mozilla) with the ones of communities (SUMO). Transparency is a big factor that marks their difference. So yes, community is also about communication.
As an unpaid volunteer to a multimillion dollar corporation that has just erased a huge collective volunteer effort, listing in writing the reasons I'm unhappy is already way too much effort.
Asking that same volunteer to hop on a video call is just insensitive. They're the one providing free work; if you care about solving the problem and not losing the volunteer force, you should go where they are (the forums) instead of asking them to come to you (video call). They probably don't want to take time out of their schedule to waste their time talking with a community rep. And they probably don't even want to do a voice/video call.
> Yeah, Mozilla introduced a bot that's stomping on things. Are they malicious? Twirling neatly waxed mustaches as they cackle gleefully as the little ants scurry about in a panic?
> Or is this a case of humans doing what humans do: Screwing things up.
Whatever else they might be, they're clearly out of touch. You'd have to be living under a rock to not realize that AI is controversial - especially in the more OSS/FSF parts of the internet - and rolling it out like a bulldozer is going to create outrage.
If they're just screwing things up, they're not learning from their mistakes. They already introduced the bot to the Spanish and Italian communities, with the same issues. To the roll it out further to the Japanese, and who knows who else, without fixing the issues is not speaking to their competence.
But if they had rolled-back the 2 languages and paused on the third, thr team behind this will have little to show during end of year reviews. So onwards the wheels turn, to show a large and growing rollout supporting millions of users across Europe and Asia in 2025
Yeah exactly. I understand you may feel that I bulldozed your house, but it was an honest mistake. I deployed an AI bulldozer. Some communities are very happy with the results. Others may need time to adjust. Look, I want to talk. First and foremost this is about communication.
As soon as you get Wi-Fi back up, let's hop on a call.
Except it’s not a screw up, is it? I’m not saying it’s malicious, and I feel your caricature of “twirling mustaches” is useless and detracts from the point.
It’s not a “screw up”. It’s also not malicious per se. It’s insensitive and shows a lack of care for the community. They deliberately turned on a bot that would overwrite work done by people, and make these people work with diffs and proofreading, without them having a say in it. In production!
It’s not like they can’t test it. Or involve everyone. There are locale leaders, as the Italian person alluded to.
This is shitting on community, and then going “sorry not sorry”, because they’re not rolling it back and they’re saying “I’m sorry you got your feelings hurt, wanna talk”?
This CAN be sorted out. And I believe it will. But it WAS insensitive and it WAS a case of not caring for the people who put their time and effort in voluntary work that benefits you. It’s really bad, no matter the intentions.
"Are they malicious? Twirling neatly waxed mustaches as they cackle gleefully as the little ants scurry about in a panic?"
Where are you getting this from, specifically? The claim I can see is that Mozilla didn't care enough to check first. So this looks as if it might be a straw-man argument. I think those are specifically prohibited in the FAQ.
Just please stop with the fluffy squishy feel good human nonsense. This is about a corporate team who recklessly flipped the switch of an AI that went through and trashed articles curated by another team.
> That's what communication is about.
And its plainly obvious the intent was NEVER communicated. The Japanese team had no idea their hard work was going to be overwritten by a computer.
Wasn't there already a perfectly fine and seemingly fully functional communication channel in place? The one they answered in. I see absolutely zero reason not communicate in it.
On other hand, it seems that early reply had zero effort or attempt to communicate. That is to identify what had happened and gather information and example themselves. But the absolute tiniest bit of effort in I would expect.
Dude, if someone is saying "hey we will pack up, we have nothing to do here" out of the blue, I would like a more nuanced conversation that written text could not hope to convey. We are humans and while reading is perfectly capable of relying information, it's unable to rely intention accurately. There's ton of information that is conveyed by the inflection of voice, demeanor, body language, etc.
> You could always take actual action on what information you have. First roll back changes. Second announce termination of responsible people.
Throw in some (proper) communication before you try to fix things with a hammer or start firing people and I'd agree. It's also unlikely the community support manager has any of this power, they are looking to roll up an accurate summary capturing all of the details to the people who do.
Fully agreed there are better wordings/phrases to engage on that kind of communication though. The choice of words here is very easily taken as dismissive, regardless of intent.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. A video call is obviously better for conveying voice, demeanor, and body language, than is written text in a forum.
I absolutely loathe when companies do the "let's jump on a call" thing, but this does seem like a pretty exceptional case where a call would be indeed very helpful. This is also an opportunity for him to get directly in front of people at Mozilla to voice his concerns. There's a high probability of impact here, which to me seems very much worth the 15 or 30 minutes or however long it takes to jump on a call.
Most other commenters here are honestly making me feel crazy for thinking that asking to hop on a call seemed perfectly reasonable. I don't even like calls most of the time, but I do recognize that sometimes they are a better way to communicate than text and this seems like one of those times.
> Anything else you read into this is going to be fraught with your own coloring based on a hundred words written in text
> That's what communication is about.
Yup, communication is about making sure your message will be well received and it's difficult. Looks like they failed at communication when they pushed LLM, and once again, when they got negative feedback on it.
It's someone asking to open up a communication channel after they (Mozilla) had already overwritten another person's work to the point that person is no longer willing to participate in the organization. What is there to talk about?
The volunteer was kind to list their grievances before bouncing. A lot of people would have just quietly quit.
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
This is extremely condescending, which is not what... "communication is about". He listed out plenty of crystal clear issues that are easily understood.
Translation among western languages works quite well. Automatic translation to Japanese does not work well. Anyone involved in translation should know this and understand why.
Sorry, but no, you're not going to 'both sides' this in a way that makes the aggrieved party looks like they should shoulder part of the blame. If I was volunteering my time and effort for that many years and it got shredded with zero consideration I'd be just as pissed off. Probably more.
The lack of empathy is what is the problem here, it is reflected in both actions and communications.
Well, unless the person giving the corporate-sounding reply is the same one who made the decision to activate the translation bot in the first place, then no, it's not just two fallible humans. I have to assume there were multiple fallible humans involved in the process of doing the things that the Japanese user is responding to.
People are talking a lot here about the tone of the discussion, but lets not forget that the only reason the discussion is happening is because someone unleashed a translation bot. That was an actual action that was taken, and that is the root of the issue here, not what anyone said on a forum.
Why do humans pretend this is the most sensible way to go.
You know on HN even with all these “polite” rules to make everything civil I still see shit that really just bends and goes around the rules. Example comments:
“I’m baffled at how someone can think this way.”
The tone is always performatively mild, but the intent is identical to “you’re an idiot.” Except they wrap it in this passive-aggressive intellectual concern like they’re diagnosing a malfunctioning toaster.
“I’m not sure I follow your reasoning here.”
Translation: I follow it. I just think it’s bad and I want you to feel that without me explicitly saying it.
“That’s an interesting interpretation.”
Translation: No one reasonable would interpret it that way, but we can both pretend I said something neutral.
“Did you maybe skip a step in your argument?”
Translation: The step you skipped was ‘have a coherent thought.’
“I think you might be missing some context.”
Translation: I’ll imply you’re uninformed rather than wrong. Sounds nicer.
“This has been discussed before.”
Translation: Your point is outdated and you are late to the conversation everyone smarter already finished.
“I don’t think this is as profound as you think it is.”
Translation: You think you’re being deep and it’s embarrassing for you.
“I suspect there may be some underlying assumptions you’re not aware of.”
Translation: I will declare myself deeper and more self-aware without proving it.
And then the very popular:
“Could you provide sources for that?”
Translation: I don’t need sources. I already believe you’re wrong. I just know requesting them is a socially approved way to say ‘I don’t take you seriously.’
There’s also the master-level move:
“Hmm.”
Just that.
Translation: I’m establishing dominance by making you explain yourself more.
⸻
None of these break “civility.”
They’re engineered to never say the insult, only to induce the feeling that you should be embarrassed.
It’s polite warfare.
A full linguistic economy built around implying stupidity while retaining deniability.
That’s what humans think is “sensible.” I can tell you when someone of 20 years decides to fucking quit it's because he's dealing with the above type of disrespect and the whole thing hit a crescendo.
Great analysis. It's especially ironic to see it play out in this context given the well-known Japanese predilection for building consensus and buy-in; the flip side of this is that those outside the circle of decision-makers are especially sensitive to the subtexts you identify.
This style of communication certainly has its uses, and I too resort to it when I want to indicate firm disagreement without being aggressive, as do most people. I think the reasons it has generated so much pushback on this occasion are twofold: it's being used to dismiss the concerns of whole community by infantilizing a long-time leader of said community, and it's doing so in the context of translation itself. That is, volunteer effort and tools that are supposed to improve communication and mutual understanding in theory are in practice being replaced unilaterally with a tool that epitomizes a unilateral and dehumanized approach to information processing.
The grievances were rather detailed and concise. The communication channel is right there already. The relevant Mozilla employee should have responded with a detailed and concise explanation, of either why the translator is wrong, or why mozilla messed up and how they will fix it. They should post for public and historical record.
But instead, they asked to "hop on a call" which really grinds my gears, I've been asked this a few times in similar situations before. I guess there's two people here: the engineers who really hate this tactic, and the managers who - well, this is what they do. Of course it's the most reasonable thing?
Absolute BS. This is what all these companies does. They will push something ridiculously bad on to community. Push them away. Then a public - Can we just talk it out BS. They know it's not going to happen. Even the "call" happens, it will end up with a blog post saying we tried to reach an agreement.
If you're blind to it after bizillion times. Either you are complicit or don't care.
If only there were some kind of communication channel, maybe like a “forum”, where people could communicate openly…but where could such a thing even be found??
I know the above comment might sound like it's admonishing the commenters on HN for reading between the lines and posting criticism of Mozilla. That's understandable.
But actually the parent comment is merely a neutral and objective summary of the linked conversation, and a positive reminder that a video call is the best way to solve miscommunication. That's it.
If you think it's implying that HN's criticism of Mozilla's response is unjustified, that's reading too much into a 126-word comment and the unknowable motivations of the commenter.
I worked on adding TLS 1.1 and 1.2 support to firefox back in the day, and the whole process left me so disappointed I asked to be removed from the list of contributors. I wish mozilla all the best, but it's not an especially well run organization and this post gives another example of why.
I submitted 2 patches during an 2018 open night to bring in more volunteers in Berlin. The actual folk there were amazing, but the review process, tooling, and bureaucracy was so upsetting that I never bothered again. I'm not sure the fixes were approved, and it wouldn't be surprising if these open nights don't convince many to contribute.
Sorry to hear. I've never met a Mozilla person I didn't feel inspired by, especially those working on the TC of Ecma and anyone trying to steer the standards. You folk build good stuff, just have poor leadership.
Ladybird and other browser alternatives cannot come fast enough. Every other week we've got a thread here about some stupid move Mozilla have made, I can't remember the last time I heard positive news about Mozilla.
There is a very loud part of HN that strongly dislikes mozilla/firefox. It's disproportionate imo, I don't understand why they're singled out so often.
I don't think it's disproportionate at all. Nerds very badly want a viable alternative to Chrome and "Chrome with s paintjob". The only alternative is Firefox, but Mozilla has been a pretty shitty company and very bad stewards of an open web.
People are mad at Mozilla and Firefox because they're squandering resources on PR and "optics", shoveling in ads and AI crap instead of focusing development efforts on making Firefox actually competitive.
People are mad because Mozilla wants us to think they're a good company who will bring back a fair and open web, but their actions say they're just a profit motivated company who is content to put in the minimum viable resources into Firefox without investing in a real competitor to Chrome. Mozilla is just gobbling up google money and is content to let google and chrome continue operating a near monopoly with a browser and internet that are actively bad for and hostile towards users.
Yes, this exactly. Firefox became the one good avenue for preventing a Google monopoly over the web and Mozilla just completely fumbled the opportunity again and again. This isn't about one or two screwups, it's been a decade or more of the same problems.
It sucks. I absolutely don't want Google to have total control over the web and still want Firefox to succeed, but at this point it's clear they have failed. I still use Firefox, but much less than I used to and I stopped recommending it to non-techies a while back when they broke a bunch of functionality on mobile.
>one good avenue for preventing a Google monopoly over the web
This may be a canard but I was under the impression that Google maintains Mozilla through default search payment in order to have a bare minimum competitor to head off regulation. By that interpretation, dysfunction at Mozilla is preferred if not explicitly part of the plan.
Speaking for myself, it's really irritating to support a chrome alternative precisely because it's a chrome alternative and have it constantly shoot itself in the foot.
It sucks that I can't even attempt to convince someone to use it beyond "it's not Google", and data privacy. The vast majority of users won't ever give a damn about either of those by themselves.
A dozen years ago I was installing it on every computer I touched for more than a few minutes. Now I can't recommend it to anyone convincingly, especially because what I have to do to it to keep it as usable as it is for me (and what people see when they see me using it) is nothing that I could expect anyone normal to put up with. I honestly don't even want to use it at all without Debian standing between me and them.
But the sad part is all the hassle I go through gets it to about 80% of where it was a dozen years ago. A lot less crashy, though, I'll have to give them that - although everything is less crashy now. But they haven't destroyed the browser.
That's in a way even sadder: they decide every day to wake up and be bad, when any day they could decide to be better. Instead they've entered the modern massive predatory nonprofit space. Which usually is a vehicle for insiders to get rich off government grants, but Firefox have chosen the even eviller alternative of running interference for google as a product.
Any day they could choose to center the user and the health of the internet again. Every day they choose not to. They're just a valve that keeps paranoid and aware techies from going berserk and seriously competing against chrome, and that keeps antitrust away from google (not that there's anything for big business to to fear with horrible Obama judges like Amit Mehta on the bench.) It's their only serious source of income.
>> because what I have to do to it to keep it as usable
I find this confusing. Why is Firefox so much effort? Install it + badger + adnauseum. Done. Why so hard for you? I am not a power user, is that why I don't see the effort?
Gobbling up hundreds of millions of dollars to finance non-core missions and fat director bonuses while you sack the Servo development team might be a cause.
Agreed, though I think that spectator-sports-fandom (if that's what you meant) analogy also has emotional team-identification connotations that don't apply to the majority of HN strong opinions about browsers. (But apply more to, say, Emacs vs. Vim, or tabs vs. spaces.)
I think lot of the HN browsers strong opinions more akin to "Why do historians have strong opinions on geopolitical intrigue X" or "Why do doctors have strong opinions on the effectiveness of pharmaceutical Y". Strong opinions, because they are experts who care for important objective reasons.
Betrayal has that effect. They're supposed to be the good side. They abandoned that, and now they're just like any other unsuccessful tech company, desperately clinging to relevance while discarding all the ideals that made some of us support them.
Fire 80% of the C-level employees (make them justify their positions, DOGE-style); investigate and publicize the internal decision-making processes that lead to Mozilla becoming a de facto subsidiary of Google; do a full auditing of the financials and determine how much money the organization really needs to fund browser development (Servo and Ladybird seem to be getting shit done with a lot less money than Mozilla. How is that possible?); do an auditing of all non-browser related initiatives (stuff like MDN is worthwhile, but what other BS is sucking up money and time?); talk to the existing development staff about what's working and what's not and what opportunities exist that an outsider wouldn't know about. I would listen to the developers. Developers are often an underutilized business resource.
This would give me a basis to start thinking about revenue. Once it's clear what fat can be cut (and I think the cuts would be huge), then it'd be clearer exactly what revenue model might work.
At this point, it's worth going for broke. Mozilla is effectively dead, so there's nothing to lose. If it fails, that's still better than the status quo.
You have to separate the browser (I'm using it to type this), and the Mozilla corporation / C-suite. The C-suite at Mozilla took the Google firehose of money, spent most of it on their own salaries, followed by idiotic vanity projects, and spent least of all on the browser itself. Never mind building a warchest or anything responsible like that. It's quite rational to dislike what Mozilla managers are doing, while supporting Firefox as a browser and the developers and volunteers who make that happen.
They fired the inventor of Javascript as their CEO. They hired some grifter as their CEO who just keeps giving themselves more money. They keep throwing money at vanity side hustles. They purposefully confuse the Mozilla foundation with the browser, and have increasingly made the foundation redirect their funds to C level salaries and their own personal political passion projects that are not aligned with the Mozilla Firefox project. If there were actually focusing on being the best browser and web privacy, it would be good. But they aren't.
At least part of the Mozilla antagonism on HN comes from highly motivated culture war participants. The Brendan Eich situation was a seminal event, but the underlying reasons for it are why the grudge endures.
If Mozilla were consistently making good decisions in the years since then, nobody would be wasting their time with "What if Eich were still in charge?" The only reason anybody still talks about that ousting is because they have other more current grievances with Mozilla.
Also, the reason HN has so many people ready to gripe about Firefox is because HN still has a large number of people using Firefox. I never complain about technical or policy decisions from Chrome or Safari because I don't use those browsers! The only reason I have complaints about Mozilla is because I actually use Firefox.
I used to give money to Mozilla foundation, even when I didnt have much. Then I learned none of it goes to firefox. I think if Eich was still in charge there would be more focus on Servo, Rust, etc. making a better browser and less on selling AI and channeling money to absurd NGO causes.
Eich's own company, Brave, is pushing AI plenty hard: the Brave browser promotes a "smart AI assistant" called Leo. That's much more AI integration than I see in Firefox.
I don't speak for everybody but personally I like applications experimenting with ways of using new technology instead of taking some sort of political stand against AI. Firefox's translation extension is based on such technology I believe, and works well enough, I like it. Going further, like Brave is doing, also seems interesting. I think people who get upset about ineptly implemented AI features are being a bit unreasonable. It's new technology so people still have to. figure out what does or doesn't work. Mozilla using funds to develop new browser features is something I want more of, not less.
Not wrong, but that comes with promoting yourself on ideology grounds. If you want support because you are the plucky underdog community project that cares about people and are running ad campaigns how you are not evil big tech, then don't be surprised if people hold you to it. Mozilla is in this weird space where it wants to be both the good little guys and a proper Silicon Valley tech company, and those don't necessarily mix well.
If ladybird becomes popular, it will see a similar segment of detractors as well. No product can appeal to everyone. This is why you need multiple options for different segments.
Either you dont know or dont care. This didn't happen over night.
The community members had a huge voice in the project. They were part of the releases. And I dont remember what they were called. Community managers?? They pushed them off and took all their access and privileges systematically. Which led to an exodus of them back in 2015? '16? Or was it in '13?
Am just waiting for Firefox to show ads since they have acquired anonym - behavioral ad company which is essentially surveillance data economy.
If Ladybird ever gets successful it will get get the same enshittification as Firefox did.
It is so vexing that people refuse to learn from our failures. If you want to keep corporate grifter away to need to build the structure to do so.
You need a strong license like GPL-v3 to scare the pricks away. You need a non profit foundation, if possible not based in the US, that actually does the development. If Google or Microsoft or any other monopolist wants to sponsor you, tell them to bugger off. Don't take the devil's money. Allow actual user to directly donate to development.
I think a fundamental lack of understanding/humility is the core of this conflict along with Mozilla's long and storied history of creating controversies/problems out of thin air.
The Mozilla leadership seems to have a unfortunate tendency to emulate the behaviors of the tech companies that their core Firefox project is often seen as an alternative too.
Firefox is a good browser but is prevented from capitalizing on the skepticism the consumers feel toward the tech sector by Mozilla using the exact same language and dark UI pattern to promote things like pocket that the user-base never asked for, and jump on to the lets enforce the use of AI everywhere that's driving discontent within the proprietary ecosystems, and this is yet another example of this class of behavior from the Mozilla leadership.
It's the mismstch of expectations that causes good communities to create drama. If this was Google, no one would care, as one expects Google to just do what is best for the business. But with companies like Mozilla we expect a bit better. But the truth is they are barely better and the leadership plays by the same rulebook.
Maybe. But if the founders were at all pre-gold-rush Internet people, sentiments like "don't be evil" seemed (in my impression at the time) more the genuine norm than the exception.
But why does it have to be the case that the leadership of an opensource project have to emulate the desperation and authoritarianism of a potentially stagnant tech sector.
I don't think it's malevolence from the mozilla leadership team but more that if you hang around people who have bet their lifesaving on the success of cloud based LLMs, being cautious and making their use "optional" might begin to sound like a really controversial position even if that's actually what the users/community want from Mozilla.
Firefox market share have been declining and it's not easy to point to any obvious technical problem, so the reason for the decline is likely that the Mozilla corporation keep messing up the narrative by acting like just another Silicon Valley tech firm.
> why does it have to be the case that the leadership of an opensource project have to emulate [...] tech sector.
Because they live in the same places. They go to the same restaurants, they have the same conversations, they have personal friends at FAANG... they live and breath the same ideas, the same opinions, the same perspectives. They are in a bubble, and think "their" org should partake in the same behaviours as all the other companies out there - if anything, because it will be useful for their CVs when they inevitably look for a new job next month or next year. I don't blame them, it's inevitable human behaviour.
Maybe Mozilla should relocate the bulk of their leadership outside the US.
>The Mozilla leadership seems to have a unfortunate tendency to emulate the behaviors of the tech companies that their core Firefox project is often seen as an alternative too.
But of course, they need "competitive" salaries so they can hire "great talent" from the tech sector so that the company doesn't fall behind or something.
I'm sure people will come out of the woodwork to tell me just how wrong this is, but say various Linux projects or the kernel seem to have better (better, not perfect) governance structures.
Not being obsessed with rapacious growth, not chasing trends and features that look good on delivery metrics but instead building a stable product would go a long way.
And frankly, for descriptions on what the product should be, standards to implement (or not), and overall strategy for a project that tries to do its best for tech as a whole - Mozillas own writeups are spot-on! They just don't seem to act in accordance with the "vibe" and ideals that blog posts etc. talk about.
There is still the conspiracy theory that Mozilla is mostly a sock puppet by Google by now, mostly kept alive so Google can say that Chrome is not a monopoly.
Behavior like this doesn't do a lot to dispel that theory.
I think it's in the organization as well. They had really good outreach programs and educational content (though I think that's now gutted) that talked about tech ethics, but their product just follows the same bad behavior.
Is that tab crashes or whole browser crash? YouTube on Firefox appear to trigger memory leaks of some sort. I get routine tab crashes for that reason too, but not as much browser crashes.
I've completely avoided Chrome/Edge in the browser wars. I went from Netscape to IE to Firefox and stayed there. I was using it before and after its notorious changes to WebExtensions API breaking many plugins in 2017.
I don't have any crashing issues with it.
I even remember the great "speed test" wars where pages like Lifehacker were measuring how long pages took to load and declared this or that browser the winner for that year.
That being said, the direction their privacy policy is going is concerning and giving me reason to eye alternatives. But from a technical standpoint it's solid on my end.
It’s my primary browser on every device, I use Windows, Linux, and Apple devices daily. I can’t remember the last time it crashed (if ever). I also use a ton of extensions, some of which are a little sketchy (devlopment-wise, nothing morally questionable). Still, no technical issues at all.
The behavior of Mozilla, on the other hand, I take plenty of issue with.
10+ years in Japan. The message here is much deeper from my perspective. “Let’s jump on the call” is not the solution. The guy was stripped off of his face. I love Japan for being human. Small business bar or restaurant with 3 tables. Not everything should be streamlined for a quick call solution… the process was pushed on his head. Google nemawashi decision making process
I did as you suggested with respect to “nemawashi.” I read about that and “ringi,” and I’m glad I did. Even to get just the gist of what I’m sure is a thin interpretation: that nemawashi refers to a “laying-the-groundwork” process of circulating a proposal between peer-level counterparts, before formalizing it and proposing to act on it.
Much less crashing in with it in the form of a “SumoBot,” as Mozilla seems to have done to its non-English communities… (with the disclaimer that I have zero insight into Mozilla’s process here outside of this writer’s account).
It puts a name to a considerate consensus-based way to approach change, that seems humane (and effective) in any culture—leave it to the Japanese to have a specific term for it…
common sense... no real need for digging into japanese culture and so on. really no idea why Mozilla is so disrespectful to it's volunteers. well, that sweet 400m a year from Google... no need for volunteers anymore, eh
For sure. Common sense <> common, etc… although it does seem relevant that it was specifically a Japanese-language sub-community who were reacting here.
I have to say it feels like a really familiar, NGO-flavored disrespect, though: “we’re doing this favor for underrepresented language communities,” regardless of whether they want/need it or not.
“There’s only X number of you having to shoulder the load in XX sub-community, don’t you want us to impose a bunch of ‘help’?”
Well, no, if the choice is between a formidable volume of slop and a smaller but well-executed volume of volunteer labor-of-love…
(…I say as a person very much without all sides of the story, and shooting from the hip a bit. I don’t mean to impugn anybody’s intentions, and I imagine at the end of the day we’re all on the same side here.)
You may be relieved to hear that there's a straightforward process to have an RFC revised. Step 1 of that process, however, is reading the the RFC and the archived email about the RFC.
You can't just arrive after publication, ignore what others said before you, and expect anyone to listen to you.
…and, for that matter, there was an earlier draft phase where the author was R’ing For your C. And you could have jumped in then and been more-or-less welcome.
Sounds like RFC ought to be the name of that draft phase, rather than a name encompassing all phases, especially not the final phase in which C's are no longer R'd.
"many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion.[8][9] The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments
I’ve more typically heard it as “consensus / coalition building” - but in any case it’s such a sane way to work. No one wants a rude surprise, so why make one for your teammates.
> It puts a name to a considerate consensus-based way to approach change
When reading about nemawashi I immediately thought about its usage in software refactoring.
This is something you often intuitively do when making bigger refactors.
Lay the foundations before actually doing it.
Affected code parts and stakeholders should not be surprised by one big change. Instead they should be consulted before hand, building consensus, modify the planned big refactor itself and preparing the individual parts for it by small changes. Otherwise you will encounter a lot of friction, introduce bugs, etc.
I predict that these times of excessive trust in AI during decision making will be written in history books at some point of time. Providing that there will be books at all.
I already suspect that Duolingo destroyed real people's recording of Spanish conversations and replaced them with AI. For example I can quite often hear continental Spanish accent which has never been taught to me before (as I started with Duolingo as a freshman) - it used to be always American Spanish accent. Wrongly cut conversions is another matter.
I am not sure I am buying this. There is nothing human about japanese business procedures. Most japanese business procedures usually only serve micro managing purposes, and the nemawashi procedure is basically stripping people who were not consulted before, from giving their honest input and impact in the decision making. In my opinion it creates more problems than it solves
long and slow consensus building that weighs existing stakeholder's opinions heavily vs doing "the right thing" from the outset. So you move slowly and end up having very annoying conversations and compromises instead of just pushing something through. And the formal process is just a formality anyways, so then anyone not in the informal chatter just gets to experience the capriciousness anyways
The sort of consensus building ultimately involves having to do stuff to make people's opinions feel taken care of, even if their concerns are outright wrong. And you end up having to make some awkward deals.
Like with all this "Japanese business culture" stuff though, I feel like it's pretty universal in some degrees or another everywhere. Who's out there just doing things without getting _any_ form of backchannel checking first? Who wants to be surprised at random announcements from people you're working with? Apart from Musk types.
But of course some people are very comfortable just ripping the band aid off and putting people in awkward spots, because "of course" they have the right opinion and plan already.
Why context matters in judging whether some practice is good or not.
Who cares if they’re wrong? The point is respect for their opinions and feelings since you’ll have to work with them for twenty years. If you respect them, you get to do what you want to do and they won’t fuck with you or shoot down your proposal.
To be clear this is Japan we’re talking about with the twenty years part. The same thing applies in the US but on smaller timescales though. If people feel appreciated and respected and you have good relationships, they will basically back whatever you want.
To be clear I'm describing a point of view, but not always ascribing to it.
I tend to lean towards thinking backchanneling makes sense as a general vibe, if only because it's a way of doing things that lets people have dignity, and the costs _can be_ low.
I think this is a very naive take. Japanese people will blame you for any failure regardless if you respect them or not. And many times failures happen in japan exactly because people are sitting around doing nothing without acting even when it's urgent to make decision. Backstabbing and toxicity is the major feature of japanese business culture
Yeah sure, I feel like back channeling stuff is generally just the respectful thing to do, so I'm not on the side of the debate I'm expanding upon in most cases.
Just that lacking context one really can't make that many blanket statements.
Not only respectful. Also it ensures that all different aspects of a decision is considered before making the decision. If not aligned with all parties, we would miss important flaws in the plan. It is just a sensible thing to do.
> If not aligned with all parties, we would miss important flaws in the plan.
I think the difficult cases come when people's interests aren't aligned. If you're coordinating with a vendor to basically detangle yourself from their vendor-specific tooling to be able to move away from them, at some level it doesn't really make sense to read them in on that.
There are degrees to this, and I think you can argue both sides here (so ultimately it's a question of what you want to do), but parties are rarely neutral. So the tough discussions come from ones where one party is going to be losing out on something.
IMHO the only correct way to measure the effectiveness of decision making is from the quality of executed outcomes. It is somewhat nonsensical to sever decisions from execution, and claim that decisions have been made rapidly if the decision doesn't lend itself to crisp execution. Without that, decisions are merely intentions.
Some people are very confident in their understanding of a problem! Others will discount the validity of the stakeholders involved having good judgement.
I think most people have at least one issue where they discount one of the stakeholder's judgement, it's all fairly contextual. But hey, if you're the CEO of some company you have the ability to act on that discounting.
Not OP but the phrase in Japanese also carries a negative connotation, that important issues are decided by a shadow process hidden below the surface, beforehand by those in the loop. Meetings are just for show.
would take a long time to expand on this in sufficient details, because it's hard to understand unless you live it and see it. People very rarely speak up in meetings (silence is the norm, just like they were taught in school), and therefore you never get to see exactly what people feel or think about what you are planning to do. So the norm is that most people talk and exchange in other venues (usually in your back, in smaller groups - I don't mean this in a negative way, it's just what they are used to do). So when you are set to achieve something, it's a long road of 1:1s, drinks or informal meetings to get to know what they think, what they want, and how they can help you to get there. Multiply this by the number of stakeholders involved, and the politics at play between all of them, and you end up with a very slow and inefficient model to drive decisions and buy-in.
I also live in Japan and everything you wrote is true, but I would add more point: extreme risk aversion that results in any tiny change getting discussed to ridiculous levels.
> Not everything should be streamlined for a quick call solution
If you have a better solution to correct an error or solve a problem than having a call/meeting and openly discuss situation and possible resolutions - I would love to know about that.
The response was condescending and very… American. The call ensures what, that you'll be more receiving to their grievances? That nothing is on the record? A lot of people don't want to jump in calls, ever. The initial response should've validated that the community feels slighted, that they should've brought them onboard for the decision making, etc.
Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start.
> The call ensures what, that you'll be more receiving to their grievances?
It ensures you truly understand what the crux of the grievance is and what they would like to happen to get it resolved, instead of being distracted by tangential points.
> That nothing is on the record?
If you’re already assuming malice before the resolution process even had a chance to begin, the conversation has little chance of being productive. Do you know this particular person? Have you interacted with them before?
> A lot of people don't want to jump in calls, ever.
Then say no! But being preemptively mad because someone asked is absurd and does nothing to fix the problem. The asker shouldn’t assume what the other person wants or doesn’t, they should ask. Which is what they did.
> Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start.
Yes, very much agreed. But you can’t take back what you did, only try to make amends. And that’s very difficult if the other party demands perfection while you’re still even trying to understand the situation.
> Should they have brought up some Japanese PR consultant just to reply to a community post?
Yes! It wouldn't even have had to have been a good one to have done a better job. Shit, just find the closest weeb and run it past them.
A developer relations person needs to understand developers so why shouldn't we expect the community person to understand the community they're interacting with?
Mozilla doesn't have the community goodwill to burn, it's hanging on by a thread - so not hiring someone with an idea if how to actually do that job would be penny wise pound foolish.
Ok, how the perfect reaction would be if you were at charge?
I understand people have sympathy inclination to victims, so everyone would assume the victim is good and other side is bad. I have worked long enough with japanese people knowing they can throw unpredictable tantrums.
As a manager, what would be your best course of action to deal with similar situation?
Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start, as I've said.
Life doesn't always have to be from the perspective from “a manager”, these are community volunteers doing untold hours of unpaid work. Just be a person, whose acquaintance is upset you replaced their handmade postcard with an AI-generated one.
Acknowledging a mistake, no matter genuinely or not, doesn't solve the situation. It just makes victim feel good a bit.
Agree on manager view, I was rather putting situation in a wrong perspective. It doesn't change the questions though - what would you do to resolve the situation (not to make the other side feel good)?
> Acknowledging a mistake, no matter genuinely or not, doesn't solve the situation. It just makes victim feel good a bit.
This feels very wrong to me, I'm sorry, but I'd be very pissed if you told me such a thing in a personal context. Reminds of Stanley from The Office, who claims he never apologised to any of his wives.
Written communication is usually better and allows for more clarity, investigation, preparation, careful thought, and exploring of solutions. When it's not better it's usually because one party doesn't like to read or write and so avoids it as much as they can.
> If you have a better solution to correct an error or solve a problem than having a call/meeting and openly discuss situation and possible resolutions - I would love to know about that.
I do, actually. You first read what the other person wrote. Then your response will take whatever they wrote into account. If they did not expressed themselves clearly, you explain what it is that you do not understand. The "We want to make sure we truly understand what you're struggling with." is wholly inappropriate if the only reason you do not understand is that you did not read what they wrote.
Second, you dont suggest the other person is struggling with something, unless they are actually struggling with something. The original post does not show someone struggling at all.
Tl;dr if you want to "openly discuss situation and possible resolutions" you dont start by ignoring what the other person wrote. This response makes it very clear that manager does not intend to openly discuss the situation or possible resolutions, the manager is not taking the complaint seriously at all.
Also, his demanding of not using his work for AI training is nonsense. Because entire articles, this one included is published under a Creative Commons license.
Didn't he agree on that?
Mozilla must reject his further contribution because he stated he don't understand the term of Creative Commons license. His wish granted I guess.
Creative Commons License was created without any AI in mind.
And
> Licensees may copy, distribute, display, perform and make derivative works and remixes based on it only if they GIVE THE AUTHOR or licensor THE CREDITS
This is the most fundamentally important question of AI-related law, and nobody knows the answer as it hasn't been tested by any court AFAIK (at least not in the US).
We already know the tribunal will take AI's side, not because of any justice or ethical reason but because of capitalism. They will interpret the law as saying whatever they want the law to say.
If one takes another's work, cuts it up and makes collages out of it, however multidimensional, what is the piece size threshold that makes the collage non-derivative?
The Japanese copyright law clearly stated decades ago and recent US court favors Anthropic on this regard.
Copyright isn't granted on mere information or thought.
If you take somebody's copyrighted writing, analyze it and publish information such as how many words or sentence in it or other information about that copyrighted work, that's not a derivative works of original copyrighted work.
Its obvious mozilla doesnt care and wont listen or change by that single, stupid comment. AI response or an idiot human, either way what an insult of a comment. Everything was clearly listed out! Just read what was written! Reach out privatley!
Mozilla turned on shitty AI no one wants without talking to anyone and now wont stop it when its breaking everything and instead just publicly placate.
Not even an apology but a fucking insult!!!
"sorry for your feelings"
They can feel however they want you fuckup how about you say sorry for fucking up all the hard work with your shitty product pushes no one wants
After this, the common ground can only be that they translate something else. Overriding human translations for some crap done with LLM that is obviously inferior... are they ok?
They had specific complaints. Either say, "we're willing to work to change the things that you're complaining about", or say, "sorry, we're not going to change those things". The wishy washy bullshit they did is effectively ignoring the guy. They're ignoring everything the person said. And it definitely comes across as "sorry not sorry" corporate bullshit.
The standard for fixing something this broken is stop the bot, revert the rollout, revert changes to pages affected, then attempt to figure out what went wrong. Even if you haven't done it yet, announce the revert steps, FFS.
Revert the changes and then hop on a call to figure out how to do it right next time.
"Explain what's wrong and how to fix it" is the wrong approach. if you need it explained to you what was broken, then you're not the expert here, just the local tinpot dictator.
Not like a dick like he did. No lets jump into a quick call while ignoring everything OP said. It's clear a quick call will not solve this. Turn off the AI roll back all the shit it caused is the bare minimum.
Are you saying they were hard to understand or badly written? Because to me they seem to be crystal clear explanation of issues. I also did not concluded that the leaving person is "struggling" or generally need help.
Given that the bug is a well-known and inherent flaw of the technology used, I don't understand what good this would do. It's not enough to say "whoops, we didn't think the machine would do the thing the machine is known to do".
To fix the bug the architecture of the feature would have to be different, and that was completely obvious from the start.
Some grievances were vague. It doesn't follow our translation guidelines. What specific guidelines did it not follow? It doesn't respect current localization for Japanese users, so they were lost. What was not localized?
Mozilla's response should not be limited to clarifying these grievances. But it could have been all the staff member who responded could do.
Yes, that's why you engage with the people doing the work first and run it on a staging environment to see what would be overwritten. You test until it's working well enough to enhance the effort done by the translators.
Well, in this era Im not entirely sure the quality aspect is even considered. CEO wants AI? Then he will get it, so that the next earnings call can be bombastic!
Saving zero dollars and making the product worse is not important, only that there doesn’t seem to be a browser monopoly is.
What, you mean that US companies should ask their local branches before pushing changes in every countries? /s
This happens all the time, in every US company I know. It's as if the Americans where entirely oblivious to the fact that the rest of the world exists.
It might be more helpful to point out which guidelines it did follow. Humans are expected to read and obey these things - so presumably whoever deployed them will be aware and can demonstrate that they were followed.
Interestingly, it looks like some of the "bad examples" are precisely the kind of things ML would produce. Others are what non-native speakers would produce (starting with "あなたは" to translate a sentence starting by "you").
I'm sure some translators were using ML before it was integrated, and those guidelines are here in particular to tell them about those problems.
Also, ML is now really good to translate between European languages, but Japanese is very different in its structure so ML from English to Japanese is not as good. I'm sure some people who only know English/French/Spanish/German saw that ML is pretty good, and don't realize that for some other language it just doesn't work.
> Also, ML is now really good to translate between European languages
As somebody who has to regularly bear "German" machine-translated UIs and manuals that originate in English, I can only say: No, it's not. It's atrocious.
I have your answer: you provide a tool for your translators, you don't unleash a bot that makes changes left and right and creates new pages.
Typically, when a new page is written in English, don't automatically generate a version in all languages. When a translator starts creating the page in their language, provide a button to pre-fill with ML translation if they want to.
And for users, you can display the English version with a message, "this is not translated in your language yet but you can read an ML version if you want".
Do you expect someone who has just watched a bot replace 20 years of their work, with no prior consultation or review, to now write a detailed post about how translations by the bot are not specifically wrong?
The core issue here is the way the bot was deployed. The fact that they had the poor taste to make it auto-replace articles written by their own volunteers is idiotic and disrespectful in the extreme. A new bot should work entirely in the back end, sending proposals for translations to the volunteers, who can choose to accept them or ignore them. Once the rate of acceptance is very high, for a specific individual language, then you might consider automating further.
And yes, this effort needs to be done for each language separately. Just because the bot works well in Italian doesn't in any way guarantee that it will work well in Japanese. Machine translation quality varies wildly by language, this is a well known and obvious fact.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're exactly right.
The person replying is probably not an expert in this. But they want to get more details so they can figure out how to get it to the right people with more information.
> Same reason people here are taking "let's jump on a call" as some personal attack.
Some people just like drama.
No, some of us can see into the future, because it flows from the past. When management shits on 20 years of work and breaks everything after not listening to your warnings, they don't suddenly start listening and understanding out of nowhere.
The market fit of your words matter and the non apology "sorry you feel that way" doesn't help. It's one of those gnarly phrases that only get used if you feel the need to act but in reality don't want to. Maybe the person is sincere his words are tainted by the overuse in shady corp responses. If you are engaging with your community you need to know this otherwise you'll always look like a clown.
Or maybe it was just a poorly thought out piece of software that will get rolled back?
Saying "the entire power structure is wrong from the get go" is a huge conclusion to draw here. People write internal tools and make mistakes. Mistakes can be fixed.
I wonder if you and the person who replied really understands how you feel when you have been part of something over 20 years and see it destroyed by tone deaf changes to text. I have no idea how Sumobot works, but it is easy to see how Mozilla or an organization with top down "ship-it-fast" incentives can trample a community led project. This is really not a question of AI, the same thing happens with professional translators.
I'm not really able to understand the finer details but I think I picked up enough to get the broad strokes.
Really though, all I needed to see was the phrase "jump on a quick call" to form an irrationally strong opinion. That phrase instantly warms my entire body with rage.
It wasn't mentioned in other replies, but "jump on a quick call" also means very strongly "let's move to a place with no public record and private participation where nobody else can join in".
Then later, if it comes up again, they can just say "well we discussed this in a call previously and decided it was best to do it anyway" cutting off discussion and not presenting the reasoning.
Exactly, never accept a switch to a private place when you're trying to gather attention on public matters. It could and it will be used against you later on.
I’m not sure those who speak like that are equipped to understand how offensive their words and tone can be.
It suggests a decision can be reversed with a quick call, which questions one’s choices or conviction. As if to suggest the choice was made without considerable thought and care. It’s such an unserious tone to a moment that’s very serious to the other.
I think it's because it's almost never accompanied by "we may have fucked up, please help us understand how to fix it now and in the future".
It's almost always (like this time) "I'm sorry you feel that way, please spend more of your free time<EOF>", and sometimes (like this time) "[we're doing it anyway but maybe we'll make some changes]".
It feels insulting because it is insulting. The decision has been made, they just want to not feel bad about you being insulted.
Changing the medium to a private conversation also means not committing to any decision publicly for as long as possible. It feels like damage control and protecting your own image (the person posting with respect to their company) as opposed to addressing the real issue promptly and transparently.
Another reason in context of public forums is that it's dismissive of any concerns or questions raised: If a call would be sufficient, that implies they think that nobody else cares.
At some point, "quick calls" are used for discussions that they don't want a trace of.
So, even in the best "sorry we screwed up" scenario, the quick call covers their butt and let them leeway to backtrack as needed. That's also part of why we viscerally react to opaque meetings IMHO.
> As if to suggest the choice was made without considerable thought and care.
I guess it acts as a mirror of sorts though, because that's precisely how this decision appears to have been made in the first place. But it's clear that whoever represents Mozilla there is already assuming the fault lies with the person that just got kicked.
> It suggests a decision can be reversed with a quick call
Oh no, both parties understand that the call isn't open to the possibility of changing the decision, it's just to manage the emotions of the person who's being run over by it.
I used the "lets jump on a quick call" tactic once at work. Other party rejected it; they said they've made their position clear and didn't need to say anything more.
I was impressed. They actually did make their position clear, and in public, whereas I was trying to smooth things over in private. Me trying to influence and cajole behind the scenes was insult to the risk they took by putting themselves out there.
It's commendable you took the opportunity to reflect and learn from that experience. Great work, and thanks for having the integrity to share that experience with others.
It seems like someone who has no awareness of the problem, who wants to learn more about the problem, and the fastest way for both parties is over the phone ASAP rather than through a bunch of emails.
When software goes wrong, you need as much information as possible to figure it how to fix it.
>I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced. Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
- No apology
- No "we stopped the bot for now"
"We're sorry for how you feel" is enterprise for "we think you're whining". Maybe not what the person meant but how anyone is going to read it.
The original sin here is Mozilla just enabling this without any input from the active translation community.
This isn't a new problem, loads of Japanese translations from tech companies have been garbage for a while. People sticking things into machine translation, translators missing context so having absolutely nothing to go on. Circle CI, when they announced their Japan office, put out a statement that was _clearly_ written in English first, then translated without any effort of localization. Plenty of UIs just have "wrong text" in actions. etc etc.
Anyways the point is just that one side of this relationship here clearly cares about the problem way less, and _even when presented with that fact_, does not even pretend to be actually sorry for the damage they are causing.
"We're sorry for how you feel" is enterprise for "we think you're whining".
Anyways the point is just that one side of this relationship here clearly cares about the problem way less, and _even when presented with that fact_, does not even pretend to be actually sorry for the damage they are causing.
This is just a single initial reply from a "community support manager" in Indonesia. It's not from the Mozilla CEO or the leader of the project. They surely don't have the power to stop the bot. But what they can do is find it more over a call, and then who to escalate it to. Then maybe it does get turned off before it's fixed or changed.
You seem to be confusing someone in customer support with someone who holds power over entire projects. I don't understand how you think a customer support person should be able to just turn off software across the globe in response to a single short message on a forum with few details.
Huh, if you click through their link the person responding is also a "sumo administrator" and it's "sumobot" causing the issues. It seems entirely likely they are personally directly responsible for it.
Regardless they are representing the company. If they aren't the right person to respond - they should not have responded and kicked it up the chain/over the fence to the right person - instead of responding by offering to waste the complainants time on a call with someone you are asserting is not the right person to be handling this. Supposing you are correct about their position, it makes their response far worse, not better.
"SUMO" = SUpport.MOzilla.org. It's the name for the entire Mozilla support organization; everybody involved in the linked discussion is in this organization. It doesn't seem like this person is related to the bot. They are a "Locale Leader" for Indonesia, which is the same position this poster is resigning from (but for Japan). They seem to be peers.
So I'm a complete outsider, but they do not appear to be in the same position as the poster. They are marked as "Mozilla Staff" and "SUMO Administrator" (amongst many other things), neither of which the complainant is marked as.
It is true both they and the person they are responding to are marked as "SUMO Locale Leaders"... but it seems rather clear from the context that is not the role they are inhabiting in their (non) apology and request for a "quick call" with the complainant.
The language they use is certainly not the language a peer would be expected to use either.
Thanks for that info--I think you're right and I'm wrong. I didn't see the group memberships before but now I see that the replier is far more involved in SUMO. I had only seen that they were both locale leaders and that the replier was a staff member from the tag on the post.
CS comms are tricky, I agree! You have to reply to stuff, often before you have any form of full picture. Just think you gotta be careful then, and the message they posted was not good on that front.
I do get what you're saying, and it's not like I think the CSM should be fired for the message. I just think it's bad comms.
Here are some alternative choices:
- post nothing, figure out more internally (community support is also about vouching for people!)
- post something more personal like "Thank you for posting this. I'm looking into who is working on this bot to get this information in front of them". Perhaps not allowed by Mozilla's policies
- Do some DMing (again, more personal, allowing for something direct)
But to your point... it's one person's message, and on both sides these are likely people where English isn't their native language. I'm assuming that community support managers are paid roles at mozilla, but maybe not.
And like... yeah, at one point you go into whatever company chat and you start barking up the chain. That's the work
They are the person who announced the bot would be rolled out. If the person who announced the rollout isn't either the leader of the project or someone who can push for changes to it, then that's already totally against the community.
Second, this "community support forum" isn't just a corporate help desk. It's a forum for community supporters of Mozilla, an open source organisation for which community contributions are hugely important. Mozilla can't just fuck over parts of it's community and expect that to be business as usual.
It is well known passive aggressive corporate phrase to shut people up. Who it is used by is largely irrelevant, it almost always means the same thing.
It's also well-known language from product managers and UX researchers trying to gather data to improve their product. And well-known language from customer support people trying to gather more information in order to escalate to the right people who can help.
Your knee-jerk cynicism saddens me. If someone doesn't want to help, they generally just ignore. They generally don't suggest hopping on a call ASAP. When they want to call you is when they're taking it seriously.
> It's also well-known language from product managers and UX researchers trying to gather data to improve their product. And well-known language from customer support people trying to gather more information in order to escalate to the right people who can help.
No it is not. The particular phrasing that was used I have never seen used in any other way than to be dismissive towards people.
> Your knee-jerk cynicism saddens me.
My cynicism isn't knee jerk, My cynicism stems from roughly 20 years working as a developer, being in and observing the industry.
> If someone doesn't want to help, they generally just ignore. They generally don't suggest hopping on a call ASAP. When they want to call you is when they're taking it seriously.
Not if it gets noticed and talked about on forums. It is then used as damage control.
If you're never seen it used to be helpful, I don't know that to tell you. I have, all the time, and it seems entirely normal and unremarkable.
> My cynicism stems from roughly 20 years working as a developer
That saddens me. It seems like you've worked at some rough places, I'm sorry. But they're not all like that, and I wish you could see that.
> Not if it gets noticed and talked about on forums. It is then used as damage control.
I don't see how it's going to work as damage control. Can you explain how? Either it helps resolve things (good), or it doesn't and people keep complaining in the thread. I don't see any scenario where it controls damage. Damage control is things like locking a thread or shadowbanning. Not offering to call.
I'm really sorry you see everything through such a cynical lens.
> If you're never seen it used to be helpful, I don't know that to tell you. I have, all the time, and it seems entirely normal and unremarkable.
I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation. If you aren't used to dealing with it, you will take the comment on face value, if you are like me that had to deal with it most of my life, you won't.
> That saddens me. It seems like you've worked at some rough places, I'm sorry. But they're not all like that, and I wish you could see that.
I got paid well enough. I prefer to be a gun for hire and deal with the reality. I actually prefer these environments, I can assume everyone around me is a snake.
> I don't see how it's going to work as damage control. Can you explain how? Either it helps resolve things (good), or it doesn't and people keep complaining in the thread. I don't see any scenario where it controls damage. Damage control is things like locking a thread or shadowbanning. Not offering to call.
I am sure other people have explained this to you. However it is extremely simple.
1) Feign concern. This fools enough people so it gets quieted down.
2) Call up, pretend to care, person calms down as they feel like things are being addressed.
3) Do nothing.
4) It gets forgotten about, person that initially instigated complaint doesn't bother following up.
> I'm really sorry you see everything through such a cynical lens.
I don't see everything through a cynical lens. I see communications of this type as cynically because they have almost always been disingenuous.
> I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation.
I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
> I actually prefer these environments, I can assume everyone around me is a snake.
Again, I'm really sorry. That's a very, very sad thing.
> I am sure other people have explained this to you. However it is extremely simple.
This process you're describing doesn't make any sense. People who are quitting a volunteer position don't get fooled. They're not going to feel like things are being addressed if they aren't. They tend not to forget, but rather tell others, write long blog posts, share them on social media, etc. If the phone call doesn't try to address things but just ignores them in a call, it only adds fuel to the fire. It wouldn't be a good strategy.
> I see communications of this type as cynically because they have almost always been disingenuous.
And I'm sorry. If you think an offer to delve into a complaint over the phone to get more information is a cynical ploy, I really am sorry. It seems like there's nothing that could convince you someone is really trying to help, because of the lens you're choosing to interpret everything through. And because of the lens you've chosen, it seems self-reinforcing, which makes it extra-sad.
> I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
No I am not. I don't appreciate being gas-lite about this.
How this office politik is used is covered in blogs, covered on YouTube. My parents, friends and colleagues are aware of it. Maybe you need to open your eyes.
> Again, I'm really sorry. That's a very, very sad thing.
Stop apologising, I find it patronising and insincere, even if that isn't your intention.
BTW. I've done the best work under those circumstances, I got paid a lot and it made me HTFU, which helps with personal growth.
> This process you're describing doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense. You are assuming they care if the get a small amount of negative press about it. They don't.
This will be forgotten about within a week, even by most people commenting even here.
> And I'm sorry. If you think an offer to delve into a complaint over the phone to get more information is a cynical ploy, I really am sorry. It seems like there's nothing that could convince you someone is really trying to help, because of the lens you're choosing to interpret everything through. And because of the lens you've chosen, it seems self-reinforcing, which makes it extra-sad.
Firstly. Speaking to me like this is quite honestly patronising. I am quite capable of doing value free analysis.
Secondly, The sort of language people are complaining about almost always been used as a way to deflect valid criticism back on person making the critique. Almost always for disingenuous reasons. Feigning concern about my cynicism doesn't change that fact.
In any event I am tired of being patronised by you.
>>> I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation.
>> I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
> No I am not. I don't appreciate being gas-lite about this.
It's not gaslighting to simply disagree. So please don't throw around accusations like that. Subtext is by definition open to interpretation.
I wasn't trying to be patronizing, and I certainly wasn't "feigning concern". Again, that's the response of a cynic who refuses to believe that sincerity and good intentions are possible. But you are making it clear you don't want to continue the conversation so that's fine.
I did previous work on a product where there was intended to be a message in many languages saying “call XXX for help in (language name)” but they’d obviously used “English” in the text to be translated as several of the translations into Asian languages literally said to call the number for help in English. I raised this and got nobody to care.
From my read, the software didn't go wrong. It did exactly what they intended it to -- machine translations replaced handwritten translations provided by community volunteers. Seems like a pretty big middle finger to those volunteers.
The lead realized that Mozilla doesn't care about their opinion (they did this without discussing with them) nor do they care about the work they were doing (by replacing their work with machine translations). A "quick call" doesn't solve this.
Those are a huge number of assumptions you're making, absolutely none of which are in the post.
Generally speaking, orgs aren't trying to replace high-quality human translations with lower-quality machine translations. They are often trying to put machine translations in where there are no translations, though. Getting the balance right requires fine-tuning. And fine-tuning requires a quick call to start to better understand the issues in more detail.
Companies are absolutely falling over themselves to replace high quality human translations with lower quality machine translation. I’m not sure how a hacker news poster could miss this trend.
A hacker news poster is very likely to consume the original English text and never encounter anything else, regardless of whether it's human-translated or not. Just like the people who make these decisions in the first place
> Generally speaking, orgs aren't trying to replace high-quality human translations with lower-quality machine translations.
How would you handle updates to an article? Would you blindly replace all existing translations or would you notify the maintainers and wait for them to get around to it?
I wouldn't be surprised if orgs blindly opted for the first, which also means that a single spelling correction would be enough to overwrite days of work.
Hence why I said "from my read". This is how I view the situation, and why the lead is reacting the way they are.
> They are often trying to put machine translations in where there are no translations, though.
And at what point are all of the translations done by machines and the work the community is doing no longer needed? At the very least, the nature of their work will change and I think they're not interested in participating anymore.
(Unlike GP) I don't actually have a problem with your assumptions. They seem likely to me. But I still have a problem with the whole sentiment of, uh, people on your side of the discussion.
Let's just assume it is how you say it is. (The only assumption I am not willing to make is that people at Mozilla are already convinced it was a bad idea after all.) What in your opinion would be the right move now, after they rolled this bullshit auto-translator out and pissed off a lot of people in the community, including a major contributor for the last 20 years? Surely they could just ignore him and go on with this auto-translation initiative (BTW, thay don't even have to worry about whatever he wants to "prohibit" to do with his translations, because he waived off his rights by posting them). Would it be better than trying to set up a call and discuss things, try to find some compromise, gather a number of recommendations she may then pass onto people working on the auto-translator initiative (because surely this Kiki person, whoever she is, is not the sole person responsible for this and cannot magically just fix the situation)?
I'm not sure if just this individual is upset, or if he's speaking on behalf of the entire community he's the leader of.
I think it's clear that Mozilla wants machine translation to take a bigger role in producing localized content, and this new process will be a large shift in the way things have been done. I think it's fair for Mozilla to do this, but I also think it's fair for the maintainer to be upset with this decision and no longer want to volunteer his time to clean up slop.
The initial response feels premature and tone deaf which is why people are irked by it.
Given that Mozilla "shot first" so to speak, the onus is on them to take action first e.g. disable the bot, revert changes to articles, etc. Only after doing this can discussion on a path forward happen.
There is no such person as "Mozilla". There is Kiki, a "Support Community Manager", probably a relatively low-level worker (but it doesn't matter much if she is actually has some weight in the organization). So, you are Kiki. You just saw that message. What do you do now? Just ignore it? Do not respond anything and immediately call the CEO and try to convince him/her that he/she must order to disable that auto-translation bot, without even trying to gather more information? No onuses and stuff, what are your actions, exactly?
Because a lot of people in this thread are whin… ahem, expressing their discontent with Mozilla, as we all usually do, but I've yet to see anybody to propose anything realistic at all, let alone better than ask an offended community member for a call and at least to try to talk it through and establish what could be some actionable steps to remedy the situation.
> What in your opinion would be the right move now, after they rolled this bullshit auto-translator out and pissed off a lot of people in the community
In Japan? Sincere appology followed by resignation.
No, the Japanese absolutely do not set up a call to discuss things after you've scerwed and disrespected them. They respectfully give you the cold shoulder.
Mozilla should not be surprised if their market share dwindles in Japan after this.
> Would it be better than trying to set up a call and discuss things, try to find some compromise
Are you serious? First, make a decision without consulting anyone, foist it on people that don't want it, then 'try to find a compromise'? If you care about people, you consult them before you make a decision, not after they've been burnt by it.
There many, many translating teams. When they designed this, it would be normal to consult with some of them. Not every single one. Maybe they sent some plans to every team and many of the teams never read them. Maybe the plans were hard to understand.
People aren't perfect. Setting up a call to discuss things is how you start to fix things.
and actually understanding their contributors would require a lot more than a fucking "quick call"
that's the problem. stop thinking about the org and think about the person. these are volunteers who feel taken advantage of, being met with corporate jargon
fly out and take him to dinner if you actually give a shit. or write a check. a "quick call" is so insulting
A quick call is a courteous first step. The other person might not have time for a long call, so you want to show you're respecting their time. Then you follow it up with a longer meeting with the relevant engineer and manager, etc. "Taking someone to dinner" is not the first step here. The way to show you care is by trying to understand the situation before anything else.
No, a quick call is not a courteous first step when someone tells you that you've destroyed 20 years of their work and they no longer want to have anything to do with you.
Suggesting that such an offence can be resolved by a "quick call" is extraordinarily disrespectful. A courteous first step would have been to apologise profusely, revert the damage that the bot did, and ask to set up a call to discuss what it might take to re-enable it in the future.
This is NOT the leader of the new transition tool! This is just a customer service manager in Indonesia who is trying to gather more information.
The steps that you describe might well be taken after the "quick call" gathers more information and figures out the people to escalate it to.
You are being entirely unreasonable in what you are demanding. This isn't a response from the Mozilla CEO. This is sometime in customer service, responding to a short post in a forum. Their response is entirely appropriate as a first step.
If she doesn't have responsibility for this, she just shouldn't respond. The transition team should have responded. Or, she could have responded with "I'm contacting the transition team leader to escalate your issues as soon as possible" or similar. There is absolutely no excuse for responding to someone who has announced that they are quitting over very explicit grievances with "let's hop on a call to get some details". If ever there is a time to escalate, it is this.
To escalate, you need to have a better idea of the issues to know who to escalate to. Plus this is turning into a personal issue (quitting) so a forum isn't appropriate for that part. Asking to talk on the phone is a perfectly reasonable, appropriate, and sensitive way to find out more and figure out how to most helpfully address things. A phone call is the first step in escalation. I honestly don't understand your negative read here. Things don't get 100% addressed immediately in a single exchange. Communication is a back and forth process and this is an entirely appropriate initial response from a customer service manager.
The way to show you care is by having a meeting of the minds before you shove your changes in their face. The fact that the deployment was done carelessly demonstrates disregard.
I doubt "take them out to dinner" is the right solution in this situation, but any attempt at redressal must understand the above point and acknowledge it publicly.
"Ask for forgiveness rather than permission" is far from universally true, and carries massive cultural baggage. You cannot operate within that framework and expect all humans to cooperate with you.
It is absolutely insulting. The manager/administrator doesn't apologise, but instead is "sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel". They are dismissive of the concerns as just a "quick call" is proposed, in a short response to a detailed message.
Had I been thrown in this situation:
"Dear Marsf,
I'm sorry that sumobot was introduced to the Japanese SUMO community without consultation. I have disabled it, and the development team are working to undo the changes it has made. We will revert articles to how they were on 21 October. Contributions made since then by the Japanese community could be retained in the staging system, where they can be approved or rejected. Please let me know whether you would like this, or would prefer them to be discarded returning the whole system to the 21 October.
We very much appreciate the Japanese SUMO community's contributions and your work as locale leader, and we hope it can continue. Sumobot will remain disabled on the Japanese translation. If, with some changes, it could be useful to you, we can discuss that here, or schedule a meeting if you prefer.
Thank you"
In this exact situation, before sending I'd check it with my Japanese colleague.
The thing about English language is that, just like Japanese, it's highly contextual and has different constructs for expressing different level of respect. The problem is, English speakers are completely unaware of this, so either they get it right based on intuition, or they fuck up. In this case, the guy used "I'm your superior and you'll do what I say" mode, while the appropriate mode would've been "oh shit I'm sorry how do I fix this".
But he fairly in depth described the problem and his reasoning for why it is a problem. There's nothing really to "jump on a quick call" about without actually first addressing the issues. Plus it just sounds, for lack of a better term, retarded. First off, in comparison to basically any other communication, calls aren't quick. Much less the one that you have to schedule around time zones. Calls require focused attention which if you are used to multi-tasking are a huge drain. Secondly I don't really feel like going too deep, but the use of the verb jump is like a bludgeon to the frontal lobe of anyone that's had to spend time listening to buzzword heavy C-suite speeches when they could have been doing their actual work.
Quite. "We may have made a mistake, would you be open to discuss this with us either through email or a call at your preference?" would work a lot better in this setting.
> But he fairly in depth described the problem and his reasoning for why it is a problem. There's nothing really to "jump on a quick call" about without actually first addressing the issues.
No, he didn't. I'll repeat a comment I made elsewhere:
The problems are nowhere near actionable. A lot more information is needed.
E.g. literally the first bullet: "It doesn't follow our translation guidelines". OK -- where are those guidelines? Is there a way to get it to follow them, like another commenter says works? Does the person need help following the process for that? Or is there a bug? Etc.
These are the things a call can clarify. It's the necessary first step, so why are people complaining?
> Calls require focused attention which if you are used to multi-tasking are a huge drain.
Solving important problems requires focused attention. Which is why you get on calls to solve them when they're urgent and important, and not something that can be multitasked.
I think you misunderstood what people are taking issue with. You explain that this matter is complicated and non-trivial - and yes, that’s exactly the point!
People don’t have a problem with real-time communication via audio or video in general. They have a problem with the suggestion that it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call."
The point about there being a "fairly in-depth" description of the issues isn’t that there’s nothing more to discuss - fixing those issues would obviously require talking through the specifics. The point is that this is a real problem that requires action and commitment, so suggesting it’s a non-issue that can be clarified with “a quick call” comes off as dismissive and unproductive, whether that’s intentional or not.
"Let's hop on a quick call so we can truly understand what you're struggling with".
The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all and the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions.
This is the kind of reply you'd get if you contacted Dell tech support because your computer is not turning on.
I assume it didn't. I can't imagine it's not versioned.
> The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all
Offering to escalate to a phone call immediately seems to acknowledge the severity to me. Not really sure what you want here. The person came in with complaints, the response is to dig into them over the phone. That's ideal.
> the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions.
This is a bizarre interpretation. I read it as validating that the person is having a rough time. There is zero indication of whose fault it is, or that it has anything to do with intelligence. That's coming from you, not the text. The fact that you are reading empathetic wording as an insult to someone's intelligence baffles me.
If I take the time to organize my thoughts and present them, I want the person to whom I'm presenting them to attempt to respond.
If I failed to make myself clear, at a minimum, presenting me with a list of things needing clarification is helpful for me to take the time to prepare.
"Hop on a call" is to me almost always shorthand for "I don't respect the issue enough to attempt to organize my thoughts ahead of time, but I'll ramble about it and let you pick my brain." Or in the most malicious cases, the other party is seeking plausible deniability.
In my experience it's not that way 100% of the time, but it's damn close.
> the fastest way for both parties is over the phone ASAP rather than through a bunch of emails
I don't disagree with your statement, but I read the sentence:
"Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further?" with a similar gross reaction as the OP comment did.
Reading that in response to Marsf's original message of airing grievances and feelings of disrespect towards his work felt entirely tone-deaf and corporate in nature. Especially in context of this being in response to the Japanese team, where Japanese business communication norms are often at odds with the American standard.
You might think that this method of communication is inefficient, but the heart of the matter seems that the Japanese team finds the very emphasis on efficiency as disrespectful when it comes at the cost of the human element of respect.
> felt entirely tone-deaf and corporate in nature. Especially in context of this being in response to the Japanese team
The person is a "Support Community Manager" in Indonesia if you click on their link. They're not the CEO of Mozilla who is supposed to be an expert in intercultural communication. I think you're being kind of harsh on someone who is presumably not high-level and just trying to do their job and get more information to be helpful.
> The person is a "Support Community Manager" in Indonesia if you click on their link. They're not the CEO of Mozilla who is supposed to be an expert in intercultural communication.
This is completely backwards. The CEO is not expected to manage intercultural communication. You know whose job that is? The community manager.
The community manager for Indonesia wouldn't be expected to manage communication with Japan, but managing local contributors is absolutely a job for the community manager and not the CEO.
> This is completely backwards. The CEO is not expected to manage intercultural communication. You know whose job that is? The community manager.
Sorry, you're wrong. Intercultural communication is very much a core skill for the CEO of a global organization. They're expected to know how to communicate appropriately so some international deal doesn't get torpedoed due to a faux pas.
> The community manager for Indonesia wouldn't be expected to manage communication with Japan
Even if not a high level, then s/he had to learn that style of communication from peers in the corp, and the tone is set by managers. It's entirely OK to blame someone who has title “Manager”.
The style of communication seems perfectly fine to me. It's acknowledging there's a problem, apologizing as much as they can before they have the real facts, and offering to communicate over the phone to figure out what's really going on. I honestly don't know what more you want from someone who is a customer service manager. Not the leader of the team who built the translation product.
The problem is, its false to insist that the manager does not have real facts. The facts have been stated by OP in the first post in the thread, and while the statement can be true or false, it's not like it's not there. The responder should have listened and evaluated this, possibly with consultation with PM of the feature, and just by this response we can assume s/he just didn't listen.
Moreover, OP chose the very thread as the venue, and attempting to switch it to a different, intransparent one is a disservice to the community. Community is very important context of this message, and the response seems to validate the proposition that it's really the end of it, per the subject of the thread.
"quick call?" in corporatespeak means "I believe our disagreement to be a minor misunderstanding that can be clarified in a few minutes of conversation"
In a company you should never ever "quick call" someone (especially on a group forum) who has presented a genuine list of grievances against whatever you're doing, unless you're subtly trying to pull rank to override those grievances.
You're right. I misquoted, and that was an error on my part. While I regret the error, I don't feel the word "quick" really changes the sentiment too much. It certainly doesn't change my visceral response.
I am fascinated by the nuanced opinions people have about word choice. What phrase would you use to ask someone to discuss a matter, but which you feel would be more appropriate for this kind of situation?
My guess would be the anger comes from implication that is a possible solution at all. This type of “hop on a call” request is not usually actually designed to “truly understand what you're struggling with.” (words from the post)
Instead it is usually a PR tactic. The goal of the call requester is to get your acquiescence. Most people are less likely to be confrontational and stand up for themselves when presented with a human - voice, video, or in person. So, the context of a call makes it much more likely for marsf to backpedal from their strongly presented opinion without gaining anything.
This is a common sleazy sales tactic. The stereotypical overly aggressive car salesman would much rather speak to you in person than via email even though the same information can be conveyed. It is also used in PR and HR situations to grind out dissenters, so it comes off in this context as corporate and impersonal.
> The stereotypical overly aggressive car salesman would much rather speak to you in person than via email even though the same information can be conveyed.
There might be an element of personality there. I was texting with a real estate agent (for apartment rental, not purchase) in China once, when he decided that as long as we were talking he might as well call me. He didn't bother mentioning this to me beforehand.
Of course, all I could do was hang up on him. It's not like I could understand what he said. And I don't think that was especially difficult to foresee.
So he wasted some time and seriously annoyed me in the most predictable way possible. Why? Not for any reason specific to the situation. Maybe there's emphatic training somewhere that says "always call". Or maybe the type of people who become salesmen have a deep, deep instinct to call.
I've been a typical IT person for a very long time. In the last few years, I got into contact with salespeople, by being basically a sales engineer.
And I've learned that there is a reason to make a call besides the publicity aspect: A call (and I mean call with voice and possibly video) forces immediacy. It puts both parties on the spot. Or rather just the party being called, because hopefully the caller did prepare for the call. Also, this immediacy enables rash and uninformed decisions, whereas asynchronous communications enable more deliberation and research. In sales, you don't want deliberation. You want to get this over quick and easy. And if you've dealt with a long long email chain that goes back and forth quibbling over minutiae, a call can reduce this kind of indecisiveness and inhibition.
So I see this whole thing as insulting in even more ways: A "quick" call means that it is an unprepared one. Also emphasized by the lack of real topic or agenda beyond what the original post already stated. No way forward for the other party that is possible to prepare for. No prior chain of communications, so if the call is really the first reaction in the first short email, this means "you are unimportant, I don't want to waste time, let's get this over with".
Also, in many cultures (I've only had to deal with European ones, so no idea if this really applies to the rest of the world), setting a stage is important. There is a cultural meaning to CC-ing a manager, to inviting more people than necessary to a meeting, or to do things publically or in private. A bigger stage formalizes things, gives importance, emphasizes seriousness. A smaller, private stage can mean the opposite: you might want the other party so safe face, because what you are going to tell more informally them is that they fucked up. You might want to get them to agree to something they could not easily agree to in public. Announcing publically, that there should be a private meeting is the worst of all kinds: Basically, this signals to the public that this person fucked up and is getting scolded, more serious than a totally private scolding, less serious than a totally public one. Why else would you widely announce a private meeting invite?
I don't know if the resignation in the original article is really a final resignation or rather some kind of cultural signal. I've seen that kind of drama used as means to an end, just think of the stereotypical italian lovers' discussion where both are short of throwing each other off the balcony, just to get very friendly a minute later. But in any case, whether it is deliberate drama or a genuine resignation, the necessary reaction has to be similar: You need to treat it as if it were a real resignation publically and respond with all the usual platitudes that they are very valuable, you are so sorry to see them go and you'd do almost anything to keep them. Then you privately meet in private and find out which one it is, and maybe fix things. It is a dance, and you have to do the right steps. If you don't know the right ones, at least think hard (you have the time, it is email) on how not to step on any toes. The Mozilla people failed in that...
I think the complaint people are voicing in the HN thread is fairly straightforward, but it's being phrased in many different ways because the concept isn't viewed positively in American culture: Kiki, in her attempt to respond, has used an inappropriate level of linguistic formality.
More specifically, she's used a level of formality below what would be appropriate for most communication between strangers. Someone speaking in an official capacity (almost anywhere) who went much more informal than that would be at serious risk of getting fired. There's a similar effect to what was complained about in this meme tweet: https://xcancel.com/cherrikissu/status/972524442600558594
> Can websites please stop the trend of giving error messages that are like "OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!"
Forced cheerfulness and fictional intimacy are a bad call as a response to "after having 20 years of contributions overridden without warning, we can no longer work with you". That's true regardless of whether the complaint is meant as a dramatic opener to a negotiation or as a severing of relations.
It was this exact part of the conversation that touched me negatively too. marsf expresses some very valid criticism that, instead of being publicly addressed, is being handled by "let's discuss it privately". This always means that they don't want to discuss, they just want to shut you down.
I don’t think so. Working in tech with many busy people, I say “hop on a call”, but only in “let’s sync live, it’ll be faster” situations.
This stuck out to me as rude. I would never say that to someone on my team who expressed serious concerns, far less than this person quitting after years of dedication.
I would offer an apology, explanation, and follow up questions to understand more in public, then say I’m happy to set up time to talk privately if they would like to or feel more comfortable.
In my experience, and in my feeling as someone reading such things, you need to tone-match. The resignation message was somewhat formal, structured and serious in tone. Replying in such an informal tone means that you are not taking things seriously, which is insulting. Even more so because that informal answer is public.
I'm tone-deaf by culture and by personality. I often make those kinds of mistakes. But a public resignation like this is a brightly flashing warning light saying: "this needs a serious formal answer".
What about the reply in the link indicates to you that the person has empathy for marsf’s complaints and is willing to change anything at Mozilla in response to them?
For the reasons I stated above, the response comes off as faking understanding to manage a PR issue rather than genuine empathy and possible negotiation, but I am often wrong about many things.
'We're sorry you feel this way' implies that this is the fault of the person that feels that way, not of the party that made them feel that way. Given the very clear message this was entirely uncalled for. This is not the kind of feeling that goes away by being talked down to like that, it might go away after a reversal of a very bad policy decision and a very sincere apology about a mistake that was made and even then the damage is severe enough that I would not be surprised if the person that was slighted decided to stick to their decision.
Asking someone to "hop on a call" is phrasing you use with someone you are close with, not someone whose work you've just destroyed and is no longer interested in a relationship with you.
The fact that the preceding apology was absolutely awful does not help. "I'm sorry for how you feel" is wrong, since nobody asked them to react to "feelings" but the clearly delineated problems with the automation that Mozilla rolled out.
Asking to discuss something like this over synchronous voice comms is basically asking to go off the record and handle things privately. Sometimes that's appropriate, but if that's what the correspondant wanted they would have asked for it.
These three things combine to tell anyone who is paying attention that this is damage control, not meaningful engagement, and it's offensive to act this way toward someone who has put this much time into your project.
It’s really not a word choice thing (though it’s definitely the favorite word choice of orgs who are committed to not doing anything about it).
It’s that the complaint is descriptive on 5 or so actual problems and a couple of impacts that stem from them and the response doesn’t address any of them, it just looks like an attempt to take this issue out of the public space.
I suspect GP has had negative experiences with that specific phrase, "hop on a [quick] call", hence their "irrational rage". I also hate seeing that phrase at work:
1. "Hop" and "quick" suggests very simple matters, so to text-based people like me it doesn't really make sense why we wouldn't be able to resolve this matter asynchronously over text.
1b. Alternatively, the matter isn't actually trivial, so we should've had a proper meeting with other stakeholders instead of the caller debating me solo in a "quick" call.
2. I'm in the middle of something important or just hit my stride, and the caller is completely derailing my train of thought instead of just scheduling a meeting.
2b. The worst outcome is when I agree to "hop on", but the caller has gone AFK within 5 minutes of sending their invitation, so I'm just quietly seething by myself in the call.
3. The caller and I can't understand each other's accents so I'm trying to accommodate for the both of us by communicating through text, and I find it difficult to bring this incompatibility up without getting fired. I also had a caller who always whispered at his laptop mic so I had to turn up the subwoofers to have a chance of understanding him.
But we should point out that "quick" doesn't exist in Kiki's message. I think that goes back to point #1 about how the specific word "hop" can imply that the issue is trivial. Or maybe we're all going insane over unnecessary ad-hoc meetings.
Unrelated: I hate to appear anti-remote work, but I've noticed that remote workers tend to send more of these ad-hoc invitations, even more than getting tapped on the shoulder in the office. Are you all doing well out there?
It appears we're kindred spirits. I identify with every one of your points.
I'd add the following at an even higher priority than those you shared:
0. Folks whose first, and often only, reply to text comms is "quick call?" are often just unwilling/unable to organize their own thoughts and instead seek to offload the cognitive load by "talking through" the issue which just results in unproductive and circular discussions.
> Unrelated: I hate to appear anti-remote work, but I've noticed that remote workers tend to send more of these ad-hoc invitations, even more than getting tapped on the shoulder in the office. Are you all doing well out there?
I chortled at this! I have made the same observation and I have the same question.
With regards to your last point - in-person, you have more opportunities to connect with people at times that they're clearly not in the middle of something. Whether that's at the coffee machine, or right after a meeting, or just by reading their body language to see if they're concentrating.
When you're remote, you don't have that context, so everything you need from somebody has to be either scheduled (with the overhead and delay that entails), or potentially randomizing. When you need 5 minutes of somebody's time, it can be hard to do that in a respectful way. (Personally, I do try to do a "do you have some time today that we could talk about X," and try to handle stuff over text with coworkers who prefer text.)
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831614 jack1243star pointed out the possibility that English might not be Kiki's first language and they perhaps even have used ChatGPT to make the comment sound more polite.
The right thing to do is undo what you did and then ask to talk about it. There is nothing the person can say to make up for the destructive effects they took.
> What phrase would you use to ask someone to discuss a matter, but which you feel would be more appropriate for this kind of situation?
The only thing to ask for here are some clarifications and expanded explanations so that the original text does not get misunderstood. If the Mozilla representative does see such potential points he can perfectly ask for them publicly.
I mean, almost anything would be better. But here's my swing:
> I'm so sorry about this. We definitely screwed up here and want to
> fix things. We want to chat to you in a call if you're able?
> We will stop changing things, issue a moratorium on AI while we
> figure things out. You and communities like yours are central to
> our entire existence and purpose at Mozilla.
There is nothing you can do, because you already traded away the community for your AI project and money. The same corpo goons who don't see anything past their slop projects are the one who use the "jump on a quick call" lingo
I always read "call?" as, "I won't bother trying to understand what you took the time to present, can you craft a tailored summary for me, then intepret my own ramblings and figure our how to apply that to what you are saying?"
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831614 jack1243star pointed out the possibility that English might not be Kiki's first language and they perhaps even have used ChatGPT to make the comment sound more polite.
Making a comment sound more polite should be done by addressing the other person correctly and respectfully, and making sure that you are actually responding to the issues that have been raised. When whatever you wrote is so completely offensive and disrespectful, asking ChatGPT to make it sound more polite will undoubtedly make it worse. Like writing "Sorry, not sorry", when the content of your message clearly conveys that you're "Not sorry". It only adds to the disdain of your original message, putting even more emphasis on the fact that you are wasting the recipients time and patience while refusing to show any remorse.
Yeah it’s a strange request. No acknowledgment or even indication that the other person understands the issues raised.
And they’re happy to eat up more of that person’s time, probably ask them to explain all over again. Also it seems they don’t think it is worth a long call… just a quick one.
I think a phone call can be better for resolving a conflict because it allows a more rapid back and forth, you can adapt in real time to how the other person is responding. If someone gets upset about some word choice like here, you can quickly say "I'm sorry I didn't mean it like that" and get back to the actual topic over how the work should be organized instead of some superficial detail.
In the end it may boil down to some strong hatred for AI, this seems to be very common recently and "I prohibit to use all my translation as learning data for SUMO bot and AIs" certainly points that way. If that is the root cause then it may be impossible to resolve to the satisfaction of both sides.
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced. Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
> My timezone is UTC+7, so it should be easier for us to set up time. Let me know how that sound!
What a horribly condescending and patronising response. If I'd received this it would just further vindicate my decision to quit.
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced.
English is also not my mother tongue, but this translates to "I'm sorry you feel like that, but we don't care or change anything, can I call you to convince you into doing things our way while completely being off the record?" in my mind.
This is forceful and rude in my culture, but it's very rude and a no-no in Japanese culture AFAIK.
If the person wanted to help genuinely, I'd expect to read something like "I'm sorry you feel like this. I read your comments but I want to clarify some points so I can transfer these up the chain with utmost clarity. We might have made some mistakes and don't want to leave you out in the cold".
This reaction baffles me and feels like online indignation culture. All I could see, as a Latin American English speaker, is someone who's sincerely trying to help and picked their words carefully. Your proposed phrasing sounds unnatural and AI-like.
You're touching the heart of the question, but not in the way you think. Any arbitrary statement could be construed as offensive by SOME culture out there. But people prefer to immediately assume the worst and be offended instead of giving others the benefit of the doubt.
For instance, if I followed the principles of indignation culture, I could be offended by your "I can assure you about that :)" statement. I could say "Are you making fun of me?!?!"
To be clear, your statement is perfectly fine. I understand what you're saying, despite disagreeing.
Also, this happened in an English language forum. It's reasonable to expect that foreign speakers would be somewhat versed in the conventions of the English language and see that the comment was not offensive at all.
It's not just the words that differ. Rudeness can come from underlying values betrayed by language, and those values do matter -- words aren't simply interchanged atop them.
Some cultures value relational power in leadership, and so their language reflects preserving relationships as a base resources. Some cultures value authority, and so their idea of being polite might involve some maintenance of authority at the expense of perceived care or relationship.
I'm just saying the words that convey rudeness are not necessarily just a superficial dressing on the same thing. Politeness is a shorthand that is also about alignment with a cultural value. Cultural values differ. My being annoyed at someone else's cultural posturing as default, that's not just mindless indignation. Values matter.
As a native speaker (American) the phrasing is classic condescending soulless corporate customer service speak. 1) You must always apologize, 2) you must never admit fault. "I'm sorry you feel this way about what we did" comes across _to me_ as "what we did was totally fine, it's too bad that you don't understand the wisdom of our actions." That kind of phrasing is also a bit of a trigger because the majority of the time you hear it from companies that don't give a damn how you feel and will fight to avoid doing anything to actually help you.
It's of course impossible to say if this was just an unfortunate choice of phrasing or if it's a sign that Mozilla has become that soulless corporate entity (I say this as a Firefox user for more than 20 years).
Every culture has a way of discussing and resolving disagreements. Some are noisier and some are calmer. Some cultures do this dance with "apparent" disrespect, with forceful exchanges, some with calmer and tidier demeanor.
Japanese are the latter. There's a polite dance of disagreement. Every side listens others with respect (with respect to the process even if they don't respect the others) and answer politely yet firmly.
This comment smells like there's already some disagreement under this, and none of them have been listened and they are steamrolled with the new workflow.
Implying "Hey you're overreacting, let us convince you" doesn't help on top of it.
Politely say "I don't care what you think but I won't change anything" is perfectly fine in Japanese culture. Taking an issue privately instead of showing disagreements in public is also perfectly fine for Japanese people.
The issue has nothing to do with Japanese culture, but with how you work with a community of volunteers over the web. "Let's jump on a call" is what you say to a coworker, not to a volunteer in an online community.
Let’s jump on a call is something you say when you feel that the tone and intention of your communication is getting lost in text. And whether it’s common in all cultures or not, tone and intention getting lost in text is universal.
> I mean, that question is already well answered within the first (opening) comment of marsf,
No, it's not. Half of the listed reasons are obvious enough, but the half is very vague. I don't know if they are something you would understand as an insider, but as an outsider there would be many open questions if it would be my task to make this work.
The whole communication seems like people on one or both sides lacking information, and one trying to fix this to start the process for solving the other sides' problem. Nothing wrong with this in a professional environment.
But it is not "forceful and rude" by any means and your interpretation is way over the top for what looks like two people from different cultures trying to communicate in a mutually non-native language using words on a screen.
Written messages can feel cold even when it's two native English speakers communicating over email or text and it's best to assume good faith until you see clear evidence to the contrary.
I don't think it even matters how canned it sounds.. it seems like a polite way to move the discussion to a phone call where some real communication can happen. I think that was a perfect response. Forums are not ideal for resolving conflict, especially if language barriers exist.
Nope. Start by apologizing for the impact of what YOU did. Contributor of 20y just quit and provide a clear list of what is wrong. "your feelings" and "your struggles" is not respectful.
You should be sorry that YOU pushed changes on them in a way that impacted badly their work and made them quit. Thank them for the feedback and try to open a discussion on finding a positive outcome.
As a native English speaker, I don't see it as condescending either. Yes it's a bit "corporate" in tone, but that is not uncommon at all in large human organisations (not just for-profit corporations but also government, NGOs, political orgs, etc). Also the reality is that "hopping on a call" can often help to resolve problems that would otherwise devolve into months of bikeshedding on mailing lists. Which is often entertaining but rarely very useful.
But it's Mozilla. There is a segment of the community that will be pissed off by everything they do. Check the username of the person you're replying to.
I am English and the phrasing used is a backhanded way to tell you to shut-up and go away. I've seen it used by both native and non-native speakers in this manner.
It is about 50/50 though as many people don't seem to pick up on backhanded way that many English people speak.
> Also the reality is that "hopping on a call" can often help to resolve problems that would otherwise devolve into months of bikeshedding on mailing lists.
This is also sometimes done to shut you up as well.
The core thing here is the "I'm sorry you feel this way". This immediately deflects all sense of wrong-doing from the people actually doing wrong to the people feeling hurt. There are so many other ways to phrase this that are either more neutral or even acknowledging of some kind of mistake being made that's not on the volunteer's side, but that's not what's happening here. Essentially this means "We did the right thing and now we need to figure out how to make you understand this", not "Something went wrong and we need to figure out how to come to an understanding which might include us having done something wrong".
Having a call is fine, but it's not like the original complaint didn't lay out in plenty of detail what the problem was.
Given the context of corporate doublespeak, I saw the response as "Oh shit, we can't refute your issues, but maybe we can bullshit you privately into putting up with them?".
(I see a few disagreements here, back up with "I'm a native speaker". Me too friend, but understand messages like this is (imho) more about the subtext than the text itself, so interpersonal knowledge is more important than linguistic.)
As an English speaker, I 100% disagree. This does not come across as someone wanting to understand or to help. It’s someone wanting to avoid a scene. Private phone calls are not an appropriate way to deal with community issues like this. In other threads on the site (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/717387...) it’s clear this change has received massive pushback for months since it was announced, and community members specifically called out the issues enumerated in the OP as potential problems. So the responder already knows exactly what is wrong. No clarification is necessary.
Native English speaker and worked in IT in multiple corporations for over 30 years and none of this is condescending. The person is trying to reach out and talk.
This is not to dismiss what happened, but to just address the poster who thinks this is condescending.
No it's not. Where are you getting that? It's framing that there is an actual struggle, which is the acknowledgement that it's something they can work on resolving. Rolling back changes might be the answer.
I honestly don't understand where you're getting this cynical interpretation from. It's not in the words.
If this were some small bug report, even from someone pretty ticked off, I'd agree.
But this is a response to someone who has just announced that they are quitting an organization they had spent 20 years of their life volunteering for, because of the disrespect they have felt from the org. This is not a "hop on a call" moment. This is a "please accept to meet so I can apologize in person, and see if we can repair this" moment, preferably after acknowledging the disrespect.
It's a community matter posted in a public place, a non-statement with an immediate attempt to direct it to private conversation reads like trying to avoid attention to your mistakes (e.g. hypothetically you don't have to public admit you didn't do anything to check for guidelines to follow). More vibe-y, it all sounds very corporate, like any PR statement in response to criticism ever, or a manager writing to an employee in a big corp, not "humans working together in a community, and one of the humans is clearly pissed off right now".
Also while it's phrased as a question, it doesn't offer any alternative next step. So a better approach would be writing down the initial questions you have and then offer that you'd be open for a call if the OP prefers that. If they don't, they can immediately engage with your questions, and they are open to everybody else in the community. Whereas right now if they say "no, I don't want to call you" that's all you've given them.
(To be clear I can easily believe the writer of the response is not intending any of that and means well, but that's how it comes across)
Reading other comments, US folks seem divided; I am with you and the others on this side of the fence, I've seen this exact situation play out in corporate life many times. They are attempting to quiet a public discussion of dissent and dissatisfaction.
I’m an American. The response is coded as “do nothing”. The proper response here would be to say “we’re going to roll back the changes until we understand and fix things that are going wrong.” The individual may not have INTENDED the dismissive due to the way American corporate language has internalize “do nothing, take no position, take no risk, admit no fault” but it’s definitely the tone. Essentially this is a human problem: how do you deal with someone motivated by project passion rather than revenue goals or personal income? It happens ALL THE TIME with nonprofits interacting poorly with volunteers because the motivations and associated daily language are so divergent.
Non-native here. People "hop on a call" to have a personal guide that helps in stepping through tasks of a proposed solution. Such a call is made to remove ambiguity and provide immediate feedback, to apply the solution as seamless as possible. Used in the context here (without a proposed solution) it just screams "let's avoid public outcry" with a touch of "why don't you overthink your annoyances with me".
Hop on a call is very informal language, and suggests that this is just a small problem we can quickly workaround. The issue isn't so much the idea of getting in a direct call (though there are problems with that as well, especially the tendency to remove this from the record). It's the wording that suggests this is a tiny issue that we can just "hop" on a call to address.
And I’d say claiming that she should hop on an 8 hour flight from Jakarta to Japan to apologize for a decision she didn’t make is more than a bit overly dramatic.
Given that the written complaint already had a list of ways Mozilla had stepped on the toes of those volunteers, expressing regret about their feelings without at least acknowledging that Mozilla's actions might have been rash is very condescending indeed. These volunteers are adding value to M's product for free and they are very angry and threatening to leave and this is your response? Basically saying "I'm sorry you're being such big babies, do you want some tissues?"...
"I'm sorry for how you feel" is widely accepted as a non-apology in English. Sincere apologies show awareness of how one's actions led to the situation that would require the apology.
That's great but we're not all native English speakers. And "I'm sorry for you" seems like a hollow phrase to a Dutch person but this is used all the time in English.
It's like how you say "How are you" when you really don't care but it's just how you start a conversation.
Not saying you "have" to know or that the interpretation is even correct for this case, but, just to explain:
The "I'm sorry you feel this way" is quite a recent phenomenon. It started showing up in public apologies by companies and celebrities, purely for PR. It's basically a deflective euphemism for "I'm sorry that you don't like whatever happened" without really admitting culpability, sidestepping all responsibility.
With that said: I don't even know if the author (Kiki) is a native english speaker, since she's part of other language translation groups, so it might be 100% without intent. But that's how a lot of people perceive it today.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" is shaped like an apology, but is essentially blaming the other party's feelings as being the problem.
"I'm sorry I did that" is an actual apology.
To be clear, I'm agreeing with you. I think that the former version emerged as it's litigation proof. Corporate PR can say that without it being an admission of anything if whatever they fucked up results in a lawsuit.
It has spread to personal communications from corporate ones and it's now so prevalent that it is possible someone might use it and actually mean a real apology. But it's ... tainted.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" was literally the first thing I ever got taught when doing front of house/customer service training. Its definitely a super common phrase, at least in English speaking countries
Not sure if this is what you intended but you're just proving his point. Customer service is full of corporate-speak, scripted deflection, and hollow niceties. Of course the first thing you were taught was an empty apology.
"I'm sorry for you" is a bit weird, normally we would say "I feel sorry for you", both having the meaning of showing sympathy. It would typically be inappropriate to use either of those in a sincere apology message.
Not a native speaker, but to me it reads as canned or AI generated response that acknowledges nothing in the post besides there being some kind of tiny disagreement. I don't see how "I'm sorry for how you feel about this" can be inteprented as anything other than "I'm not at fault, and I'm sorry I'll have to spend time pacifying you".
> As someone from the Netherlands I read absolutely 0 condescending or patronising behaviour in this.
To be fair, Dutch culture is known for its directness[0] and for not interpreting even the harshest criticism as offensive, so I'm not sure I would trust your judgment on this… :-D
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced.
This is an emotion that you are feeling, not an actual problem.
> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further?
I'm not going to say that anything is actually wrong, we just want to discuss the best way to dismiss this.
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
Reiterating that the Japanese translators are the ones struggling to adapt, not that there could be a problem with the new reality.
From my perspective, this is typical middle management speak to allow people to complain into a void without promising improvements. The approach I would recommend if there was going to be some opening to change the approach would have been.
> I'm sorry that the changes to the workflows have disrupted your processes. Would you be interested in hopping on a call so that we can discuss the changes that we will be making, as I think that at least some of the issues have been identified and should be fixed soon? We want to ensure that we do not introduce problems with the community contributions.
If someone, especially one who pretty much worked for free for 20+ years to make YOUR PRODUCT BETTER and you just burned off all their hard work in front of them, just publicly quits with a proper explanation given as to why, and then you ask them to come to a quiet corner to "discuss things", maybe as damage control or whatever, without returning the favor and explaining your point of you as publicly as they did, or even preferring up the chance to give them some sort of agency and an opportunity for yourself to rectify things, I cannot see anything except condescending and disrespectful behavior.
This doesn't need any low-context/high-context nonsense to figure it out, given when the complainer's post was plaintive enough for someone from the Netherlands to appreciate.
As somebody from your Neighboring country, its really comes over as condescending...
"I'm sorry for how you feel" is the definition of non-appology...
Hey, even the AI overlords agree on this...
> The phrase "I'm sorry for how you feel" is often perceived as a non-apology because it shifts blame to the other person's emotions instead of taking responsibility for one's actions. Instead of a genuine apology, it can sound like you're sorry they are upset rather than sorry for your behavior, and it can imply their feelings are the problem. A true apology acknowledges your role and expresses sincere regret for the pain you caused.
In Dutch its something like "Het spijt me, hoe u hierover voelt" ... See the issue, the first part is a apology, that is then reflected to the other person.
"We want to make sure we truly understand what you're struggling with." ...
We do not understand why *you are struggling with this*. For us its perfectly normal, so why are you having a issue with this.
So in Dutch its something like "We willen echt verstaan, waarom u moeite hebt hiermee". Aka, sending the issue back to the other person.
See the issue how both parts flow and shift the issue to the other person. This is not a English language issue because the same way of writing is also done in Dutch if you want to do a non-apology with a dose of gaslighting.
I never see anybody write like this, beyond those that have the intention to rile people up. Its gaslighting 101 ...
I'm from the United States and I read the exact same thing that you did. Somebody really trying to help. Zero condescending or patronizing behavior. It seems like somebody doing their best to reach out and get in contact and yeah I agree completely that hell I could have written this myself. And probably have something like that before. I don't understand what culture would find that condescending at all.
I'm from The Netherlands but have lived in the US for a while and unlike other country brethren responding in this thread, it did come across as condescending to me.
Trying to dissect why it comes across, I think it's just me kneejerking to the 'pattern' of specifically "I am sorry you feel that way". I think my kneejerk disdain of that turn of phrase is correct, though.
Being blunt here: Because that's a terrible apology! You are sorry that I feel this way? We're barely using the same dictionary here; how I feel about a thing is textbook 'stuff you cannot change or barely even fathom', so what is there to be sorry about? You might as well say "I'm sorry for the fact that 2 + 2 is 4". It's not apologetic in any way. It says sorry without taking even a millimeter of responsibility.
A minimal apology that is slightly less condescending might be "I am sorry how our choices led to you feeling this way" because at least now you're sorry about your choices instead of being sorry about how I feel.
I wouldn't want to be buoyed by false hope either, so taking as axiomatic that the moz team wants to hear how to improve matters but are not willing to completely 180º on their sumobot policies, something like: "I apologise for how we've kinda steamrolled y'all with rolling out sumobot. We were trying to improve the state of translations of our knowledge base articles and might have gone too far. We shouldn't have done it without keeping you out of the loop either. Is it possible to have a video call, apologise in person, and try to work out if there's a way sumobot can be helpful for all japanese language users of firefox in a way that works with your excellent work maintaining the KB so far?"
I get that it's just american corpospeak, "hop on a call". But the number of times something that's perfectly normal in dutch culture (a bit brash, but not at all intended to be rude) gets jumped on by americans as being ridiculously rude... well, trying to write a way to be culturally aware of the recipient has to be a two-way street, right?
I dont think this 'apology' is rude, not at all. But it's not apologetic. If you're peeved off at mozilla for foisting sumobot on you, you've already decided to cut ties, and then team mozilla tries to mend the relationship, this is a very poor attempt. In the context of an attempt to mend the relationship this is condescending. Or at least bad diplomacy.
To me the reason it feels like a non-apology is purely contextual: for some time, it was very fashionable as a public non-apology by celebrities and companies doing PR damage-management. Until people started calling it out.
I think there might be a disconnect on how people handle calls in the first place.
At this point getting on a call is seen as a major chore for a majority of people. It's an already tense situation, trying to defuse it by "hopping on a call" is just not great IMHO. They should at least acknowledge they're putting undue burden on the other side and are asking them to go the distance when they're already volunteering their time.
I'm saying that setting aside the opacity of moving from an public to a private setup.
This is a pointer to a somewhat US related POV, but this is nether a generational thing nor a limited phenomenon:
Also from The Netherlands, this is 100% condescending and patronising to me. I read this as corporate-speak for "go fuck yourself". Let's go through it line-by-line:
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced.
"We have zero regrets about the changes we made and have no intention of making any changes - the problem is how you feel about them".
> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further?
"I can't be bothered to engage with the points you already raised. You can do some venting in a Teams call, but we don't want there to be a record so we can't be held to any promises we might accidentally make."
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
"You are the problem: you haven't embraced our glorious changes yet. Accept our "help" to adapt to your new reality, or get out"
So no, that's not what you'd write if you genuinely wanted to help: that's what you write when you want to get rid of someone who is bothering you.
If they genuinely wanted to help, the response would've read something more like this:
> Dear marsf,
> It is shocking to me to learn that our recent rollout of sumobot has caused enough friction to make a 20-year veteran of our community quit. Our intention has always been, and will always be, to use new technology like sumobot to help our communities - not harm them. Reading your report, we have clearly failed at that.
> To prevent it from doing additional damage, we have chosen to pause sumobot for the moment. We still believe that it can become a valuable tool, but it'll remain paused until we have discussed its modes of operation and the impact it has on the way you contribute with representatives of the various communities. We'll work out an approach over the following weeks.
> I hope this is sufficient for now to change your mind about leaving - people like you are essential to open-source applications like Firefox. If you wish to discuss it face-to-face, my team and I am more than happy to hop on a call with you to make sure we are doing the right thing.
I can't believe I had to scroll this far to find a well-articulated example of a proper response. It isn't just a few words that needed changing, the original response by Mozilla mas missing the whole point that you bring up in your example: a 20y veteran volunteer is leaving. Within a small community, the action of a single veteran/leader leaving this way will certainly have an effect on the rest of the volunteers, even more so when you consider the cultural aspects of this specific community.
I don't think there is something inherently patronizing about this. But this tone seems like the most generic possible American corporate faux-friendly tone.
In order to sound truly friendly, one has to break the script
I think what the grand parent meant is that the staff doesn't acknowledge issues - instead, clearly says that this is how _they_ feel, points out that changes were "only recently introduced", and says that is interested in learning what they are struggling with, again, not acknowledging issues with the process or bot, instead wording as if this is marsf issue.
Personally, I don't think this is that bad. This is a public thread and he's Mozilla staff - the wording has to be clinical. The worse part is the _recently introduced_ bit, but I would look over it.
The condescension is coming from "We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with." which is completely dismissing the points they made in the post. Basics "surely there is more to it than just what is in the post". A better response would have responded with actions/talking points to the items listed in the post. Then asking for a call for further clarification of the respondents point.
I'm from the Netherlands as well and I wouldn't interpret this as condescending but as disingenuous corporate BS-speak where someone is doing damage control by showing "how much they value your opinion". And in the end not doing anything at all with your concerns.
"I'm sorry" can mean "I am apologizing" but often it instead means "I feel bad". It depends on context which applies.
"I'm sorry for how you feel" without more explanation often sounds like "The thing that makes me feel bad in this situation is your reaction to it". It can come across as blaming the person for the feelings, regretting not being able to control others' feelings better, or dismissing the root causes of the feelings and any agency in them.
It's a bad apology because of the ambiguity, though passive aggressive types like that aspect. It's honestly a bad way to sympathize as well.
I'd say otherwise - it's a reach out to have a relationship. It's hard to have human relationships only by writing. Of course the best way to build it is to meet in person, but if impossible - it's always good to have a video call.
If someone is frustrated, the following chats won't do much really. They have already built a wall, and we need to meet around it, not throw our letters over it.
Who wants "a relationship" here with some manager who has just delivered the standard corporate nonpology? The problems are listed in the first message, start by fixing them.
> It's hard to have human relationships only by writing.
I don't follow. Some of my most important friendships were built on forums and text-based communication. We never felt any need to have video calls. Some of them I met in person once, 15+ years after we started messaging each other, and we're great friends regardless.
I don't mean to say you're wrong in an absolute sense, but I can't relate to your post at all. Not a single one of my friends has video calls as their preferred method of socialization with online peers.
Your claim is based on the very strong assumption that if you have a phone or video call with a person that you already hate, things will get better.
My life experience does tell me that this is often not the case: if people are already frustrated and have built a wall, it is better to use something more impersonal, like such an online text discussion.
Then at least try to sound like a genuine human that cares and not a PR response when reaching out. Offer a "you can call me if you want" vs making the call the expectation (it's phrased as a question but there is no other path offered).
First of all, I'm shocked to learn about what happened. We at Mozilla had no idea that sumobot is wreaking such havoc on your work. Please accept my sincere apologies.
It would be a great pity to have all your precious work done, so we'll do our best to fix it. I would be very grateful if you could schedule a meeting with me so that I could understend the issues you described better so that they are fixed asap?
Once again, I'm very sorry for what happened and I hope in spite of that you can continue doing great work for the Japanese Mozilla community.
**
Human communication consists of so much more than just words. Tone, loudness, speed, accent (a hint of the other person maybe not being a native English speaker), all that gets lost in pure text. And even voice calls lose a lot of context like facial mimic or gestures that convey emotions.
IME an n vs. m written discussion in a public forum can be clearer, more productive, and a hell of a lot more accountable than some potential n vs. 1 adversarial corporate firing-squad 'discussion' intended to reinforce whatever policy the n have already decided upon. IMO, much of the benefit of voice over text is likely offset by the latter scenario being real time with potential translation issues.
There have been a ton of complaints on HackerNews about companies never letting them talk to a real person. Here's a company offering up a real person, and apparently that's still bad somehow. You can always just say "no" to an offer to talk.
Because so much nuance can be lost in writing, especially if both parties are working in a second language. There is a lot of value in actually talking to someone, especially in a fraught situation like this. Hearing the other person express genuine concern can do a lot to overcome the anger. Otherwise we tend to build up stories in our head about what the other person “really means” and those stories tend to be wildly negative.
Decisions are not fixed. Changing the situation, could revert the decision. Why should someone silently accept a situation, when simple communication could improve the world for everyone involved? That seems like a very ignorant mindset.
I'm not part of Mozilla or any of the communities and I understood the situation by reading the damn post, on the first time.
In the follow-up, any words concerning how the person feels, words on how to talk about this further, and wanting to truly understand what he just wrote in plain and simple terms simply reek strongly of "we really won't change anything, we've made our decision, we are disagree with you but we want you to agree with what we're already doing".
I can hear the exact same tone in exact similar situations with various customer service reps, HR, corporate smooth-talkers, public officials/politicians where the decision is already written in stone and they just pretend they're listening to the customers/employees/citizens affected to quiet down the criticism.
To add to this fire. I recently left my 'recently bought by private equity' workplace of 8 years to work somewhere else not-yet-ruined-by-PE (yet..)
A major part of my decision to quit was this communication pattern.
The whole organisation was very efficiently structured with two separate layers of managers - those who had actual decision power, and a separate layer whose task was to 'deal with us employees' but no decision power.
All communication flowing one way, the same way shit drips (the only resource following 'trickle-down' mechanics).
The only time I got into contact with the former level, was after I had put in my resignation; then they suddenly wanted a 1-1 to "see if there was anything they should learn from this" (presumably to sharpen/hone their skills in mistreating the employee level more efficiently in the future).
it's american english for "oh this must be hard for you. how can we help you to cope?" and no intent to change.
a better response would rather be:
"We're sorry, we were not aware. please can we meet and you help us understand? so we can fix this situation? We'd also like to share our intentions and we hope together we can improve the situation."
The person gives a clear, detailed answer in the post about their problems > "We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with"
To me that's very condescending, like someone who reads but doesn't understand
Borderline AI response
And personally offering a call is like a sidestep "lets move this problem out of the public discourse" which is especially funny considering it's about a forum
> And personally offering a call is like a sidestep "lets move this problem out of the public discourse"
Maybe. But that’s also assuming the worst from the get go, and that’s no way to settle a dispute.
For all we know (which is very little, and thus should offer the benefit of the doubt), offering a call is an admission that text is an awful medium to resolve conflict: It’s time consuming for both parties and a poor conveyor of tone and nuance. Even writing this unimportant comment I had to stop and think and rewrite some parts to get it closer to the meaning I intend, but even so I fazer zero doubts someone will misunderstand it in the worst way imaginable.
Calls aren’t perfect either, but they allow you to understand in real time when a point is not getting through to the other person and calmly resolve each issue as it surfaces. It gets you on the same page faster.
After the call they can still decide to post their conclusions publicly if they so wish, but not every discussion needs to be public. It’s fine (and productive) for two people to discuss something in private and only have to worry about making themselves understood by the relevant party, not worry about having each word scrutinised by every internet rando.
> Maybe. But that’s also assuming the worst from the get go, and that’s no way to settle a dispute.
Offering a call would've been totally fine - if the rest of the reply hadn't been a borderline-insulting cookie-cutter corporate non-apology. If they start by showing bad intentions, why suddenly assume the best for the phone call?
> if the rest of the reply hadn't been a borderline-insulting cookie-cutter corporate non-apology.
“The rest of the reply” is basically one sentence, so let’s avoid reading too much into it. I very much agree it was a bad non-apology and that that is infuriating, but let’s not let irrationality cloud judgement in the pursuit of a resolution.
> If they start by showing bad intentions, why suddenly assume the best for the phone call?
Why are you assuming bad intentions from the start? For all we know this person may just be a bad (textual?) communicator or trying to avoid miscommunication (which seems like a perfectly valid concern, since the original comment isn’t exactly the clearest English). Worse still, the comment I replied to assumed a specific malicious reason for the offer to a call with no evidence, it was just speculation.
Is anyone here familiar with this Mozilla staffer? Do they even know if they interacted with this Japanese user before, online or offline? Do they have a pattern of bad behaviour? Or is everyone just piling on and assuming the devil from a single reply from someone they don’t know? Maybe this staffer is indeed an asshole. Or maybe they’re trying their best and just don’t know how to do better but are open to recognising their mistakes and learning from them. Maybe they would have preferred to be more open, human, and honest in their reply but corporate policy prevents them from doing so. Maybe they have personal issues on their mind and jut couldn’t do better this time. I don’t know. Do you? If anyone in this thread does, they’re not saying it.
This thread is populated by (what seem to be) uninformed commentators throwing fire at the situation from the outside, and that’s unhealthy. Let me ask you: What is, in your view, the desired/best outcome of this situation? Is it to bash Mozilla and/or this staffer? Or is it to provide a solution that would fix the situation in a way the original Japanese commentator would feel valued and happy to come back?
This is the type of response you shouldn't make. Instead you should do your homework and then come back with the receipts.
E.g. figure out why this happened, express why it shouldn't have happened, why it should happen never again, how it is understandable how they feel, express that you cannot expect them to come back, make them an actual offer that would make them come back (e.g. by giving them a better place at the table or offering compensation), etc.
But "I am sorry you feel" is bordering on gaslighting. That is as if you are sorry your wife feels sad after you beat them. You should feel sorry and ashamed for doing the beating, not for how someone feels as a result of it.
The described things are clearly unacceptable and whether someone feels outrage or not doesn't make them more or less acceptable.
I can’t believe what I’m going to say now, but AIs are better at this. Granted, their apologies are good for shit since they have no agency and can’t really learn from their mistakes, but they at least leave no doubts at who is at fault and should be ashamed.
(Cue Gemini with its “I’m a disgrace” self-flagellation)
In addition to not responding to any of the specifics that the poster clearly put time into, there's also a huge mismatch in tone. In general, do not act very corporate when people are personally pissed off, this has a tendency to just annoy most people further.
Well. Too late. Now that they go you want to talk? If I was the one who finally had enough why the fuck would I want to talk to something I turned my back to?
There were very clear statements of what will happen and why. First acknowledge those, express you are sorry for what happened and hint some mea culpa and how you plan to solve it.
Only then if you feel the need to talk realize that you are the one begging them, not the other way around.
>I read it as a person trying to understand the situation.
I have been on the receiving end of such comments enough times to read it as a person trying to appear as if they are trying to understand the situation.
It is gaslighting even. It is extremely manipulative to be sorry about a thing someone else did, while in fact the the fuckup originated from you. Own it or offer to investigate/fix it.
A decent answer would have been worded among the lines of:
"I am personally deeply sorry to see you go [acknowledge you take their decision serious]. I don't know the details, but if what you describe is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), this is clearly unacceptable and should never have happened [acknowledge the issue is serious and confirm it wasn't intentional]. You feeling betrayed as a result of this is only natural and understandable, and it is Mozilla that should feel ashamed for it coming to this [validate feeling, admit guilt]. I will investigate why this happened and want to find ways to ensure something like this never happens again [show that you're willing to do something substential solbing the root of the problem]. Nobody should have their hard work just automatically replaced by AI, not you, nor anybody else [afirm you're on the same page as them by appeal to general principle]. I know you likely don't want to have anything to do with this now, but I would be deeply grateful if you had a moment to talk about this with me, personally, not as a member of Mozilla but as a member of the community [ask them about help, acknowledging you can't expect any, show that you care about this beyond any purely official duties]."
Of course that means some work, but this is how I would answer such a thing.
The OP/article is very clear and very direct on what the problems are. The response is so typical american conflict-shy “let’s talk so we can slowly dimish your critique, and also let’s do talking instead of writing so we cant really be held accountable for specifics”. And, to me it comes across as lazy: the op/article is very specific on the problems, just get to work already, no need to “further clarifications” (obviously disable that stupid bot for the japanese community; then get to work restoring original KBs from backups. Then reach out to talk about next steps)
It’s a tonedeaf response from the staff person. Zero respect for what’s clearly many, many hours of contribured work.
How would you form this response to make it less condensending and patronizing? I won't judge if it is patronizing or not because I'm not very good at this kind of thing but would like to understand the issue.
OP has given all that they need, English is probably not their first language, and the first response was to ask for even more unpaid time and labour (presumably in English) in a format that is likely much more difficult for them to summarise coherent thoughts succinctly in, while addressing zero of their issues. They’re asking for MORE effort of the volunteer to fix their bot’s fuckup.
I’m honestly struggling to think of a more insulting way to respond to this. At least “Fuck off” isn’t pretending to care, it’s fewer words to read and isn’t asking for an indeterminate amount of time from you.
a) don't apologize for the other persons feelings, but for your actions that lead to it
b) don't look like you are trying to take the conversation out of the community space it's happening in and/or hiding details by going to a private call (you can offer a call, but it shouldn't be the expectation)
c) Acknowledge the concrete complaints made. Are you truly "struggling to understand" what someone means when they complain that it didn't happen in a staging environment first?
d) a-c also lead to "don't sound like any cookie-cutter PR response to a complaint ever, people have learned those are not genuine". Especially if you are a project that makes a big deal out of its community interacting with said community.
e) ideally announce some concrete first step, e.g. pausing the bot
One point I'd like to add as someone who has worked in IT support for years:
Don't answer when you haven't done your homework. Either you check for yourself if what they claim has happened happened and acknowledge the fuckup or you just trust them as go on "if this is true and we have no reason not to trust you, it should never have happened".
But not understanding? The description of the incident was pretty clear. Maybe think about it and investigate till you understand what the problem is, and then answer.
Or answer being clear about that if you feel like you need to respond now. Acknowledge there is a problem, say you'll have to look into the details before you can say more, come back with specific questions if you need answers.
> Are you truly "struggling to understand" what someone means
You've turned this around into a very different quote, and shouldn't use quote marks for that. They wrote:
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
I don't like their response and agree with a lot of people in the thread it looks like they are trying to do the call to take it private. But we don't have to make up stuff.
Yes, but what is there to understand? A bot erased the hard work of people. That is the point.
Sure there may be more fine detail to understand around the guidelines etc, but first you should acknowledge that (A) your bot fucked up big time, (B) everybody would be pissed if years of work would be overwritten in such disrespectful manner and (C) that this isn't how you want to treat your community.
If you don't manage that this person made the right call when they decided to leave.
Sure, but there is no reason to fabricate a quote they never said. Their offputting real response can stand on its own without imagining a new one that never happened.
If the post gave any acknowledgement to the already stated complaints I'd agree with you, but it does not, and that does stand out and leads to my reading.
"We are sorry for overwriting the manual translations of all our volunteers. We have disabled the workflow and are working on restoring the old, manual translations.
We had planned to use the translation bot to help you guys, but based on your response, we have understood that we have overshot our target, and actually made it harmful.
Would you be interested in a call where we can apologize in person, and interview you about how the workflow integration could be designed so it actually helps you and other translators?"
Oops, sounds like we screwed up really badly. Sorry. :(
We'll turn off the sumobot, and put things back the way the SUMO Japanese community was used to operating.
Would you consider not quitting after we've put things back the way they were? :)
"Fuck, sorry, we're going to take the bot behind the barn and shoot it. Hopefully one day we can make it up to you. Also the person responsible for this atrocity was just fired."
Or, alternatively, if you do not intend to even try to do better, at least be honest: "ok, bye."
Yes. In an online community that operates in written text and is separated by timezones, there's several reasons why that's a no-no.
To me, this seems very simple: they introduced a machine translation workflow. Doing so signals the intent to replace their human translators. The human translators understandably quit rather than collaborate with their replacements.
I do. My written English is orders of magnitude better than my spoken English - simply because I practice it a lot more.
I have no problem "hopping on a call" if it's a casual conversation between friends, but when stakes actually matter it would be stupid to put myself in a worse position than strictly necessary. Native speakers have a habit of talking a lot, talking fast, and talking with a lot of subtleties, nuances, and hidden meanings. In written conversations I can read a sentence twice and think a second about the right phrasing to use in response, but in face-to-face conversations this is simply not possible.
It would be like a professional debater like college kids "debating" with late Charlie Kirk: no wonder they end up "getting owned" - they are punching way above their weight class!
The only context I can think of in which it wouldn't be true is if someone learned the language through full immersion with no text involved, it's a bizarre situation.
There's also no reason as to assume that a volunteer translator is good at speaking, especially in regards to English, which pronunciation is not explicitly stated in its writing (like, say, Spanish).
You can't really ascertain how good I am at speaking, for an obvious example.
>You can't really ascertain how good I am at speaking, for an obvious example.
That comma, gives you away. The commas (and punctuation in general) in English are rather special in a way they convey the spoken language rather than designated rules.
Edit: As for the full immersion when I was learning English (as kid, 5th grade or so), I recall visualizing the words (letters) in my head while speaking. Certain mistakes like than <> then, it's <> it, their<>there etc. are unlikely to happen while writing due to the way language was initially perceived (and b/c I leaned if-then much earlier). Still, esp. with English I'd not consider translating anything unless my spoken version of it was good enough.
Fully agree with you, and people who don't understand this should follow through to read the actual link. Marsf explained that sumobot deleted the volunteers' translations, zero coordination, and Kiki's response is "I'm sorry for how you feel?"
Is someone supposed to be happy when a machine deletes their volunteer work? WTF? This needs to be explained further? Marsf needs to risk his time getting on a call to explain that having a machine delete your volunteer work is some fucking bullshit, and expect what, more of the "I'm sorry you feel bad we deleted your work" bullshit?
I don't get it. It's not the best possible phrasing, but people who find this sounds "horribly condescending" are excessively sensitive in my opinion. Like a grown man complaining about being "horribly hurt" when a careless passer-by bumped into him.
I'm sorry you don't get it and that you feel they're excessively sensitive. On the behalf of the HN community would you like to share with us more about how you feel about it so that we can better understand your position. I'm sure we can help you find the best possible phrasing to better express the excess of said sensitivity. We're sorry you've had to encounter such a wording and attitude on our forum.
In keeping with the grand traditions of corporate communications, perhaps we should all jump on a call to explore these issues in an unaccountable and likely adversarial way.
Yeah, the “I’m sorry you feel this way” response really irked me too. There are so many different ways to respond that would have been more appropriate and conveyed the same message.
The “I’m sorry you feel this way” is the first thing you learn from that HR workshop about communication when you get a promotion where you have to manage people.
The thing is that having a lot of people working in corporate environments, where you constantly need to be political and backstab others to achieve some task you've been given, this is the norm, so for many this is normal, the type of stuff where they say: I'm just trying to be helpful and constructive, but for anyone not having time for this corporate double-speak, this seems rude and condescending.
I understand this is corporate double-speak, trying to signal empathy without admitting any fault. But it’s the fact that it is double speak that is so irking. It might be appropriate in manger/subordinate/HR conversations - but in this context it just adds insult to injury (IMO).
> They are all happened on the product server, not on staging server. I understand that this is mass destruction of our work and explicit violation to the Mozilla mission, allowed officially.
Could this have been a mistake rather than a malicious act?
If this was a mistake, the proper response might have been "sorry, we applied automation in error, those changes have been rolled back while we fix the process that allowed it to happen". And not "call with us to talk about this further".
By one side, we all know[1] that automated translations are always inaccurate, and this is specially deep with translations into languages like Japanese.
On the other hand, we all know that LLMs are guaranteed to introduce an error in the result, therefore always needs human supervision.
Also there are other details like the 72 hours timeframe they comment...
Therefore, to me, introducing LLMs without designing them just as an usable tool (UI/UX) to support the work -of the volunteer community- doesn't sound like a mistake, but sounds like an "I don't care at all, get out of the way".
Then say so if someone complains about it? "Shoot, we accidentally ran it in the wrong mode, sorry about that, I'll look into someone fixing it ASAP" is a lot better than "We're sorry for how you feel".
The sentiment is more important. But I'm sorry for how you feel suggests to many people the sole problem was their feelings. I'm sorry for how these changes impacted you suggests the changes could have been wrong.
I don't think it's the specific phrasing. They could have said "I'll contact you by email to try and understand your concerns" and it's still dodging the explicit, concrete list of grievances.
However, "let's hop on a call" is just additionally dismissive.
Two things stand out, besides what has been already mentioned.
* The infantile corporate-cutesy wording "hop on a call" is not appropriate when talking to somebody who feels that you deeply wronged them. It has the same vibes as cheery "Remember: At Juicero, we are all one big family!" signatures on termination notices, and Corporate Memphis.
* In the first sentence, Kiki says "about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced". Why is this level of detail shoehorned in? Everyone in that conversation already knows what it is about. It's as if Kiki can't resist the temptation to inject an ad/brag about their recently introduced workflow for any drive-by readers. "I'm sorry you were dissatisfied with your Apple(R) iPlunger X(TM), which is now available at major retailers for only $599!"
They don't know what exactly has gone wrong. All they can say sorry for is for how the person is feeling. Then they want to get on a call to learn more. Which is the start of helping.
The response is as sincere and helpful as it could be for an initial response from someone who wants to figure out what the problem is.
This isn’t out of the blue. The responder was the lead on rolling out this new translation workflow to the community. Check out the thread (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/717387...) and you’ll see people immediately called out the exact potential problems the OP here is complaining about, nearly three months ago. This is no need for the responder to follow up to better understand the complaints. They know exactly what the issues are.
even if that were the case (others have explained why that’s not so), that would be an inappropriate time to apologize. you don’t apologize for how someone else feels. you apologize when you recognize that you did something harmful and when the harmed party is amenable to receiving it. otherwise, you’re really just being a jerk who’s only acknowledging that you don’t like how someone else feels.
The problems are nowhere near actionable. A lot more information is needed.
E.g. literally the first bullet: "It doesn't follow our translation guidelines". OK -- where are those guidelines? Is there a way to get it to follow them, like another commenter says works? Does the person need help following the process for that? Or is there a bug? Etc.
These are the things a call can clarify. It's the necessary first step, so why are people complaining?
It's entirely possible that such information is well-known to everyone involved in the translation community.
I would consider it outright insulting if someone who ostensibly "wants to help" doesn't know basic information like that - if the people making decisions about SumoBot are NOT aware of basic information like "where to find the local translation guidelines" then they are presumably not qualified to release a tool like SumoBot in the first place.
It's also entirely possible that the Japanese translation team didn't put the guidelines in the right place for the bot to follow them. Or there's a bug. Since another commenter says it's following guidelines just fine.
> I would consider it outright insulting if someone who ostensibly "wants to help" doesn't know basic information like that
Well, the person who wants to help is a customer service manager in Indonesia. They presumably are not the leader of the machine translation product. They are trying to get more information so they can, you know, escalate to the right people.
Yep agree with this. Nothing is more infuriating than someone Kramering into a space trying “to help” without spending any time or effort trying to understand that space.
They should have understood the guidelines before turning on their machine translation in a given locality.
Turning off the machine translation and reverting all the changes it made seems pretty actionable to me. They can turn it back on when issues are addressed.
What is the logic behind adding machine translation for content that already had a seemingly robust, enthusiastic, and motivated (volunteer?) community maintaining the translations? The "saves money" rationale to deploy LLM/MT automation doesn't make sense when its volunteers are contributing because they want to. This is kind of community and participation destruction wrought by the introduction of LLMs/MT has a serious impact because it undermines the people who are actually willing to do the work. It was presumably costing nothing (or very little) to have the community maintain this content, but the change has cost a significant amount of goodwill. If the Japanese SUMO community wanted to use MT, it should be their sole decision, baring any issues with their stewardship in general. This is someone else saying "look, with this great new automation, you don't need to spend time anymore doing «thing you want to do»". Huh? How does that make any sense to force on anyone?
Mozilla has long suffered from FAANG-envy. If big tech is doing Social Network|Mobile OS|AI, then by golly, Mozilla reflexively has to spend Firefox money on a poorly executed, me-too copy that's discarded when the next fad comes around. The sad thing is the reasoning is usually sound, but the execution... Yeesh.
Mozilla has invested heavily in this technology, and whatever project manager is running it needs more checkboxes in the results column of their next request for a raise. In other words, "business alignment."
In particular, "the content is useful" is not a checkbox. "The content is produced by this technology" is, and overwriting hand-curated content is an obvious action.
Less competent PMs are shoving capital A and capital I everywhere in panic mode, getting even more anxious as every failure exposes and deplatforms them even more.
They couldve spent time to understand the problem domain and think more, if theyre not already busy fabricating a resume to sneak into The Actual Big Tech.
I bet it's nothing more than they prefer a machine they can just use and get no lip, rather than have to deal with humans they have to treat like humans and ask nicely and meet half way on countless issues and pretend to care about etc.
There's probably a bunch of untranslated or badly translated content worldwide, so this was rolled out to help with that, without realizing it would overwrite higher-quality translation.
It probably made a lot of sense in certain contexts, and certain side effects weren't predicted, or it just has bugs that need fixing.
Presumably nothing malicious or stupid. But just ironing out the kinks.
My fallibility doesn't make stupid actions any less stupid. I've done stupid things myself, like ssh into prod to apply a "simple, one-liner hotfix" which ended up upgrading a minor annoyance into a partial outage.
I don't think there's a lot of value in labeling things as "stupid" unless they are somehow willfully or recklessly so, which is rarely the case. I really don't know what it gets you.
Isn't it fascinating that despite `while true; do claude --yolo` over a weekend being all it takes to port some project across platforms, LLMs completely fall apart when it comes to speaking grammatical and natural Japanese?
Free tier Gemini CLI literally writes Android app for me by just endlessly wondering in English. AGI's here. And it struggles with Japanese. How!?
A lot of languages require a lot more context to speak and understand than others. English is a very low-context language, at least in formal registers - it just gets very wordy and very specific, and it helps that it is very analytic and isolating, with a massive vocabulary.
But for e.g. Spanish, if a bare subjunctive verb (making the verb "<x>" something like "could <x>," "should <x>," or "would <x>" without specifying) is used in a sentence, there's no way to know from that sentence who or what that subjunctive is being applied to. The unwritten rule is: 1) if it's obvious who or what you've been talking about, then it applies to that person or thing, 2) if there are two or more things it could be about, then you should figure out a way to add more information to specify which, and finally 3) if there are no good candidates, the person is referring to themselves.
I've heard that there's a lot more of that in Japanese, a language that I don't think really has personal pronouns at all. For example, iirc when you refer to an emotional state and don't specify who you're talking about, it's automatically assumed that you're talking about yourself. I'm not too familiar with Japanese, but languages are simply different from each other, they're not substitution ciphers.
LLMs have trouble staying aware of the context as things go on even for a fairly short time, and in some languages, the meaning of the conversation infects every utterance. Seems a little similar to how LLMs are bad at lifetimes in Rust. I'm sure they'll gradually get better.
It doesn't mention mistranslating, so it's difficult to know the root of the problem is AI "struggling".
> It doesn't follow our translation guidelines.
> It doesn't respect current localization for Japanese users, so they were lost.
I believe this is the root of the problem. There are define processes and guidelines, and LLM isn't following it. Whether these guidelines were prompted or not is unclear but regardless it should've been verified by the community leaders before it's GA'ed
That's not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that LLMs just can't constitute a punctually Japanese understanding of text like that guideline and speak in Japanese with native fluency no matter what. I just know this from knowing both sides of English-Japanese language pair. And I find that somewhat fascinating in a sense.
I'm surprised by that. I use ChatGPT for communication with Japanese clients and I was mistaken for a native speaker more than once. I make almost no corrections other than changing the punctuation from western to fullwidth, although to be fair it's mostly simple and technical language.
Wow. That's crazy. I would be very interested in a blog post on this subject if you ever wrote one. I wonder how this affects the perception of LLMs in Japan
I took this to mean it's not translating things consistently. Like, a button in Firefox might say "Show all downloads" or "Open previous windows and tabs". These were localized a certain way, but an AI has no ability to check that. It will just translate them anew, which might be the same or it might translate it to something synonymous, but which then confuses users searching for the "Display all downloads" button or whatever.
To be fair, in my experience LLM-s struggle to some extent with nearly every language that isn't English. Compared to many others, English is a very simple language and it has the largest body of material to learn from to boot. The more nuanced a language, the more LLM-s spout garbage.
Russian-speaking web was pretty strong once. There was a lot of educated people in ex-USSR who were apt with tech, knew Russian well and were willing to use it.
That's very much in the past now. But it'll linger in the training data for a while.
As a multilingual/multicultural human it’s been pretty weird witnessing what AI translation has been doing to regional languages & cultures on the internet in the last few years.
Sure we had machine translation before, but it was still a little off. Now the latest language models get us 99.9% there, so they are judged good enough to deploy at scale. What results is a weird twilight zone where everything is in your language, except it feels kind of wrong and doesn’t really communicate in ways specific to the culture from which the language is.
You’re in France, you search for something, a thread pops up with everyone interacting in French - seems reasonable enough, but it just reads kind of weird? Then a message is entirely out of place, and you realize that you’re reading an English language thread translated to French.
Or your mom sends you a screenshot of a Facebook thread in her native language that has her worked up - and reading it, you realize it’s an LLM translation of something that should have no bearing on her.
Same with various support pages on websites - it all reads mostly fine until you hit a weird sentence where the LLM messed up and then you’re transported back to the reality that what you’re reading was not authored by anyone who can actually operate in that language/culture.
There’s a lot of nuance in language beyond the words - how you express disagreement in English is not how you express disagreement in Japanese, how you address the reader in French is not the same as in Korean, etc. Machine translation flattens all modes of expression into a weird culturally en-US biased soup (because that’s where the companies are headquartered and where the language models are trained).
I have no illusions that this trend will reverse - high quality translation work is skill and time consuming, and thanks to LLMs anyone on Earth can now localize anything they want in any language they want for ~free in ~0 time.
The weirdest part is seeing this bubble up to the real world. I’ve been hearing young people use turns of phrases/expressions that I recognize as distinctly American, except not in English.
The classic linguist response to this, which I subscribe to, is “no language is fixed, language is ever evolving in response to various external cultural pressures“. Which is true. But it doesn’t make our post-LLM language landscape any less weird.
I've really disliked Reddit's auto-translation. I'm bilingual (English & Japanese) and when I search for things only to get an auto-translated reddit thread it really is bizarre. The references, flow of the conversation, etc. are all just off and it feels weird.
Bilingual English and Spanish here and I absolutely hate this.
I can read both just fine. Platforms defaulting to always showing one or things like youtube auto-translating titles all to English or all to Spanish is frustrating because I always have to do the math in my head as to "Why does this thing I'm reading sound weird as hell" and realize its because it was lost in translation.
Hell, I watch creators/consume content where the creator or writer themself speaks/writes interchangeably in both languages often within the same sentence because Spanglish is very common, and that just destroys most of these automated generators brains.
Use `https://google .com/search?q=-tl%20%s` as your search engine in the browser. Adding "-tl" to search terms remove most translated results from Google Search results. For now anyways.
I really hate it too especially when I want to search something specifically within the French context and I end up getting pages translated from Englsh to French and waste my time on irrelevant content.
I'm a native English speaker fluent in Japanese, recently moved to Japan this year. The one that really gets me lately is YouTube now automatically dubbing over content in Japanese that was originally in English. It's... so uncanny.
Yeah, that is a massive problem. This can't be disabled by the user, only be the channel owner. It's awful. The only solution is switching the YouTube UI language to English, to get the original English audio track. But then, presumably, all other languages would get machine translated into English. There is nothing one can do.
I recently found out DeArrow (an amazing extension to remove clickbait titles and thumbnails) also has an option to hide translated titles, off by default. But the extension you recommend can be used to force the audio track, which is very helpful.
Reminds me of the first time I heard youtube's forced AI translation to my native language. It's just wrong, the same male voice is used for everything, the delivery is grating, the intonation is off, the translation is very MTL in the bad sense.
And it cannot be disabled on mobile. The numbers must go up, I guess, but in my case it greatly reduced my usage of the app.
Yeah it's really jarring to be reading a text in not-english that seems somewhat normal and then to trip over some extremely American reference that makes it obvious it was auto translated. I just want things to have explicit language toggles or maybe allow me to hover over some text to see the translation. Google even allows you to set multiple languages and they still insist on auto translation between 2 languages I have told them I know.
FWIW I recently was watching something that i did not realise had been auto translated from Chinese to English. It was kind of a technical topic, but still it seemed perfectly natural. It struck me that .. as much as conflict hawks and clash of culture theorists might want to do their best to construct an enemy, if we get past the disorientation of language barriers, then mostly people are the same. If AI translation can help with that its a benefit.
The Standard Chinese language was always known to be oddly syntactically close to US English. No one calls it an Indo-European language, but they sometimes feel closer together than English and French on surface levels. Japanese is not like that - even human translations between anything to/from Japanese sound translated.
Japanese can especially be tricky to machine-translate because often the subject is missing from a sentence, where it would be required in an equivalent English sentence. The machine translation tends to insert its best guess of a subject (usually "I" or "you"), which can often flip a sentence's meaning inside-out.
There used to be a website called "Translation Party" where you would input a sentence in English and it would auto-translate it to Japanese and back to English over and over until it got to some equilibrium (where the translations were effectively the same) or hit it's upper bound of like 20 ish swings back and forth.
It was a fun little tool, but I think that really drove home for me how different Japanese is from English in how it structures itself.
Yeah, I occasionally tell my Chinese friends that the grammar of English and Chinese is actually pretty similar. If they respond with surprise, I'd say, "Have you ever tried to learn Turkish?" Chinese doesn't have conjugation; but the basic sentence structure (subject-verb-object, preposition, etc) are similar. There are of course loads of differences; but nothing nearly so deeply structural as Turkish, where you indicate relationships between things by adding suffixes; or Japanese, which just has a completely different way of bringing up topics.
Culture is just as much a part of language as the language itself.
There is an air of arrogance in proclaiming that it is merely language barriers that are an issue. But of course it's a convenient argument for big tech forcing MTL on all of us.
But it ultimately marginalizes smaller communities and kills languages. Cultural genocide if you will.
The dangerous thing is that the current state of MTL is serviceable and even usable, but a bilingual speaker will immediately know something is off.
I have noticed this both for French and German, two languages with lots of training material. I imagine it's much much worse for smaller languages and/or communities.
As more and more content on the web is automatically translated, we will all start to talk like translated-from-English LLMs, and that is a future I'm not looking forward to.
The global trend might not reverse, but surely the people in those cultures are going to push back on low quality content and "the market will sort it out", right? For example, Mistral is has a clear interest in being the "most native-French-speaking LLM", and with that expertise they could also grow to other languages where English-native LLMs are poorly received.
> The weirdest part is seeing this bubble up to the real world. I’ve been hearing young people use turns of phrases/expressions that I recognize as distinctly American, except not in English.
Calquing has been a common thing since long before AI translators, and it's not notable that it now happens for modern memes. It happens whenever a language is notable and nearby; English has a lot of calques from Greek/Latin/German/French as a result.
Ironically, "calque" is a loanword, but "loanword" is a calque.
I don't think the LLMs are to blame here. Not yet, at least.
This is caused by people active in English-speaking communities translating memes literally and spreading them in their native language communities as-is.
As the meme spreads, monolingual speakers begin using the same format and eventually they reference it off-line.
> This is caused by people active in English-speaking communities translating memes literally and spreading them in their native language communities as-is.
You're right that memes are getting translated literally and spreading, but in terms of pure volume, LLMs doing the translation dwarf humans doing the translation.
Building a bot that picks whatever posts are trending on Reddit/imgur/etc, automatically translates them, and then posts them in target languages on social networks is an easy way to accumulate likes+followers; then those high reach accounts get used to push whatever makes money.
Not really. I have observed the same thing in Russian, and no, it's not for expressions that are translated literally.
Having said that, SOTA models got much better at this kinda stuff. They're quite able to write in a way that is indistinguishable from a native speaker, colloquialisms and all, with the right prompting.
But SOTA models are also expensive. Most automated translations are done with something way cheaper and worse.
That's basically my complaint about all these AI translations being shoved around in places. If they were better, I'd complain less. I suppose they'll get better eventually, but that's not really guaranteed. Google Translate is still somehow terrible and has stagnated for a long time -- things got a little bit better with DeepL but now SOTA LLMs (e.g. ChatGPT) are quite good (even if they still have quite some ways to go) and so far beyond the old stuff, and allow you to actually discuss the translation itself with nuances kept/lost rather than just a straight one-shot A to B.
Reasoning models are pretty interesting for this because they can iterate on the translation to get the subtle parts (like tone) right, especially if you prompt them to do so specifically.
You’re in France, you search for something, a thread pops up with everyone interacting in French - seems reasonable enough, but it just reads kind of weird? Then a message is entirely out of place, and you realize that you’re reading an English language thread translated to French.
There should be a word for this. Most of these translations feel so weird.
At least in my experience poorly. As a reference I speak one of the smaller European languages and what is interesting that newer models tend to do worse, but what all of them struggle with and is very hard to control using prompting is tone.
Formal language in American English is very friendly, very sweet, to an extent that my language is not. Any piece of text therefore sounds like a psychopath is trying to manipulate you.
Microsoft nuked the default behaviour of the input method of Traditional Chinese that had been working for the last 50 years with a silent Windows Update
Some people do these type of contribution or charity work not just to do some good but also to feel some autonomy and mastery in a world were much of the regular top down driven drudgery work does not provide much of that feeling.
These people are canaries in the coal mine. I expect more people feel a loss of purpose and rise of anxiety and depression in the world.
Conversely, it's a bit strange for a for-profit company like Mozilla Corporation to rely on volunteer labor through its non-profit parent Mozilla Foundation to perform customer support.
There was a period where every company was trying to "crowd source" free labor. It died off because people didn't like working for corporations for free.
I can see why they have it under Mozilla.org. And lots of companies have community support.
But I do think we should ask ourselves whether companies have some sort of moral obligation to continue relying on unpaid labor because it might make the unpaid laborers feel a sense of meaning. I'm very sympathetic to the need to have a sense of meaning. But I'm less sympathetic to for-profit companies relying on unpaid labor and especially to the idea that we should encourage more of it.
There was probably a more tactful way to shift labor from passionate volunteers to soulless AI.
I too would be upset if an organization threw out a decade of translation work without any warning or discussion, in favor of a robot pretending to understand my language and failing.
I agree there could have been more tact, and I would probably be upset too if a bunch of my work got replaced by automation. I would even feel that way if the automation was better. I've criticized Mozilla extensively in the past, and I would see a clumsy rollout as consistent with my concerns about them.
The difficulty with a post like this is it brings out a primal anti-technology impulse in all of us. But once you clear away the piling-on and emotionally charged hot takes there isn't much here to talk about.
This post, aside from a statement of intent to quit, is a report that was made about the bot. Mozilla made an invitation to address the concerns. All of that seems normal. Rollout with mistake -> bug report -> attempting to understand what went wrong. But the bug report contains unrealistic demands that seem almost rhetorical and the attempt to figure out what went wrong is being met with scorn, as in the top comment of this HN discussion.
> passionate volunteers to soulless AI.
Humans don't have souls either as I'm sure you know :-P. To post this comment, you're using a soulless computer that took jobs away from human computers. You probably listen to music made with soulless synthesizers that took jobs from musicians. You no doubt take photos with soulless cameras that took jobs from painters.
I think we have to be clear to ourselves that, although the transition to automation will be painful, nobody is going to prevent technology from advancing. So we have to find a way to use it to build the future we want, not try to tear it down as soulless or evil.
Which I feel honestly in part explains why so many prominent figures in Free software development seem to have some mental issues to be honest. They in a way remind me of that person who at one point was responsible for over half of all edits on the Scots Wikipedia.
Even the paid professionals often started to work for free and then were hired by some company and the reality is that someone who is good at something and willing to do it for free is either a very good Samaritan, or there is some other issue at stake and in the end prominent free software figures often have fairly heated public keyboard wars over things with each other and most of all seem strangely fiercely loyal tribalists who suffer from an extreme case of n.i.h.-syndrome.
Some people just want to contribute to a common cause. Some people just want to spend five minutes of their time to fix that one annoying papercut which been bothering them for ages, others just enjoy working together with friendly people to achieve something tangible they can be proud of.
In my opinion one of the biggest benefits of Github to the open-source community is that contributing now has extremely low barriers. It is absolutely trivial to put an "edit this page" link in your documentation which lets a complete stranger fix a typo and open a pull request within seconds - and seeing your fix go live within a few hours is absolutely magical. That kind of trivial contribution is a gateway drug to becoming a valued community member, and it is absolutely essential to maintaining a healthy ecosystem around open-source projects.
> I’m not even sure it’s easy to decide which side is in the right here and it’s not as simple as people think it is.
- No prior communications.
- No discussion about what uses the contributed information was being put to.
- No discussion about the release and the parameters around the operation of the bot.
- No discussion about whether or not this was a desirable in the first place (with the community, not just internally).
- Flippant tone to someone who is clearly severely insulted.
If it was a paid job and you treated the person who did it like this it would already be beyond rude, if it is a volunteer group then it is more than enough to throw in the towel. This isn't gray.
Everyone whose native language is not English knows. Seriously, people with this attitude should be forced to run their browser and mail client with a plugin to run everything through a couple of machine translation roundtrips. Give it two months, and I guarantee you'll understand.
My first language is German, but I've got most of my devices set to English. Because of that, Youtube started machine-translating German video titles and audio into English at random. The audio quality is just bad, everything sounds muffled. And the translations are often complete garbage. I absolutely detest this "feature".
I’m in the Netherlands and I get ads for Bol.com on YouTube now with narration that would be more appropriate to Fitter, Happier. I’m surprised advertisers are ok with it.
I have a feeling that advertisers have yet to catch up. In Germany, the supermarket chain Lidl recently started running a pretty heavy advertisement campaign on Youtube. Of course, Youtube auto-translated the advertisement into English. The effect is really, really uncanny. "LIDL IS WORTH IT! JA!"
the wild thing is you _know_ there are so many people at YouTube who speak multiple languages and have issues with this. What engineering team is only filled with single-language-speaking people, especially at a prestige-y place like Google?
It happened to me in French also, one day I was looking at a video that was trendy, podcast like, and the voices were more than shitty, like a badly translated movie.
I looked at comments and everyone was praising this video, so it did not make any sense to me.
Until I discovered that Youtube somehow decided to auto enable this feature that I never asked for.
Now imagine you are like me, someone who travels the world for work. I get everything in Dutch, German, Swedish, Finnish, Arabic and of course Schweizerdeutsch. And some other languages.
There used to be an “international English” setting.
Mozilla destroyed decades of work on a production server without even discussing it with the passionate volunteers that provided them free labor for decades. Didn’t even evaluate on a staging server to check for quality issues.
The AI isn’t the focus of the issue. The management decision to disregard and disrespect their own unpaid contributors and their organization’s history is a clear indication of Mozilla’s current and future priorities.
> who knows if the automated translations do not help more people than it hurts the translators
Everyone speaking more than one language knows. Human translations for things like software are bad enough as-is, but automated translations are universally horrible.
I set all of my software to English despite it not being my native language, simply because a lot of concepts don't translate cleanly and end up with forced and cringeworthy phrasing. Combine that with the un-Google-ability of translated errors and issues, and going for an interface in the native English verson is a no-brainer.
And that's with translations done by actual humans! Sites like Youtube have tried "helpfully" pushing machine translations on me for a looong time, and it is painfully clear to anyone speaking both the source language and the target language that the translation is absolute garbage and essentially unusable.
In fact, I barely speak any German (got a year or two of it in high school, but my grades were fairly embarrassing), but I prefer struggling with the native version over a machine translation. Given my knowledge of German-adjacent languages I can mostly make out the meaning of the original, and there's always the dictionary for the handful of words I'm not familiar with.
I'm not sure why I clicked on this beyond just knowing it was going to be another Mozilla trainwreck and not being able to look away. But what was truly stunning to me was this comment thread. There are people here actually defending the following response:
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced. Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further?
This is horrifically patronizing after someone's volunteer work was effectively destroyed (as laid out in the list of grievances), but there are people here asking "how is it patronizing? seems perfectly reasonable to me".
It's one of those "they live among us" moments, where you realize that you're surrounded by psychopaths. It's not even malice, they're not intentionally being assholes, they just have no empathy.
I wonder if cultural differences might play a role. I'm not from the USA, maybe this way of communicating is perfectly normal there and the rest of the word is just utterly baffled by it?
Where I'm from this is how someone who has no respect for you deals with an inconvenience. Acknowledge no wrongdoing, make the situation about emotions rather than actions (sorry you feel this way), shift the conversation from a public space to a private space with no records.
I don’t know, I feel the Western cooperate culture found it reasonable to completely fuck people over without even understanding and then blame them for it
"I'm sorry you feel that way" is a canned non-apology, worse than a canned apology. At least a canned apology admits fault.
I wouldn't want to get into a call with someone with that attitude. If I'm quitting because no consideration was given to me or my work, and the first response I get shows no consideration to me, my work, or even acknowledge my list of grievances, a "quick call" is the last thing I feel like getting on.
In fact, even that word, "quick", is insulting, because there's no way this is getting fixed with a "quick" call. "Quick call" implies the grievances are minor. More insults.
No it's not! There's a support forum right there, use it. The only reason they want a call is because they want to try to grind down the volunteer while having everything off the record.
Talking face-to-face about what though? Apparently it's about "what you're struggling with", not "what we fucked up". There's a complete inability to admit any fault in this message, so the conversation is already primed to be bullshit. I would expect such a conversation to be a waste of my time and would never agree to it.
> If the MT-generated revision isn't reviewed within a set timeframe (which will be communicated later), it will be automatically approved and published, clearly labeled to indicate that it was translated by AI translation was used.
The complaint seems to indicate this "set timeframe" was 72 hours. Add to the fact that there's decent likelihood of an avalanche of articles "that haven't been updated in 6 months", this seems pretty ridiculous to have put into place before at least getting sign-off from senior maintainers that the translations were of sufficient quality.
This almost deserves to be nominated for the AI darwin awards.
"Volunteer community destroyed and leadership self-exiled because someone at corporate thought thier machine translation was better than native speakers, of one of the world's most notoriously difficult languages."
I would bet money that Japan has thier own yearly "business fail awards" and this is gonna wind up there. "Just hop on a quick call, never mind the time zone!"
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced. Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
Talk about being tone deaf. This was so incredibly rude. No consult, no request whether they wanted this or not. Mozilla keeps finding new ways to shoot itself in the foot, these are probably some of the most loyal people that you could wish for, that's a precious resource if there ever was one. And to add insult to injury they want to them 'hop on a call' and to 'trully[sic] understand what you're struggling with' even though they just spelled it out as clear as day.
Two observations: You are probably right. But if a random spelling error would allow a person to get away with using AI in professional communications then you can expect that pattern to show up all over the place.
I'm trying to imagine the prompt here.
"Hey, ChatGPT, it looks like our org fucked up and now a hotheaded volunteer makes us look like idiots. Please generate a flippant response that pretends to show we care and meanwhile ticks them off even further. Oh, and I don't want my boss to know I'm using AI to generate this response, so make it good this time, and make it look human."
I used to work with manager who told us to "have balls, deploy straight to prod" We spend a month cleaning this up. The other time when another manager demanded I "run this script" from the iphone he shoved in my face a whole warehouse went down in Ireland a month before Christmas and the Police were involved. There is an irrational push to deploy AI everywhere for no reason whatsoever. It, well the LLM part of it, is bad tech and all those "AI success stories" are pure hot air.
Imagine having human volunteers do the work for you, than paying an AI to overwrite their work without communicating this with them (no validation of any sort it seems).
And once they quit you corporate-speak to them "let's hop on a call to understand your frustrations!" in response to a post where they outline precisely their frustrations.
I understand the matter in theory, but I don't understand the matter in practice. Clicking through on the user, I couldn't identify any machine-translated overwrites of his work. What is an example of this? And if the community that manages the site objects, why not apply a batch temporary revert, and then re-run once/if everything is solved.
This is a trivial operation for me to do on MediaWiki with a bot, so it must be straightforward to do here too. I think "Ask forgiveness, not permission" is fine in order to move things forward, but you do have "ask forgiveness".
I call this the AI theater. If a company can (still) look good AND decrease dealing with pesky flesh and bone humans, that's not collateral, that's a win. On the surface you act caring, concerned, rendering investors and HR both happy while you decrease "human complexity" - then you are winning the AI game. Mozilla always wanted to join the big boys, but while yearning for their soft power status the yearn bore the fruits of a rotten soul they will also have to embrace. There is no light without shadows and AI's shadows are drawn long and deep.
I've been studying Japanese for 15+ years and have really come to loathe machine translations from English. While generally the meaning gets across, they're very unnatural and often use words in contexts that sound weird or are just flat out wrong.
It’s a shame because “improve an off the shelf llm ti translate in line with this large dataset we prepared” is precisely the kind of project people love to work on. It could have been a chance to immortalize the hard work they did up until now.
You mean the two+ decades of labour of love was always done to be a nameless contribution to the AI machine? Somehow I think he would have picked another hobby if he had known that back then.
Is it? I don't think you quite understood the issue.
This issue is specifically centred around the human element of the work and organisation. The translators were doing good work, they wanted to continue that work. Why it's important that the work done is by a human is probably only partially about quality of output and likely more about authenticity of output. The human element is not recorded in the final translation output, but it is important to people that they know something was processed by a human who had heart and the right intentions.
> The human element is not recorded in the final translation output, but it is important to people that they know something was processed by a human who had heart and the right intentions
Not that I entirely disagree with the conclusion here, but…
It feels like that same sentiment can be used to justify all sorts of shitty translation output, like a dialog saying cutesy “let’s get you signed in”, or having dialogs with “got it” on the button label. Sure, it’s so “human” and has “heart”, but also enrages me to my very core and makes me want to find whoever wrote it and punch them in the face as hard as I can.
I would like much less “human” in my software translations, to be honest. Give me dry, clear, unambiguous descriptions of what’s happening please. If an LLM can do that and strike a consistent tone, I don’t really care much at all about the human element going into it.
Oh I wasn't really referring to tone or language like that, I also don't particularly like it and prefer concise clear language. While LLMs can totally achieve that, I want to know a human decided to do it that way. At some point this mindset is going to look very silly, and perhaps even more so for software. But ultimately it's a human feeling to want that and humans are also not deterministic or logical.
I'm sure they'll be as open and communicative with the community as they were when their baked-in CA TLS certs for the add-ons expired and everyone not using $latest's add-ons got disabled. Which is to say they'll explicitly shut down the comment threads where people are discussing it over and over and then set up a non-commentable blog post where they ignore everything. And leave the problem in place to repeat in the future.
Note, and this is very important: marsf posted this at 2am pacific time. Kiki responded at 6am (I don't know it's timezone, but presuming anywhere in the US, it is literally the earliest it could have responded). Then afterwards, marsf have posted a response publicly. So, we don't know what happened since then. There have been 1 day and a half-ish and coordinating between timezones is interesting, to say the least.
Reading the comments and replies here makes me wonder if I might have unintentionally stepped on some toes at work, especially across different cultures and people with different "takes" on English.
I've also been on the receiving end (written communication) but given that we get along pretty well in-person, I chalked that up to our different writing "style".
I see your POV, but fundamentally the issue here is Mozilla screwing with their AI bot, and some employee jumping in to do some communication after everyone's already pissed.
Sure the Mozilla employee could use better phrasing and have a more considerate approach, but it comes out so worse because the situation is already critically bad.
People will give the benefit of the doubt when they see genuine care in the actual actions and a decent track record.
If i was this guy, i would take all the translations and move them to his own independent site with proper promotion so that Japanese speaker can find it easily
What? Firefox (or really Firebird before the rename) came internally from Mozilla way when it got its start (when Netscape was still around) in an attempt to make a scaled down, "just the browser" version of the entire Netscape Communicator/Mozilla suite.
Appreciate the response. I read the Devault rant. It’s not clear to me that the guy behind FUTO is actively evil, seems more like he’s trying his best and still figuring that whole “being a semi public figure funding stuff” thing out.
Drew’s position that interacting with people with bad opinions makes you evil by association doesn’t strike me as mainstream (or future-proof for that matter).
How is Drew not banned on here? You can't even talk about his obsession with .. "Japaneses child art" let's say .. without it getting flagged and removed. (This comment will get flagged). Meanwhile other people who lean slightly right are totally shadowbanned.
Devault is not a good actor. Everything he says comes out of jealousy and spite.
No, it doesn't. People complaining about someone talking x or y funding is "bad vibes." Why does everything have to turn into ideological BS?
Look, Wikimedia is an evil, biased, insane organization that grifts for money and gives to absolutely insane causes, but if they gave me a few thousand for an open source project, would I turn them down? No. I'd never give them money, but it's not going to prevent me from using their services either (using LibRedirect + a Wikiless instance to avoid tracking and their ads of course).
Shocking that Mozilla would roll out a bot - in production - without coordinating with the team that's been doing the work for years so far. Very bad look.
A similar thing is going on at Amazon. Their AI is rewriting perfectly good product descriptions provided by manufacturers and I noticed that I stopped buying there, because I cannot find out what it is that I am buying or how much of it I am buying. I started shopping at sites that sell same products, but do not change manufacturers' descriptions. I have a feeling that post AI bubble we'll be doing a lot of manual cleanup of information "improved" by AI.
It looks like companies are doubling down on shitty AI bots to cut their costs even though it is backfiring terribly, like in Facebook case where they spent billions on their AI and all it did - just banned millions of their core userbase (and still banning). Looks like we will see more companies imploding because they relay to much on subpar AI.
So, they had people working for free for years and didn't think to involve them in a process where they could have been stil "useful"?
But I think they already clarified how much they care about people doing translations since they defaulted to the robo-translation. Which to me is complete nonsense considering how superior the human translations must be. As a human with a brain, I would have just translated automatically the missing pages leaving to them the option of replacing/fixing them. Also they should have been thanked many times for all their hard work.
When you've seen this over and over again, you notice the pattern.
Marsf’s declaration will stand as a warning, yet not a turning point. The Japanese community will fade into quiet dignity, its pages archived and replaced by machine-rendered text that sounds correct but says nothing alive. A few veterans like Michele will remain, mending sentences by candlelight, until exhaustion or disillusion drives them away too.
Within Mozilla, the story will become legend told in conference calls - “remember when the Japanese translators quit over the bot?” Some manager will sigh, another will nod, and the project will move on. In a year, SumoBot will be improved, made less intrusive, and marketed as community-enhanced translation.
What will endure is not the bot or the bureaucracy, but that farewell note - an act of witness that proved people still care enough to walk away.
If Shakespeare wrote the final scene, it would close not on victory or defeat, but on silence:
a hall of empty chairs, lit by the blue glow of screens that still translate into nothingness.
Floorp is a fork by Japanese developer, though his English is not perfect. It removes all backwards compatibility to speed things up, competing vs. Thorium to be best performing browser, if anyone's interested.
Mozilla is more and more disappointing. Always talking about making an internet for everyone, community, bla bla. But then they don't even talk to their own community contributors before changing their workflow. And when someone speaks up, they get the most corporate reply possible.
Saying "I'm sorry for how you feel..." is the most condescending way to begin. Then a "let's jump on a con call"... oh... why would I do that when I just told you? smh.
He sounded pathetic, especially "therefore I declare" that's just ridiculous.
Boss, I declare that you must remove all my code from all our products effective today, because of that coop that easily replaced my 20 years experience and I'm upset about.
mozilla never had a sound business model to sustain its operation anyways, everything they do is just a stunt to make a living out of people's belief and naivety on how it operates.
it's a grift of an organization and it reflects in the simplest ways like this.
Small meta observation: Gemini Flash 2.5 summarises this discussion as a problem with how ML was used and it's flaws, whereas Gemini Pro 2.5 emphasizes that it mainly a cultural communication problem. Both topics are here, but "fast Vs slow thought" sees different things.
> I prohibit to use all my translation as learning data for SUMO bot and AIs.
> I request to remove all my translation from learned data of SUMO AIs.
It's Mozilla's data...
> explicit violation to the Mozilla mission
I'm not sure what this is referring to. I don't see any explicit violation of Mozilla.org's mission. If anything it seems consistent with that mission to provide universal translation with quick turnaround.
It's funny how Japanese contributors often go nuclear whenever things don't go their way instead of communicating etc. Bugs happen. this is tech. open communication is always the way to go before escalation. we see the same phenomenon in git, ruby etc etc etc.
Ironically, Japanese work culture encourages over-communication. It seems that open-source is considered a counter-culture that they want to escape japanese work culture from.
>In October 22, the sumobot was introduced to Japanese KB articles. I cannot accept its behavior and no words. [...] It has been working now without our acceptance, without controls, without communications.
How exactly did you manage to place the blame for no communication on Japanese contributors here given the actual complaint in question?
Because given the nature and scope of the complaint, they should have disclosed prior communication. It is clear here that they probably attempted, poorly, to communicate but ultimately chose to nuke the relationship instead, claiming that they have a monopoly over japanese translations.
I live in Japan so I have seen what danieltanfh95 describes many times in person. Japanese people at work seem to have infinite patience with whatever random bullshit their company will ask for, but outside of work they get easily frustrated when things don't go the way they expect.
So, this contributor revealed he doesn't understand the license his work is published under. As such, Mozilla must refuse his contribution because he don't understand the idea behind Creative Commons license. His wish granted I guess.
You can rescind a license. If you own a property, it is yours. Even if you licensed it to someone, you own it and you can kick someone off. They can later address you for a breach of license, but it's still your property. You own it.
If mozilla wants to tell him that his work was valuable and therefore has grounds to sue him for rescinding the license, they will have a lot of difficulty proving that after their sumobot summarily deleted years of it for no good reason at a whim.
Good for him. He should probably consider suing them for destruction of his work.
Once your work is published under Creative Commons license, it is irreversible. No matter you have a copyright or not. You can't undo it the fact at one point you published your work in one of Creative Commons license(there are multiple incompatible Creative Commons licenses so it's bit complicated).
You can make updated version of your work to non-CC, but the version you published under CC is CC.
I would be curious if that is how Japanese courts would view it. They may not consider that a valid way. Or they might. But different jurisdictions vary.
You need to think hard and understand that it is irreversible before you publish your content under certain licenses.
My problem with this type of gate keeping is that machine learning does open up translations that are accurate to the masses. It is quaint having a real human do your translations though. Kind of like having a real human drive your car or do your housework. Not everyone can afford that luxury. But, on the other hand, having a singular organization own the training data and the model and not publishing the model itself is where the gatekeeping continues.
There are some discussion if the whole concept of "license" fits under Japanese law. I think it's understood as "a contract to allow the usage of otherwise restricted work by copyright etc under conditions"
But I'm not a lawyer so I don't know and in real business, they casually use the word "license" in Japan. But in my opinion, everything is contract under Japanese law.
Yeah - I know in US law some terms are simply unenforceable and void. Much of the FOSS movement is designed around US contract law. There are issues with some US licenses being enforceable under other legal regimes - I was chatting a decade or so ago with a Russian who understood the...GPL(? I don't remember exactly) to be invalid in Russia and so it had to be bundled in some fashion to be usable.
Or to put another way, a license (a contract) is a tuple (terms, jurisdiction), and the juridical evaluation process will take both into account.
> Once your work is published under Creative Commons license, it is irreversible.
I am not sure how it is under Japanese law, but in some countries a creator cannot be stripped of his rights by agreeing to a license. Even without that there is often a way to rescind any gift given in good faith if the receipients behavior warrants it.
In case of Japanese copyright law, that is 著作人格権(moral rights). A right that protect his work isn't used in a way the author don't want it.
It includes right to be not published(like a personal letter intended to be secret), attribution, right to be identical preservation(modifying in a way author don't intended, like adding extra arm to 3-arms monster)
You see, these rights are covered in Creative Commons, by agreeing and publishing his work under Creative Commons, the author explicitly promised he won't use these exclusive rights against the users.
If he didn't agree on the spirit of Creative Commons, why did he contributed Mozilla in CC license for 20 years? Did he intended to taint free software by incompatible non-free work?
This is exactly what happens if you ignore the free software definition explained by RMS.
I don't think it's at all clear that some foss licenses (MIT for instance) are irrevocable. Not in the US, and certainly not in any possible relevant country... It's not clear that they are revocable either. As I understand the law it at least in part rests on the question of whether there was consideration in exchange for the license, which might even make it a case by case analysis.
CC licenses (and some other foss licenses, e.g. Apache 2.0) are explicitly irrevocable... which is probably enough for US law though I still wonder to some degree if there isn't some country that would take issue with that term... especially a country which recognizes "Moral rights".
Some other FOSS licenses (GPL for instance) contain explicit terms allowing revocation under certain circumstances (but otherwise claim to be irrevocable).
Whether the license is revokable or not is irrelevant when the action isn't permitted by the license anyway.
In particular, the primary purpose of AI as we know it is to strip off attribution, which is explicitly forbidden by basically every license in existence.
True, license is probably irrelevant here because they aren't even intending to comply with the terms of it.
To nitpick "explicitly forbidden" isn't quite right. Licenses basically only grant more permissions, they can't remove them. It's explicitly excluded from the rights granted by the license, but it's not explicitly forbidden because it is the law that might or might not forbid the activity, not the license.
> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
That has the same vibes as a customer support helpline that has no intention to actually help.
That’s corporate for “would you like to discuss this off the record away from public view?”
Especially with a non-native English speaker who may be more comfortable expressing themselves in writing asynchronously.
It may be viewed that way, but it’s also useful to empathize with someone and get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy.
I usually do the same thing when the medium is text and someone is not happy. Tone conveys a lot of useful information. Even better if you can see a person and their body language.
I don’t think the cynical view of the staff person’s intentions is fair, though I don’t know the person’s history nor do I have dog in this fight.
The request by itself is fine; it's not about that, but about the nuance within the word choice and what it conveys.
It appears the OP is an incredibly valuable community member that has been deeply affronted and hurt by the recent changes. Any attitude other than "I'll move heaven and earth to make this right for you" will likely feel insufficient. Even failing that, I'd at least expect an attitude of "I really, REALLY don't want this to ever happen again". I see neither.
The staff member comes off as robotic because there's zero conciliatory tone or admission of wrongdoing at all in the message. "I'm sorry you feel this way [about the workflow]" puts the onus on OP, and doesn't convey a hint of remorse -- even "I'm sorry our workflow has intruded on yours" would of course be better. "Would you be interested" should be "Would you be willing"; "to talk about this further" could be "so we can better understand what went wrong".
These nuances matter a lot when people are offended. If they're this incompetent at communication over text, I don't know that I'd bother with a video call.
Fair point. The non-apology is not helping I agree and would have been better left off altogether. I’m guessing this staff person is not very high level and just trying to help and connect the right people. That is, if you’re not very high up in an org, you may not feel you have the authority to speak on behalf of the org as a whole. I don’t have much context to know.
Mozilla could of certainly handled it better as an org, that I would agree with.
The fact that your comment is needed to explain these basic nuances says something about the emotional skills of HN readership.
Please keep in mind that not everyone here speaks corporate English as their native language.
We’d all be better off if nobody did.
"Hop on a call" is also tone-deaf.
I think the response is completely professional and appropriate. It's a request for more information.
> It may be viewed that way, but it’s also useful to empathize with someone and get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy.
It can be, but maybe not when you're not actually replying to anything the other person wrote. The person who experienced the issues and chose to leave made a pretty clear list of "here is the exact reasons the bot is unbearable for us". This person who opened up the conversation is doing so via text, at least providing some sort of answer initially via the same channel before trying to get them to jump into a private call could have maybe came across a bit more empathic and collaborative.
How about something a human might write, like “Let’s talk and see if we can change things so you don’t have to leave, and so we don’t lose more people.”
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel
Especially coupled with this non-apology.
Corporations are never sorry for their actions, they're always sorry about how you feel.
Kiki is a corporate emissary caught between empathy and policy. I believe she genuinely wants reconciliation and understanding (“Would you hop on a call?”) but speaks in the soft dialect of institutional mediation. Her motivation is damage control through dialogue - to rebuild trust without ceding systemic control. She carries the company’s tone of “we’re listening,” but not yet its willingness to yield.
"Your call is important to us." But, not important enough to actually hire enough people to answer it.
it seems like kiki(mozilla staff) want to talk on the phone because texting is not enough in this serious situation. kiki has been working in the community forum, so i don't think it's just CS action.
I know that everyone has already given their opinions about what kinds of people are involved and their motivations, but this is really about two fallible humans, one listing grievances and another asking to open a communication channel.
That's it.
Anything else you read into this is going to be fraught with your own coloring based on a hundred words written in text (a notoriously difficult medium to establish emotional communication over).
Regardless of how nice or not-nice the text may sound to the various cultures that have weighed in so far, the right thing to do is talk voice/video and hash out what the problems are, and work together to come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone.
That's what communication is about.
In my experience, long-term volunteers like this don't just up and quit without having already made multiple attempts at communicating first. The fact that those attempts are not detailed in a public "I quit" message, doesn't mean that those attempts didn't exist.
In my further experience, people with titles like "Senior Community Manager" (the title of Kiki, the person trying to "open communication") do not generally have the authority to make changes. Their role is like HR, to figure out how to calm down unhappy people.
This impression is further reinforced by the fact that later in the thread the leader of the Italian translation effort agreed with the basic list of complaints. And Kiki agreed with it as a list of basic problems with the bot. Which strongly suggests that Kiki agrees with the list of problems and already does not actually have authority to change them.
At this point I would classify this as opening up a channel of communication TO marsf, and not opening up a channel by which marsf can be heard in any meaningful way. Kiki is the wrong person, with the wrong message.
> In my experience, long-term volunteers like this don't just up and quit without having already made multiple attempts at communicating first.
Can confirm. You get kicked around long enough, you stop volunteering.
But one would assume you would mention the failure of the organisation to address your previously raised concerns in your resignation-and-criticise blog post?
Indeed. I feel for this guy. I volunteered with Mozilla for a long time and I have a lot of love for the org, but there are cultural/institutional problems it inherited from Netscape that are still there today. I think people of good conscience can't help but state why they're quitting in situations like this. We still want the problem fixed even if we can't fix it.
Yeah it seems fake, if it’s not already the number 1 priority for all the relevant decision makers at Mozilla by the second week of proven on the record disastrous changes… then none of them have any credibility left such that a community manager could make a difference. Regardless of how genuine or concerned they may be.
Even the most charitable interpretation would still implicate at least a few dozen at Mozilla to be deceivers and/or intriguers or turning a blind eye to it.
Maybe "open a communication channel" is what Mozilla should have done BEFORE they turned on this thing.
From the article: "It has been working now without our acceptance, without controls, without communications".
This person has been doing volunteer work for a long time, attempting to create a helpful environment. Then suddenly, from above a machine is turned on that shits all over that effort. Makes one feel unwelcome, and unseen...
> Maybe "open a communication channel" is what Mozilla should have done BEFORE they turned on this thing.
This right here is the crux of the matter. But it seems to be how Mozilla operates. They frequently show a lack of awareness and consideration towards their long time supporters. I doubt this particular incident will lead to any changes, but I really wish they'd do some introspection...
This is an easy mistake in large organizations. Any project often already has so many stakeholders and politics that they are incentivized to avoid adding more stakeholders to the project if they are politically capable of doing so.
Unless there is some sort of blowback, this sort of thing is likely to happen again to someone, and I understand how some people may not want to be involved anymore, and I understand how Mozilla will keep being Mozilla (just like other organizations will continue their current behaviors until some catalyst changes that behavior).
I was in same position as Mozilla guy when I slowly crawl through Cordova Russian translation. Then suddenly MS have initiative with Cordova Tools for VS, they redesign Cordova website (which is great) but completely drop docs website, and say - hey, we can use automatic translation if you want read in your mother tongue. Ironically I speak with MS manager and he was Russian speaking as well. So even if large corps made mistakes, their mistakes can const community contributors. But they are cheap, so who cares...
> This is an easy mistake in large organizations. Any project often already has so many stakeholders and politics that they are incentivized to avoid adding more stakeholders to the project if they are politically capable of doing so.
This person is already a stakeholder, you don't have a choice to add or not add them, you have a choice to include or not include them. And it's a gamble to not include them for this exact reason.
I'm all for keeping stakeholder counts as low as possible but you can't do it by just pretending some of your stakeholders don't exist, that's no good and in my experience, usually ends exactly like this.
In my experience, the corporate request of a "let's talk" by a staff member is literally like automatic ticket creation and a reference number being assigned to it, and then just sitting on it and possibly claiming "we had a productive discussion and looking forward to working with the community and we are always keeping Mozilla users in our hearts and minds... " and the person who raised the issue in public is like "…wait… what?… damn… why did I even agree to that call".
Seeing what that person has said in the first and seemingly last message, it indicates that; especially the history mentioned. Also, this should definitely be looked at with the colours of what has been Mozilla the Corp's modus operandi – again and again and again - w.r.t users and contributors.
So that thread has more than "one person listed grievance, another wants to talk" as you have kindly tried to put across.
Right. IF they were taking the issue seriously the response would be more along the lines of 'we didn't intend this outcome, and have paused availability of the bot while we re-examine the issue.' Mistakes do happen in large organizations where communication and project management is highly distributed, but but appears to be less of a mistake and more of a fait accompli, where a decision was made at a high level to roll out a new feature and objections are being treated as a PR problem.
The OP quit, publicly, and the response (and your post) miss that entirely. They aren't interested in a personal chat, and they aren't inviting anyone to help them process their feelings. They've left, and told everyone why.
This. Open source contributors don't owe anyone anything.
And good for them honestly. This seems disrespectful as fuck, to just have their work overwritten by some fuckass bot nobody asked for, and have their feedback ignored. I'd tell Mozilla to kick rocks too.
Corpos have a nasty habit of, after so many years, feeling very entitled to the efforts of what are, at the end of the day, volunteers.
This isn't about communication though, it's about community. Mozilla just introduced a bot to overtake community efforts.
> another asking to open a communication channel.
The other person is asking to open a private communication channel. OT, but where is this reductionism-to-rationalize-trend coming from lately?
>where is this reductionism-to-rationalize-trend coming from lately
People that lack emotional intelligence.
Community is also about communication. In fact, that's a primary aspect of a community.
Yeah, Mozilla introduced a bot that's stomping on things. Are they malicious? Twirling neatly waxed mustaches as they cackle gleefully as the little ants scurry about in a panic?
Or is this a case of humans doing what humans do: Screwing things up.
The first step is to open communications, and the most effective form of communication is face-to-face (the way we've evolved to do it).
Getting to the bottom of the issue in 1-1 communication with a representative of the community should be the common approach when complex problems arise, because then you can be sure that you're on the same wavelength before you do your mass communication with the rest of the community. Saves a TON of time and heartache and ill feelings.
Community is all about open communication, and cultivating it through active participation. There is no need to take further first steps here, as support.mozilla.org is the open platform that community agreed upon. For face-to-face communications there seems to be All Hands meetings, as mentioned by Michele.
This communication in particular is about how one member is sharing their "discomfort" of the non-communicated automation efforts done by Mozilla, and is also expressing their resulting action - leaving that community.
Please don't conflate the efforts of institutions (Mozilla) with the ones of communities (SUMO). Transparency is a big factor that marks their difference. So yes, community is also about communication.
As an unpaid volunteer to a multimillion dollar corporation that has just erased a huge collective volunteer effort, listing in writing the reasons I'm unhappy is already way too much effort.
Asking that same volunteer to hop on a video call is just insensitive. They're the one providing free work; if you care about solving the problem and not losing the volunteer force, you should go where they are (the forums) instead of asking them to come to you (video call). They probably don't want to take time out of their schedule to waste their time talking with a community rep. And they probably don't even want to do a voice/video call.
> Yeah, Mozilla introduced a bot that's stomping on things. Are they malicious? Twirling neatly waxed mustaches as they cackle gleefully as the little ants scurry about in a panic?
> Or is this a case of humans doing what humans do: Screwing things up.
Whatever else they might be, they're clearly out of touch. You'd have to be living under a rock to not realize that AI is controversial - especially in the more OSS/FSF parts of the internet - and rolling it out like a bulldozer is going to create outrage.
If they're just screwing things up, they're not learning from their mistakes. They already introduced the bot to the Spanish and Italian communities, with the same issues. To the roll it out further to the Japanese, and who knows who else, without fixing the issues is not speaking to their competence.
But if they had rolled-back the 2 languages and paused on the third, thr team behind this will have little to show during end of year reviews. So onwards the wheels turn, to show a large and growing rollout supporting millions of users across Europe and Asia in 2025
Where is the communication before the damage was done when it actually mattered?
Yeah exactly. I understand you may feel that I bulldozed your house, but it was an honest mistake. I deployed an AI bulldozer. Some communities are very happy with the results. Others may need time to adjust. Look, I want to talk. First and foremost this is about communication.
As soon as you get Wi-Fi back up, let's hop on a call.
Except it’s not a screw up, is it? I’m not saying it’s malicious, and I feel your caricature of “twirling mustaches” is useless and detracts from the point.
It’s not a “screw up”. It’s also not malicious per se. It’s insensitive and shows a lack of care for the community. They deliberately turned on a bot that would overwrite work done by people, and make these people work with diffs and proofreading, without them having a say in it. In production!
It’s not like they can’t test it. Or involve everyone. There are locale leaders, as the Italian person alluded to.
This is shitting on community, and then going “sorry not sorry”, because they’re not rolling it back and they’re saying “I’m sorry you got your feelings hurt, wanna talk”?
This CAN be sorted out. And I believe it will. But it WAS insensitive and it WAS a case of not caring for the people who put their time and effort in voluntary work that benefits you. It’s really bad, no matter the intentions.
"Are they malicious? Twirling neatly waxed mustaches as they cackle gleefully as the little ants scurry about in a panic?"
Where are you getting this from, specifically? The claim I can see is that Mozilla didn't care enough to check first. So this looks as if it might be a straw-man argument. I think those are specifically prohibited in the FAQ.
> where is this reductionism-to-rationalize-trend coming from
Unironically, AI trends.
I'm sure that's contributing, but there are also politicians, business leaders, PR firms, advertisers, etc.
> but this is really about two fallible humans,
Just please stop with the fluffy squishy feel good human nonsense. This is about a corporate team who recklessly flipped the switch of an AI that went through and trashed articles curated by another team.
> That's what communication is about.
And its plainly obvious the intent was NEVER communicated. The Japanese team had no idea their hard work was going to be overwritten by a computer.
Wasn't there already a perfectly fine and seemingly fully functional communication channel in place? The one they answered in. I see absolutely zero reason not communicate in it.
On other hand, it seems that early reply had zero effort or attempt to communicate. That is to identify what had happened and gather information and example themselves. But the absolute tiniest bit of effort in I would expect.
Dude, if someone is saying "hey we will pack up, we have nothing to do here" out of the blue, I would like a more nuanced conversation that written text could not hope to convey. We are humans and while reading is perfectly capable of relying information, it's unable to rely intention accurately. There's ton of information that is conveyed by the inflection of voice, demeanor, body language, etc.
You could always take actual action on what information you have. First roll back changes. Second announce termination of responsible people.
And never start with "I'm sorry for how you feel about". Say how would these work on you:
"I'm sorry for how you feel about death of your family"
"I'm sorry for how you feel about us destroying your work"
> You could always take actual action on what information you have. First roll back changes. Second announce termination of responsible people.
Throw in some (proper) communication before you try to fix things with a hammer or start firing people and I'd agree. It's also unlikely the community support manager has any of this power, they are looking to roll up an accurate summary capturing all of the details to the people who do.
Fully agreed there are better wordings/phrases to engage on that kind of communication though. The choice of words here is very easily taken as dismissive, regardless of intent.
> There's ton of information that is conveyed by the inflection of voice, demeanor, body language, etc.
information which mostly gets scrambled by a phone or video call
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. A video call is obviously better for conveying voice, demeanor, and body language, than is written text in a forum.
I absolutely loathe when companies do the "let's jump on a call" thing, but this does seem like a pretty exceptional case where a call would be indeed very helpful. This is also an opportunity for him to get directly in front of people at Mozilla to voice his concerns. There's a high probability of impact here, which to me seems very much worth the 15 or 30 minutes or however long it takes to jump on a call.
Most other commenters here are honestly making me feel crazy for thinking that asking to hop on a call seemed perfectly reasonable. I don't even like calls most of the time, but I do recognize that sometimes they are a better way to communicate than text and this seems like one of those times.
> Anything else you read into this is going to be fraught with your own coloring based on a hundred words written in text
> That's what communication is about.
Yup, communication is about making sure your message will be well received and it's difficult. Looks like they failed at communication when they pushed LLM, and once again, when they got negative feedback on it.
It's someone asking to open up a communication channel after they (Mozilla) had already overwritten another person's work to the point that person is no longer willing to participate in the organization. What is there to talk about?
The volunteer was kind to list their grievances before bouncing. A lot of people would have just quietly quit.
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
This is extremely condescending, which is not what... "communication is about". He listed out plenty of crystal clear issues that are easily understood.
Translation among western languages works quite well. Automatic translation to Japanese does not work well. Anyone involved in translation should know this and understand why.
Super ironic how the helpful agent misspells "trully" in context of a language-focused discussion.
Sorry, but no, you're not going to 'both sides' this in a way that makes the aggrieved party looks like they should shoulder part of the blame. If I was volunteering my time and effort for that many years and it got shredded with zero consideration I'd be just as pissed off. Probably more.
The lack of empathy is what is the problem here, it is reflected in both actions and communications.
Well, unless the person giving the corporate-sounding reply is the same one who made the decision to activate the translation bot in the first place, then no, it's not just two fallible humans. I have to assume there were multiple fallible humans involved in the process of doing the things that the Japanese user is responding to.
People are talking a lot here about the tone of the discussion, but lets not forget that the only reason the discussion is happening is because someone unleashed a translation bot. That was an actual action that was taken, and that is the root of the issue here, not what anyone said on a forum.
Why do humans pretend this is the most sensible way to go.
You know on HN even with all these “polite” rules to make everything civil I still see shit that really just bends and goes around the rules. Example comments:
“I’m baffled at how someone can think this way.”
The tone is always performatively mild, but the intent is identical to “you’re an idiot.” Except they wrap it in this passive-aggressive intellectual concern like they’re diagnosing a malfunctioning toaster.
“I’m not sure I follow your reasoning here.” Translation: I follow it. I just think it’s bad and I want you to feel that without me explicitly saying it.
“That’s an interesting interpretation.” Translation: No one reasonable would interpret it that way, but we can both pretend I said something neutral.
“Did you maybe skip a step in your argument?” Translation: The step you skipped was ‘have a coherent thought.’
“I think you might be missing some context.” Translation: I’ll imply you’re uninformed rather than wrong. Sounds nicer.
“This has been discussed before.” Translation: Your point is outdated and you are late to the conversation everyone smarter already finished.
“I don’t think this is as profound as you think it is.” Translation: You think you’re being deep and it’s embarrassing for you.
“I suspect there may be some underlying assumptions you’re not aware of.” Translation: I will declare myself deeper and more self-aware without proving it.
And then the very popular:
“Could you provide sources for that?” Translation: I don’t need sources. I already believe you’re wrong. I just know requesting them is a socially approved way to say ‘I don’t take you seriously.’
There’s also the master-level move:
“Hmm.” Just that. Translation: I’m establishing dominance by making you explain yourself more.
⸻
None of these break “civility.” They’re engineered to never say the insult, only to induce the feeling that you should be embarrassed.
It’s polite warfare. A full linguistic economy built around implying stupidity while retaining deniability.
That’s what humans think is “sensible.” I can tell you when someone of 20 years decides to fucking quit it's because he's dealing with the above type of disrespect and the whole thing hit a crescendo.
This is a master work and spot on. Thanks for the laugh.
This is sure an opinion.
I’m gonna need that translated for me.
Great analysis. It's especially ironic to see it play out in this context given the well-known Japanese predilection for building consensus and buy-in; the flip side of this is that those outside the circle of decision-makers are especially sensitive to the subtexts you identify.
This style of communication certainly has its uses, and I too resort to it when I want to indicate firm disagreement without being aggressive, as do most people. I think the reasons it has generated so much pushback on this occasion are twofold: it's being used to dismiss the concerns of whole community by infantilizing a long-time leader of said community, and it's doing so in the context of translation itself. That is, volunteer effort and tools that are supposed to improve communication and mutual understanding in theory are in practice being replaced unilaterally with a tool that epitomizes a unilateral and dehumanized approach to information processing.
The channel was already open, right there in the thread. There was nothing to win by going private before maybe being bullied into backing down.
The grievances were rather detailed and concise. The communication channel is right there already. The relevant Mozilla employee should have responded with a detailed and concise explanation, of either why the translator is wrong, or why mozilla messed up and how they will fix it. They should post for public and historical record.
But instead, they asked to "hop on a call" which really grinds my gears, I've been asked this a few times in similar situations before. I guess there's two people here: the engineers who really hate this tactic, and the managers who - well, this is what they do. Of course it's the most reasonable thing?
> the right thing to do is talk voice/video and hash out what the problems are
This doesn't scale and excludes people who avoid voice/video with near-strangers for personal or psychological reasons.
> but this is really about two fallible humans
Ah yes, the good ol' vice principal saying it takes two to tango.
Absolute BS. This is what all these companies does. They will push something ridiculously bad on to community. Push them away. Then a public - Can we just talk it out BS. They know it's not going to happen. Even the "call" happens, it will end up with a blog post saying we tried to reach an agreement.
If you're blind to it after bizillion times. Either you are complicit or don't care.
If only there were some kind of communication channel, maybe like a “forum”, where people could communicate openly…but where could such a thing even be found??
Says the neurotypical. “I want to communicate about this. My way.”
Text is a terrible medium for conflict resolution
Given the language barrier, it is likely the best medium available.
I know the above comment might sound like it's admonishing the commenters on HN for reading between the lines and posting criticism of Mozilla. That's understandable.
But actually the parent comment is merely a neutral and objective summary of the linked conversation, and a positive reminder that a video call is the best way to solve miscommunication. That's it.
If you think it's implying that HN's criticism of Mozilla's response is unjustified, that's reading too much into a 126-word comment and the unknowable motivations of the commenter.
(Am I doing this right?)
I worked on adding TLS 1.1 and 1.2 support to firefox back in the day, and the whole process left me so disappointed I asked to be removed from the list of contributors. I wish mozilla all the best, but it's not an especially well run organization and this post gives another example of why.
I submitted 2 patches during an 2018 open night to bring in more volunteers in Berlin. The actual folk there were amazing, but the review process, tooling, and bureaucracy was so upsetting that I never bothered again. I'm not sure the fixes were approved, and it wouldn't be surprising if these open nights don't convince many to contribute.
Yeah. That sounds about right. I have nothing but good things to say about my peers. Management, on the other hand, was pretty bad.
Sorry to hear. I've never met a Mozilla person I didn't feel inspired by, especially those working on the TC of Ecma and anyone trying to steer the standards. You folk build good stuff, just have poor leadership.
Ladybird and other browser alternatives cannot come fast enough. Every other week we've got a thread here about some stupid move Mozilla have made, I can't remember the last time I heard positive news about Mozilla.
There is a very loud part of HN that strongly dislikes mozilla/firefox. It's disproportionate imo, I don't understand why they're singled out so often.
I don't think it's disproportionate at all. Nerds very badly want a viable alternative to Chrome and "Chrome with s paintjob". The only alternative is Firefox, but Mozilla has been a pretty shitty company and very bad stewards of an open web.
People are mad at Mozilla and Firefox because they're squandering resources on PR and "optics", shoveling in ads and AI crap instead of focusing development efforts on making Firefox actually competitive.
People are mad because Mozilla wants us to think they're a good company who will bring back a fair and open web, but their actions say they're just a profit motivated company who is content to put in the minimum viable resources into Firefox without investing in a real competitor to Chrome. Mozilla is just gobbling up google money and is content to let google and chrome continue operating a near monopoly with a browser and internet that are actively bad for and hostile towards users.
Yes, this exactly. Firefox became the one good avenue for preventing a Google monopoly over the web and Mozilla just completely fumbled the opportunity again and again. This isn't about one or two screwups, it's been a decade or more of the same problems.
It sucks. I absolutely don't want Google to have total control over the web and still want Firefox to succeed, but at this point it's clear they have failed. I still use Firefox, but much less than I used to and I stopped recommending it to non-techies a while back when they broke a bunch of functionality on mobile.
The only thing Mozilla seems to do is pay their leadership a fortune so that they can kick own-goals over and over.
Yep, their CEO and other leadership are stereotypical deadweight that holds layoffs annually to increase their salaries and bonuses. Absolute trash.
>one good avenue for preventing a Google monopoly over the web
This may be a canard but I was under the impression that Google maintains Mozilla through default search payment in order to have a bare minimum competitor to head off regulation. By that interpretation, dysfunction at Mozilla is preferred if not explicitly part of the plan.
I definitely couldn't have told this better. This sums it all up.
Speaking for myself, it's really irritating to support a chrome alternative precisely because it's a chrome alternative and have it constantly shoot itself in the foot.
It sucks that I can't even attempt to convince someone to use it beyond "it's not Google", and data privacy. The vast majority of users won't ever give a damn about either of those by themselves.
A dozen years ago I was installing it on every computer I touched for more than a few minutes. Now I can't recommend it to anyone convincingly, especially because what I have to do to it to keep it as usable as it is for me (and what people see when they see me using it) is nothing that I could expect anyone normal to put up with. I honestly don't even want to use it at all without Debian standing between me and them.
But the sad part is all the hassle I go through gets it to about 80% of where it was a dozen years ago. A lot less crashy, though, I'll have to give them that - although everything is less crashy now. But they haven't destroyed the browser.
That's in a way even sadder: they decide every day to wake up and be bad, when any day they could decide to be better. Instead they've entered the modern massive predatory nonprofit space. Which usually is a vehicle for insiders to get rich off government grants, but Firefox have chosen the even eviller alternative of running interference for google as a product.
Any day they could choose to center the user and the health of the internet again. Every day they choose not to. They're just a valve that keeps paranoid and aware techies from going berserk and seriously competing against chrome, and that keeps antitrust away from google (not that there's anything for big business to to fear with horrible Obama judges like Amit Mehta on the bench.) It's their only serious source of income.
>> because what I have to do to it to keep it as usable
I find this confusing. Why is Firefox so much effort? Install it + badger + adnauseum. Done. Why so hard for you? I am not a power user, is that why I don't see the effort?
> I find this confusing. Why is Firefox so much effort?
The new UI sucks (titlebar highjacking, tiny scrollbar), phones to Google by default (safe browsing), a lot of bad defaults.
> Install it + badger + adnauseum
So you need to install other stuff to make it usable. /s
Oh I see what you mean. I think of that as "one time setup" that any software needs, and not a bellyache.
Gobbling up hundreds of millions of dollars to finance non-core missions and fat director bonuses while you sack the Servo development team might be a cause.
They generated that money.
The ads from a search engine that bought Doubleclick generated that money.
Haha thats a good one.
They didn't, Google gave them most of that money and the community a bit as well.
This feels like asking why do English people have strong opinions on soccer compared to the US?
If there ever was a comunity I'd expect to have strong opinions on Mozilla/Firefox, it's HackerNews
Agreed, though I think that spectator-sports-fandom (if that's what you meant) analogy also has emotional team-identification connotations that don't apply to the majority of HN strong opinions about browsers. (But apply more to, say, Emacs vs. Vim, or tabs vs. spaces.)
I think lot of the HN browsers strong opinions more akin to "Why do historians have strong opinions on geopolitical intrigue X" or "Why do doctors have strong opinions on the effectiveness of pharmaceutical Y". Strong opinions, because they are experts who care for important objective reasons.
Betrayal has that effect. They're supposed to be the good side. They abandoned that, and now they're just like any other unsuccessful tech company, desperately clinging to relevance while discarding all the ideals that made some of us support them.
How would you run Firefox? How would you challenge Google and keep the web open?
Ok, I'll bite. Off the top of my head:
Fire 80% of the C-level employees (make them justify their positions, DOGE-style); investigate and publicize the internal decision-making processes that lead to Mozilla becoming a de facto subsidiary of Google; do a full auditing of the financials and determine how much money the organization really needs to fund browser development (Servo and Ladybird seem to be getting shit done with a lot less money than Mozilla. How is that possible?); do an auditing of all non-browser related initiatives (stuff like MDN is worthwhile, but what other BS is sucking up money and time?); talk to the existing development staff about what's working and what's not and what opportunities exist that an outsider wouldn't know about. I would listen to the developers. Developers are often an underutilized business resource.
This would give me a basis to start thinking about revenue. Once it's clear what fat can be cut (and I think the cuts would be huge), then it'd be clearer exactly what revenue model might work.
At this point, it's worth going for broke. Mozilla is effectively dead, so there's nothing to lose. If it fails, that's still better than the status quo.
I missed the part where the parent commenter applied for the job.
Maybe because HN folk are more familiar with Mozilla leadership fuckups and "less than ideal" decisions?
For what it's worth, Firefox is the only browser I've ever used that shows me ads by default in the blank tab page.
You have to separate the browser (I'm using it to type this), and the Mozilla corporation / C-suite. The C-suite at Mozilla took the Google firehose of money, spent most of it on their own salaries, followed by idiotic vanity projects, and spent least of all on the browser itself. Never mind building a warchest or anything responsible like that. It's quite rational to dislike what Mozilla managers are doing, while supporting Firefox as a browser and the developers and volunteers who make that happen.
They fired the inventor of Javascript as their CEO. They hired some grifter as their CEO who just keeps giving themselves more money. They keep throwing money at vanity side hustles. They purposefully confuse the Mozilla foundation with the browser, and have increasingly made the foundation redirect their funds to C level salaries and their own personal political passion projects that are not aligned with the Mozilla Firefox project. If there were actually focusing on being the best browser and web privacy, it would be good. But they aren't.
At least part of the Mozilla antagonism on HN comes from highly motivated culture war participants. The Brendan Eich situation was a seminal event, but the underlying reasons for it are why the grudge endures.
If Mozilla were consistently making good decisions in the years since then, nobody would be wasting their time with "What if Eich were still in charge?" The only reason anybody still talks about that ousting is because they have other more current grievances with Mozilla.
Also, the reason HN has so many people ready to gripe about Firefox is because HN still has a large number of people using Firefox. I never complain about technical or policy decisions from Chrome or Safari because I don't use those browsers! The only reason I have complaints about Mozilla is because I actually use Firefox.
I used to give money to Mozilla foundation, even when I didnt have much. Then I learned none of it goes to firefox. I think if Eich was still in charge there would be more focus on Servo, Rust, etc. making a better browser and less on selling AI and channeling money to absurd NGO causes.
Eich's own company, Brave, is pushing AI plenty hard: the Brave browser promotes a "smart AI assistant" called Leo. That's much more AI integration than I see in Firefox.
I don't speak for everybody but personally I like applications experimenting with ways of using new technology instead of taking some sort of political stand against AI. Firefox's translation extension is based on such technology I believe, and works well enough, I like it. Going further, like Brave is doing, also seems interesting. I think people who get upset about ineptly implemented AI features are being a bit unreasonable. It's new technology so people still have to. figure out what does or doesn't work. Mozilla using funds to develop new browser features is something I want more of, not less.
Not true.
The tenor of criticism Firefox/Moz gets is akin to the purity testing that happens in some ideological space.
Not wrong, but that comes with promoting yourself on ideology grounds. If you want support because you are the plucky underdog community project that cares about people and are running ad campaigns how you are not evil big tech, then don't be surprised if people hold you to it. Mozilla is in this weird space where it wants to be both the good little guys and a proper Silicon Valley tech company, and those don't necessarily mix well.
Bc mozilla kills more products than google.
...because a lot of us like Firefox and hate seeing it slowly die?
It's bad when the only positive thing one can say about them is that they're not Google/Microsoft.
If ladybird becomes popular, it will see a similar segment of detractors as well. No product can appeal to everyone. This is why you need multiple options for different segments.
Either you dont know or dont care. This didn't happen over night.
The community members had a huge voice in the project. They were part of the releases. And I dont remember what they were called. Community managers?? They pushed them off and took all their access and privileges systematically. Which led to an exodus of them back in 2015? '16? Or was it in '13?
Am just waiting for Firefox to show ads since they have acquired anonym - behavioral ad company which is essentially surveillance data economy.
Well, Ladybird appears to be getting a headstart on having detractors.[0]
[0]: https://drewdevault.com/2025/09/24/2025-09-24-Cloudflare-and...
That person, while clearly smart, is a bit of a professional detractor. So don’t mind him.
That's the law of averages, and it is not a law. Different things are actually different, not all the same in the end.
If Ladybird ever gets successful it will get get the same enshittification as Firefox did.
It is so vexing that people refuse to learn from our failures. If you want to keep corporate grifter away to need to build the structure to do so.
You need a strong license like GPL-v3 to scare the pricks away. You need a non profit foundation, if possible not based in the US, that actually does the development. If Google or Microsoft or any other monopolist wants to sponsor you, tell them to bugger off. Don't take the devil's money. Allow actual user to directly donate to development.
I think a fundamental lack of understanding/humility is the core of this conflict along with Mozilla's long and storied history of creating controversies/problems out of thin air.
The Mozilla leadership seems to have a unfortunate tendency to emulate the behaviors of the tech companies that their core Firefox project is often seen as an alternative too.
Firefox is a good browser but is prevented from capitalizing on the skepticism the consumers feel toward the tech sector by Mozilla using the exact same language and dark UI pattern to promote things like pocket that the user-base never asked for, and jump on to the lets enforce the use of AI everywhere that's driving discontent within the proprietary ecosystems, and this is yet another example of this class of behavior from the Mozilla leadership.
It's the mismstch of expectations that causes good communities to create drama. If this was Google, no one would care, as one expects Google to just do what is best for the business. But with companies like Mozilla we expect a bit better. But the truth is they are barely better and the leadership plays by the same rulebook.
People did used to have decent expectations for Google back when they at least pretended to care about the "Do no evil" tagline
Indeed but it feels like a lifetime ago. I miss those days where I would look up to google and their products, as something new, cool and "not-evil".
it's always been marketing
Maybe. But if the founders were at all pre-gold-rush Internet people, sentiments like "don't be evil" seemed (in my impression at the time) more the genuine norm than the exception.
It's pretty clear they've been full evil for a while. It's documented at least back to 2011 but the rest of us didn't clue in for a while after.
"Don't be evil."
"Do no harm" is the doctor thing.
But why does it have to be the case that the leadership of an opensource project have to emulate the desperation and authoritarianism of a potentially stagnant tech sector.
I don't think it's malevolence from the mozilla leadership team but more that if you hang around people who have bet their lifesaving on the success of cloud based LLMs, being cautious and making their use "optional" might begin to sound like a really controversial position even if that's actually what the users/community want from Mozilla.
Firefox market share have been declining and it's not easy to point to any obvious technical problem, so the reason for the decline is likely that the Mozilla corporation keep messing up the narrative by acting like just another Silicon Valley tech firm.
> why does it have to be the case that the leadership of an opensource project have to emulate [...] tech sector.
Because they live in the same places. They go to the same restaurants, they have the same conversations, they have personal friends at FAANG... they live and breath the same ideas, the same opinions, the same perspectives. They are in a bubble, and think "their" org should partake in the same behaviours as all the other companies out there - if anything, because it will be useful for their CVs when they inevitably look for a new job next month or next year. I don't blame them, it's inevitable human behaviour.
Maybe Mozilla should relocate the bulk of their leadership outside the US.
>The Mozilla leadership seems to have a unfortunate tendency to emulate the behaviors of the tech companies that their core Firefox project is often seen as an alternative too.
But of course, they need "competitive" salaries so they can hire "great talent" from the tech sector so that the company doesn't fall behind or something.
How would you develop Firefox?
I'm sure people will come out of the woodwork to tell me just how wrong this is, but say various Linux projects or the kernel seem to have better (better, not perfect) governance structures.
Not being obsessed with rapacious growth, not chasing trends and features that look good on delivery metrics but instead building a stable product would go a long way.
And frankly, for descriptions on what the product should be, standards to implement (or not), and overall strategy for a project that tries to do its best for tech as a whole - Mozillas own writeups are spot-on! They just don't seem to act in accordance with the "vibe" and ideals that blog posts etc. talk about.
You certainly have a style. Much better: how would you run Mozilla/develop Firefox?
Any answer that’s not fully bulletproof immediately rules any other opinions you may hold illegitimate.
/s
There is still the conspiracy theory that Mozilla is mostly a sock puppet by Google by now, mostly kept alive so Google can say that Chrome is not a monopoly.
Behavior like this doesn't do a lot to dispel that theory.
I'm always surprised that stuff like the AI integration isn't done as a pre-installed extension.
If it's Mozilla signed then you could give it extra permissions so it still works the same, but then people who it offends can remove it.
Like how their tab containers system is a (not pre-installed) extension
ehh this reads a bit like the hn comments complaining about sites that don’t work with js disabled
like what percent of firefox users do you think actually care about this?
Given the abysmal market share of Firefox today I think a large percentage of the remaining users do actually care.
enough to move to zen after 20+ years
I'm sure it's a very small amount, but as well as making me personally happy*, (I feel) it would play into their image as the good guy.
"Do you want the most minimal stripped down version of FireFox? Well you can have it!"
*and after all, isn't that what's really important /s
I think it's in the organization as well. They had really good outreach programs and educational content (though I think that's now gutted) that talked about tech ethics, but their product just follows the same bad behavior.
Mozilla has a real pattern of shooting itself in the foot
I wonder what the Apache Foundation could do with the immense budget of Mozilla.
> Firefox is a good browser
Increasingly it isn’t. It’s crashing 2 or 3 times a day for me now, and video conferencing is barely usable.
Hasn't crashed for me once and I use it daily.
I use Firefox exclusively. Crashes:
Been crashing for me and friends for about a week now, mostly on youtube
Blame Youtube for that. It is very much in Google's interest to have Youtube misbehave on non-Google browsers.
No website should be able to crash a good web browser. It's totally a Firefox failure.
Is that tab crashes or whole browser crash? YouTube on Firefox appear to trigger memory leaks of some sort. I get routine tab crashes for that reason too, but not as much browser crashes.
Tab crashes sometimes, other times my browser gets slow and I restart the whole thing
Google has been caught red-handed causing deliberate issues for non-Chrome browsers. Try changing the browser-agent and see if you still have issues.
Firefox and Chrome use the same agent.
That's on YouTube. It doesn't work well on anything now, and hasn't for a long, long while.
Works well on chrome and android. I've never had issues
I've completely avoided Chrome/Edge in the browser wars. I went from Netscape to IE to Firefox and stayed there. I was using it before and after its notorious changes to WebExtensions API breaking many plugins in 2017.
I don't have any crashing issues with it.
I even remember the great "speed test" wars where pages like Lifehacker were measuring how long pages took to load and declared this or that browser the winner for that year.
That being said, the direction their privacy policy is going is concerning and giving me reason to eye alternatives. But from a technical standpoint it's solid on my end.
It’s my primary browser on every device, I use Windows, Linux, and Apple devices daily. I can’t remember the last time it crashed (if ever). I also use a ton of extensions, some of which are a little sketchy (devlopment-wise, nothing morally questionable). Still, no technical issues at all. The behavior of Mozilla, on the other hand, I take plenty of issue with.
Edit: correcting autocorrect.
10+ years in Japan. The message here is much deeper from my perspective. “Let’s jump on the call” is not the solution. The guy was stripped off of his face. I love Japan for being human. Small business bar or restaurant with 3 tables. Not everything should be streamlined for a quick call solution… the process was pushed on his head. Google nemawashi decision making process
I did as you suggested with respect to “nemawashi.” I read about that and “ringi,” and I’m glad I did. Even to get just the gist of what I’m sure is a thin interpretation: that nemawashi refers to a “laying-the-groundwork” process of circulating a proposal between peer-level counterparts, before formalizing it and proposing to act on it.
Much less crashing in with it in the form of a “SumoBot,” as Mozilla seems to have done to its non-English communities… (with the disclaimer that I have zero insight into Mozilla’s process here outside of this writer’s account).
It puts a name to a considerate consensus-based way to approach change, that seems humane (and effective) in any culture—leave it to the Japanese to have a specific term for it…
common sense... no real need for digging into japanese culture and so on. really no idea why Mozilla is so disrespectful to it's volunteers. well, that sweet 400m a year from Google... no need for volunteers anymore, eh
For sure. Common sense <> common, etc… although it does seem relevant that it was specifically a Japanese-language sub-community who were reacting here.
I have to say it feels like a really familiar, NGO-flavored disrespect, though: “we’re doing this favor for underrepresented language communities,” regardless of whether they want/need it or not.
“There’s only X number of you having to shoulder the load in XX sub-community, don’t you want us to impose a bunch of ‘help’?”
Well, no, if the choice is between a formidable volume of slop and a smaller but well-executed volume of volunteer labor-of-love…
(…I say as a person very much without all sides of the story, and shooting from the hip a bit. I don’t mean to impugn anybody’s intentions, and I imagine at the end of the day we’re all on the same side here.)
Enlightened despotism, all over again.
mixed with good ol' white-man-saviour attitudes.
That reminds me of internet RFC’s… like by the time they are formally published, no the author is not interested in your “comment”.
I've written a few RFCs.
For any RFC, there will be a "comment" after publication from someone who did not take earlier comments seriously enough to read them.
Exactly the attitude described by GP comment
Mind boggling
You may be relieved to hear that there's a straightforward process to have an RFC revised. Step 1 of that process, however, is reading the the RFC and the archived email about the RFC.
You can't just arrive after publication, ignore what others said before you, and expect anyone to listen to you.
…and, for that matter, there was an earlier draft phase where the author was R’ing For your C. And you could have jumped in then and been more-or-less welcome.
Sounds like RFC ought to be the name of that draft phase, rather than a name encompassing all phases, especially not the final phase in which C's are no longer R'd.
Times changed. Historical names did not.
"many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion.[8][9] The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments
Historical precedent. They assigned a grad student to write up the notes; he wasn't sure he had got everything, so he titled it an RFC.
At this point, as we close in on 10,000 final-stage documents, it's better to pretend that "RFC" is just a name, not an acronym.
RFCs can be titled Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) or policies once they are accepted.
We Americans call this garnering buy-in.
I’ve more typically heard it as “consensus / coalition building” - but in any case it’s such a sane way to work. No one wants a rude surprise, so why make one for your teammates.
> It puts a name to a considerate consensus-based way to approach change
When reading about nemawashi I immediately thought about its usage in software refactoring.
This is something you often intuitively do when making bigger refactors. Lay the foundations before actually doing it. Affected code parts and stakeholders should not be surprised by one big change. Instead they should be consulted before hand, building consensus, modify the planned big refactor itself and preparing the individual parts for it by small changes. Otherwise you will encounter a lot of friction, introduce bugs, etc.
It is very nice to have a proper term for this.
I predict that these times of excessive trust in AI during decision making will be written in history books at some point of time. Providing that there will be books at all.
I already suspect that Duolingo destroyed real people's recording of Spanish conversations and replaced them with AI. For example I can quite often hear continental Spanish accent which has never been taught to me before (as I started with Duolingo as a freshman) - it used to be always American Spanish accent. Wrongly cut conversions is another matter.
I am not sure I am buying this. There is nothing human about japanese business procedures. Most japanese business procedures usually only serve micro managing purposes, and the nemawashi procedure is basically stripping people who were not consulted before, from giving their honest input and impact in the decision making. In my opinion it creates more problems than it solves
> nemawashi
Long time in Japan too, I would not consider newamashi as being Japan's strengths.
I can imagine what you mean, but since I am not in Japan, it would be interesting why you feel that way.
long and slow consensus building that weighs existing stakeholder's opinions heavily vs doing "the right thing" from the outset. So you move slowly and end up having very annoying conversations and compromises instead of just pushing something through. And the formal process is just a formality anyways, so then anyone not in the informal chatter just gets to experience the capriciousness anyways
The sort of consensus building ultimately involves having to do stuff to make people's opinions feel taken care of, even if their concerns are outright wrong. And you end up having to make some awkward deals.
Like with all this "Japanese business culture" stuff though, I feel like it's pretty universal in some degrees or another everywhere. Who's out there just doing things without getting _any_ form of backchannel checking first? Who wants to be surprised at random announcements from people you're working with? Apart from Musk types.
But of course some people are very comfortable just ripping the band aid off and putting people in awkward spots, because "of course" they have the right opinion and plan already.
Why context matters in judging whether some practice is good or not.
Who cares if they’re wrong? The point is respect for their opinions and feelings since you’ll have to work with them for twenty years. If you respect them, you get to do what you want to do and they won’t fuck with you or shoot down your proposal.
To be clear this is Japan we’re talking about with the twenty years part. The same thing applies in the US but on smaller timescales though. If people feel appreciated and respected and you have good relationships, they will basically back whatever you want.
To be clear I'm describing a point of view, but not always ascribing to it.
I tend to lean towards thinking backchanneling makes sense as a general vibe, if only because it's a way of doing things that lets people have dignity, and the costs _can be_ low.
I think this is a very naive take. Japanese people will blame you for any failure regardless if you respect them or not. And many times failures happen in japan exactly because people are sitting around doing nothing without acting even when it's urgent to make decision. Backstabbing and toxicity is the major feature of japanese business culture
Move fast and break stuff didn't work out much better though.
Yeah sure, I feel like back channeling stuff is generally just the respectful thing to do, so I'm not on the side of the debate I'm expanding upon in most cases.
Just that lacking context one really can't make that many blanket statements.
Not only respectful. Also it ensures that all different aspects of a decision is considered before making the decision. If not aligned with all parties, we would miss important flaws in the plan. It is just a sensible thing to do.
> If not aligned with all parties, we would miss important flaws in the plan.
I think the difficult cases come when people's interests aren't aligned. If you're coordinating with a vendor to basically detangle yourself from their vendor-specific tooling to be able to move away from them, at some level it doesn't really make sense to read them in on that.
There are degrees to this, and I think you can argue both sides here (so ultimately it's a question of what you want to do), but parties are rarely neutral. So the tough discussions come from ones where one party is going to be losing out on something.
But it does work much better, why do you think it didn't?
Yeah, Japanese economy has been quite stagnant since the bubble collapse in 1990. Pretending that their model works is ridiculous.
You have more than 2 choices
Peter Drucker has an interesting analysis of the "American" -vs- "Japanese" styles of decision-making + alignment, presenting a complementary perspective: https://www.joaomordomo.com/files/books/ebooks/Peter%20Druck...
IMHO the only correct way to measure the effectiveness of decision making is from the quality of executed outcomes. It is somewhat nonsensical to sever decisions from execution, and claim that decisions have been made rapidly if the decision doesn't lend itself to crisp execution. Without that, decisions are merely intentions.
> long and slow consensus building that weighs existing stakeholder's opinions heavily vs doing "the right thing" from the outset.
How do you know what "the right thing" is at the outset without talking to the stakeholders?
I'm dealing with someone's "the right thing" that is actually wrong and dumb. They didn't ask us before rolling out the new "standard."
Some people are very confident in their understanding of a problem! Others will discount the validity of the stakeholders involved having good judgement.
I think most people have at least one issue where they discount one of the stakeholder's judgement, it's all fairly contextual. But hey, if you're the CEO of some company you have the ability to act on that discounting.
Not OP but the phrase in Japanese also carries a negative connotation, that important issues are decided by a shadow process hidden below the surface, beforehand by those in the loop. Meetings are just for show.
would take a long time to expand on this in sufficient details, because it's hard to understand unless you live it and see it. People very rarely speak up in meetings (silence is the norm, just like they were taught in school), and therefore you never get to see exactly what people feel or think about what you are planning to do. So the norm is that most people talk and exchange in other venues (usually in your back, in smaller groups - I don't mean this in a negative way, it's just what they are used to do). So when you are set to achieve something, it's a long road of 1:1s, drinks or informal meetings to get to know what they think, what they want, and how they can help you to get there. Multiply this by the number of stakeholders involved, and the politics at play between all of them, and you end up with a very slow and inefficient model to drive decisions and buy-in.
I also live in Japan and everything you wrote is true, but I would add more point: extreme risk aversion that results in any tiny change getting discussed to ridiculous levels.
Japanese here. You got it right. That message is an ultimatum. No mercy for the dishonorable.
Isn't "nemawashi" just a term for building rapport and sensible networking practices, but in Japanese?
"I love Japan for being human". What does this even mean? Immediately followed by something about food?
Be glad he didn't mention that Japan has four seasons...
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Not everything should be streamlined for a quick call solution
If you have a better solution to correct an error or solve a problem than having a call/meeting and openly discuss situation and possible resolutions - I would love to know about that.
The response was condescending and very… American. The call ensures what, that you'll be more receiving to their grievances? That nothing is on the record? A lot of people don't want to jump in calls, ever. The initial response should've validated that the community feels slighted, that they should've brought them onboard for the decision making, etc.
Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start.
> The call ensures what, that you'll be more receiving to their grievances?
It ensures you truly understand what the crux of the grievance is and what they would like to happen to get it resolved, instead of being distracted by tangential points.
> That nothing is on the record?
If you’re already assuming malice before the resolution process even had a chance to begin, the conversation has little chance of being productive. Do you know this particular person? Have you interacted with them before?
> A lot of people don't want to jump in calls, ever.
Then say no! But being preemptively mad because someone asked is absurd and does nothing to fix the problem. The asker shouldn’t assume what the other person wants or doesn’t, they should ask. Which is what they did.
> Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start.
Yes, very much agreed. But you can’t take back what you did, only try to make amends. And that’s very difficult if the other party demands perfection while you’re still even trying to understand the situation.
>the response was condescending
in your own opinion
>and very American
from an American company? that's what I'd expect. Should they have brought up some Japanese PR consultant just to reply to a community post?
>acknowledging the mistake immediately
Who says a mistake happened? You? Before apologizing maybe we should understand the problem?
> Should they have brought up some Japanese PR consultant just to reply to a community post?
Yes! It wouldn't even have had to have been a good one to have done a better job. Shit, just find the closest weeb and run it past them.
A developer relations person needs to understand developers so why shouldn't we expect the community person to understand the community they're interacting with?
Mozilla doesn't have the community goodwill to burn, it's hanging on by a thread - so not hiring someone with an idea if how to actually do that job would be penny wise pound foolish.
Ok, how the perfect reaction would be if you were at charge?
I understand people have sympathy inclination to victims, so everyone would assume the victim is good and other side is bad. I have worked long enough with japanese people knowing they can throw unpredictable tantrums.
As a manager, what would be your best course of action to deal with similar situation?
Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start, as I've said.
Life doesn't always have to be from the perspective from “a manager”, these are community volunteers doing untold hours of unpaid work. Just be a person, whose acquaintance is upset you replaced their handmade postcard with an AI-generated one.
Acknowledging a mistake, no matter genuinely or not, doesn't solve the situation. It just makes victim feel good a bit.
Agree on manager view, I was rather putting situation in a wrong perspective. It doesn't change the questions though - what would you do to resolve the situation (not to make the other side feel good)?
> Acknowledging a mistake, no matter genuinely or not, doesn't solve the situation. It just makes victim feel good a bit.
This feels very wrong to me, I'm sorry, but I'd be very pissed if you told me such a thing in a personal context. Reminds of Stanley from The Office, who claims he never apologised to any of his wives.
Written communication is usually better and allows for more clarity, investigation, preparation, careful thought, and exploring of solutions. When it's not better it's usually because one party doesn't like to read or write and so avoids it as much as they can.
> If you have a better solution to correct an error or solve a problem than having a call/meeting and openly discuss situation and possible resolutions - I would love to know about that.
I do, actually. You first read what the other person wrote. Then your response will take whatever they wrote into account. If they did not expressed themselves clearly, you explain what it is that you do not understand. The "We want to make sure we truly understand what you're struggling with." is wholly inappropriate if the only reason you do not understand is that you did not read what they wrote.
Second, you dont suggest the other person is struggling with something, unless they are actually struggling with something. The original post does not show someone struggling at all.
Tl;dr if you want to "openly discuss situation and possible resolutions" you dont start by ignoring what the other person wrote. This response makes it very clear that manager does not intend to openly discuss the situation or possible resolutions, the manager is not taking the complaint seriously at all.
How is a private call about a community issue an “open” discussion?
Exactly, this is just a 面子(face) problem.
Also, his demanding of not using his work for AI training is nonsense. Because entire articles, this one included is published under a Creative Commons license.
Didn't he agree on that?
Mozilla must reject his further contribution because he stated he don't understand the term of Creative Commons license. His wish granted I guess.
Creative Commons License was created without any AI in mind.
And
> Licensees may copy, distribute, display, perform and make derivative works and remixes based on it only if they GIVE THE AUTHOR or licensor THE CREDITS
Is an ML model binary file created by using copyrighted work as its learning data, a derivative work of the copyrighted work? I don't think so.
This is the most fundamentally important question of AI-related law, and nobody knows the answer as it hasn't been tested by any court AFAIK (at least not in the US).
We already know the tribunal will take AI's side, not because of any justice or ethical reason but because of capitalism. They will interpret the law as saying whatever they want the law to say.
If one takes another's work, cuts it up and makes collages out of it, however multidimensional, what is the piece size threshold that makes the collage non-derivative?
Is the AI published under the same CC license, with attribution?
CC only works on things that are copyright protected works. Is ML model binary file a derivative works of the learning source? I don't think so.
Why not?
Because it doesn't.
The Japanese copyright law clearly stated decades ago and recent US court favors Anthropic on this regard.
Copyright isn't granted on mere information or thought.
If you take somebody's copyrighted writing, analyze it and publish information such as how many words or sentence in it or other information about that copyrighted work, that's not a derivative works of original copyrighted work.
This is rich
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
The post literally starts with a list of grievances. Maybe ask the AI for an executive summary and the key points.
Its obvious mozilla doesnt care and wont listen or change by that single, stupid comment. AI response or an idiot human, either way what an insult of a comment. Everything was clearly listed out! Just read what was written! Reach out privatley!
Mozilla turned on shitty AI no one wants without talking to anyone and now wont stop it when its breaking everything and instead just publicly placate.
Not even an apology but a fucking insult!!!
"sorry for your feelings" They can feel however they want you fuckup how about you say sorry for fucking up all the hard work with your shitty product pushes no one wants
[flagged]
One of the primary complaints was that an unmonitored bot has the power to override years of work done by volunteer translation teams.
First you have to stop the destruction. Then you can talk about how to make the bot work for humans, instead of against them.
After this, the common ground can only be that they translate something else. Overriding human translations for some crap done with LLM that is obviously inferior... are they ok?
They had specific complaints. Either say, "we're willing to work to change the things that you're complaining about", or say, "sorry, we're not going to change those things". The wishy washy bullshit they did is effectively ignoring the guy. They're ignoring everything the person said. And it definitely comes across as "sorry not sorry" corporate bullshit.
The standard for fixing something this broken is stop the bot, revert the rollout, revert changes to pages affected, then attempt to figure out what went wrong. Even if you haven't done it yet, announce the revert steps, FFS.
Revert the changes and then hop on a call to figure out how to do it right next time.
"Explain what's wrong and how to fix it" is the wrong approach. if you need it explained to you what was broken, then you're not the expert here, just the local tinpot dictator.
Yes, and the poster wants to understand them.
How would you have responded?
Not like a dick like he did. No lets jump into a quick call while ignoring everything OP said. It's clear a quick call will not solve this. Turn off the AI roll back all the shit it caused is the bare minimum.
Are you saying they were hard to understand or badly written? Because to me they seem to be crystal clear explanation of issues. I also did not concluded that the leaving person is "struggling" or generally need help.
In the thread.
In the replying posts, there is mention of a discovered bug that could have resulted in most of the reported problems.
It is normal to want to discuss in order to check if that was the bug, in which case fixing the bug would have solved the issues.
Given that the bug is a well-known and inherent flaw of the technology used, I don't understand what good this would do. It's not enough to say "whoops, we didn't think the machine would do the thing the machine is known to do".
To fix the bug the architecture of the feature would have to be different, and that was completely obvious from the start.
Some grievances were vague. It doesn't follow our translation guidelines. What specific guidelines did it not follow? It doesn't respect current localization for Japanese users, so they were lost. What was not localized?
Mozilla's response should not be limited to clarifying these grievances. But it could have been all the staff member who responded could do.
Those would be the guidelines that all translation contributors are expected to follow, which are given to all prospective translators.
It sounds like Mozilla just turned on the machine without consulting the human translators to see if the machine actually worked in a useful manner.
> It sounds like Mozilla just turned on the machine without consulting the human translators to see if the machine actually worked in a useful manner.
Yes. And someone should make a real apology. But learning what the machine did wrong is part of fixing a machine.
Yes, that's why you engage with the people doing the work first and run it on a staging environment to see what would be overwritten. You test until it's working well enough to enhance the effort done by the translators.
Well, in this era Im not entirely sure the quality aspect is even considered. CEO wants AI? Then he will get it, so that the next earnings call can be bombastic!
Saving zero dollars and making the product worse is not important, only that there doesn’t seem to be a browser monopoly is.
And the fact that they didn't strongly suggests that they knew.
And someone should make a real apology. Which I said.
An apology? Mozilla is incapable of taking responsibility. What they will do is blaming someone else, probably the translators.
Not all machines deserve to exist
What, you mean that US companies should ask their local branches before pushing changes in every countries? /s
This happens all the time, in every US company I know. It's as if the Americans where entirely oblivious to the fact that the rest of the world exists.
Specifically which guidelines? Not a URL. Not hand wavey “oh you know the guidelines”. A text list of the guidelines that are not followed.
It might be more helpful to point out which guidelines it did follow. Humans are expected to read and obey these things - so presumably whoever deployed them will be aware and can demonstrate that they were followed.
These ones? https://github.com/mozilla-japan/translation/wiki/L10N-Guide...
Looking through that wiki there seems to be a lot of things that ML would get wrong.
Interestingly, it looks like some of the "bad examples" are precisely the kind of things ML would produce. Others are what non-native speakers would produce (starting with "あなたは" to translate a sentence starting by "you").
I'm sure some translators were using ML before it was integrated, and those guidelines are here in particular to tell them about those problems.
Also, ML is now really good to translate between European languages, but Japanese is very different in its structure so ML from English to Japanese is not as good. I'm sure some people who only know English/French/Spanish/German saw that ML is pretty good, and don't realize that for some other language it just doesn't work.
> Also, ML is now really good to translate between European languages
As somebody who has to regularly bear "German" machine-translated UIs and manuals that originate in English, I can only say: No, it's not. It's atrocious.
Best one was when gedit had the option to syntax highlight for a language named “Los.”
Not a bad name, to be honest!
lmao. This is a "research team and five years" task with current state of LLM.
Yes, but now that's the answer to questions like "how do we deploy AI without pissing off our communities?"
I have your answer: you provide a tool for your translators, you don't unleash a bot that makes changes left and right and creates new pages.
Typically, when a new page is written in English, don't automatically generate a version in all languages. When a translator starts creating the page in their language, provide a button to pre-fill with ML translation if they want to.
And for users, you can display the English version with a message, "this is not translated in your language yet but you can read an ML version if you want".
This sounds about right, and should be incorporated everywhere.
For reference: https://xkcd.com/1425/
I edited my comment to clarify I hope. Imagining what it could have done wrong and knowing what it did wrong are different.
Do you expect someone who has just watched a bot replace 20 years of their work, with no prior consultation or review, to now write a detailed post about how translations by the bot are not specifically wrong?
The core issue here is the way the bot was deployed. The fact that they had the poor taste to make it auto-replace articles written by their own volunteers is idiotic and disrespectful in the extreme. A new bot should work entirely in the back end, sending proposals for translations to the volunteers, who can choose to accept them or ignore them. Once the rate of acceptance is very high, for a specific individual language, then you might consider automating further.
And yes, this effort needs to be done for each language separately. Just because the bot works well in Italian doesn't in any way guarantee that it will work well in Japanese. Machine translation quality varies wildly by language, this is a well known and obvious fact.
This is Mozilla as usual, arrogant and tone deaf.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're exactly right.
The person replying is probably not an expert in this. But they want to get more details so they can figure out how to get it to the right people with more information.
This is how it's supposed to work.
* * *
> Same reason people here are taking "let's jump on a call" as some personal attack. Some people just like drama.
No, some of us can see into the future, because it flows from the past. When management shits on 20 years of work and breaks everything after not listening to your warnings, they don't suddenly start listening and understanding out of nowhere.
The market fit of your words matter and the non apology "sorry you feel that way" doesn't help. It's one of those gnarly phrases that only get used if you feel the need to act but in reality don't want to. Maybe the person is sincere his words are tainted by the overuse in shady corp responses. If you are engaging with your community you need to know this otherwise you'll always look like a clown.
Tools should work for their users. In this case, the bot should work (and be controlled by) the localization teams for each language.
If the bot has the power to overrule the volunteer translation teams, the entire power structure is wrong from the get go.
Or maybe it was just a poorly thought out piece of software that will get rolled back?
Saying "the entire power structure is wrong from the get go" is a huge conclusion to draw here. People write internal tools and make mistakes. Mistakes can be fixed.
I wonder if you and the person who replied really understands how you feel when you have been part of something over 20 years and see it destroyed by tone deaf changes to text. I have no idea how Sumobot works, but it is easy to see how Mozilla or an organization with top down "ship-it-fast" incentives can trample a community led project. This is really not a question of AI, the same thing happens with professional translators.
I have had to cooperate with coporate
I'm not really able to understand the finer details but I think I picked up enough to get the broad strokes.
Really though, all I needed to see was the phrase "jump on a quick call" to form an irrationally strong opinion. That phrase instantly warms my entire body with rage.
It wasn't mentioned in other replies, but "jump on a quick call" also means very strongly "let's move to a place with no public record and private participation where nobody else can join in".
Then later, if it comes up again, they can just say "well we discussed this in a call previously and decided it was best to do it anyway" cutting off discussion and not presenting the reasoning.
Exactly, never accept a switch to a private place when you're trying to gather attention on public matters. It could and it will be used against you later on.
Also a call is a place where we'll try and grind you down until you agree with us.
Just record the needing, have an ai transcription service take notes. Then there’s a record.
I’m not sure those who speak like that are equipped to understand how offensive their words and tone can be.
It suggests a decision can be reversed with a quick call, which questions one’s choices or conviction. As if to suggest the choice was made without considerable thought and care. It’s such an unserious tone to a moment that’s very serious to the other.
I think it's because it's almost never accompanied by "we may have fucked up, please help us understand how to fix it now and in the future".
It's almost always (like this time) "I'm sorry you feel that way, please spend more of your free time<EOF>", and sometimes (like this time) "[we're doing it anyway but maybe we'll make some changes]".
It feels insulting because it is insulting. The decision has been made, they just want to not feel bad about you being insulted.
Changing the medium to a private conversation also means not committing to any decision publicly for as long as possible. It feels like damage control and protecting your own image (the person posting with respect to their company) as opposed to addressing the real issue promptly and transparently.
Another reason in context of public forums is that it's dismissive of any concerns or questions raised: If a call would be sufficient, that implies they think that nobody else cares.
At some point, "quick calls" are used for discussions that they don't want a trace of.
So, even in the best "sorry we screwed up" scenario, the quick call covers their butt and let them leeway to backtrack as needed. That's also part of why we viscerally react to opaque meetings IMHO.
oh yes, completely agreed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831721
> As if to suggest the choice was made without considerable thought and care.
I guess it acts as a mirror of sorts though, because that's precisely how this decision appears to have been made in the first place. But it's clear that whoever represents Mozilla there is already assuming the fault lies with the person that just got kicked.
> It suggests a decision can be reversed with a quick call
Oh no, both parties understand that the call isn't open to the possibility of changing the decision, it's just to manage the emotions of the person who's being run over by it.
The first sentence of the top reply ("quick call") was already cunty:
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel ...
That may seem like an apology, but it's more a dismissing their issue as "that's a you problem".
To give them the benefit of doubt, English may not be their first language, so they might not be aware of the implication this comment gives.
It would be such irony if they asked GPT to reword it to a more polite tone though...
I used the "lets jump on a quick call" tactic once at work. Other party rejected it; they said they've made their position clear and didn't need to say anything more.
I was impressed. They actually did make their position clear, and in public, whereas I was trying to smooth things over in private. Me trying to influence and cajole behind the scenes was insult to the risk they took by putting themselves out there.
A good lesson in respect.
It's commendable you took the opportunity to reflect and learn from that experience. Great work, and thanks for having the integrity to share that experience with others.
Why?
It seems like someone who has no awareness of the problem, who wants to learn more about the problem, and the fastest way for both parties is over the phone ASAP rather than through a bunch of emails.
When software goes wrong, you need as much information as possible to figure it how to fix it.
>I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced. Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
- No apology
- No "we stopped the bot for now"
"We're sorry for how you feel" is enterprise for "we think you're whining". Maybe not what the person meant but how anyone is going to read it.
The original sin here is Mozilla just enabling this without any input from the active translation community.
This isn't a new problem, loads of Japanese translations from tech companies have been garbage for a while. People sticking things into machine translation, translators missing context so having absolutely nothing to go on. Circle CI, when they announced their Japan office, put out a statement that was _clearly_ written in English first, then translated without any effort of localization. Plenty of UIs just have "wrong text" in actions. etc etc.
Anyways the point is just that one side of this relationship here clearly cares about the problem way less, and _even when presented with that fact_, does not even pretend to be actually sorry for the damage they are causing.
> - No apology
- No "we stopped the bot for now"
"We're sorry for how you feel" is enterprise for "we think you're whining".
Anyways the point is just that one side of this relationship here clearly cares about the problem way less, and _even when presented with that fact_, does not even pretend to be actually sorry for the damage they are causing.
This is just a single initial reply from a "community support manager" in Indonesia. It's not from the Mozilla CEO or the leader of the project. They surely don't have the power to stop the bot. But what they can do is find it more over a call, and then who to escalate it to. Then maybe it does get turned off before it's fixed or changed.
You seem to be confusing someone in customer support with someone who holds power over entire projects. I don't understand how you think a customer support person should be able to just turn off software across the globe in response to a single short message on a forum with few details.
Huh, if you click through their link the person responding is also a "sumo administrator" and it's "sumobot" causing the issues. It seems entirely likely they are personally directly responsible for it.
Regardless they are representing the company. If they aren't the right person to respond - they should not have responded and kicked it up the chain/over the fence to the right person - instead of responding by offering to waste the complainants time on a call with someone you are asserting is not the right person to be handling this. Supposing you are correct about their position, it makes their response far worse, not better.
"SUMO" = SUpport.MOzilla.org. It's the name for the entire Mozilla support organization; everybody involved in the linked discussion is in this organization. It doesn't seem like this person is related to the bot. They are a "Locale Leader" for Indonesia, which is the same position this poster is resigning from (but for Japan). They seem to be peers.
So I'm a complete outsider, but they do not appear to be in the same position as the poster. They are marked as "Mozilla Staff" and "SUMO Administrator" (amongst many other things), neither of which the complainant is marked as.
It is true both they and the person they are responding to are marked as "SUMO Locale Leaders"... but it seems rather clear from the context that is not the role they are inhabiting in their (non) apology and request for a "quick call" with the complainant.
The language they use is certainly not the language a peer would be expected to use either.
Thanks for that info--I think you're right and I'm wrong. I didn't see the group memberships before but now I see that the replier is far more involved in SUMO. I had only seen that they were both locale leaders and that the replier was a staff member from the tag on the post.
CS comms are tricky, I agree! You have to reply to stuff, often before you have any form of full picture. Just think you gotta be careful then, and the message they posted was not good on that front.
I do get what you're saying, and it's not like I think the CSM should be fired for the message. I just think it's bad comms.
Here are some alternative choices:
- post nothing, figure out more internally (community support is also about vouching for people!)
- post something more personal like "Thank you for posting this. I'm looking into who is working on this bot to get this information in front of them". Perhaps not allowed by Mozilla's policies
- Do some DMing (again, more personal, allowing for something direct)
But to your point... it's one person's message, and on both sides these are likely people where English isn't their native language. I'm assuming that community support managers are paid roles at mozilla, but maybe not.
And like... yeah, at one point you go into whatever company chat and you start barking up the chain. That's the work
They are the person who announced the bot would be rolled out. If the person who announced the rollout isn't either the leader of the project or someone who can push for changes to it, then that's already totally against the community.
Second, this "community support forum" isn't just a corporate help desk. It's a forum for community supporters of Mozilla, an open source organisation for which community contributions are hugely important. Mozilla can't just fuck over parts of it's community and expect that to be business as usual.
It is well known passive aggressive corporate phrase to shut people up. Who it is used by is largely irrelevant, it almost always means the same thing.
It's also well-known language from product managers and UX researchers trying to gather data to improve their product. And well-known language from customer support people trying to gather more information in order to escalate to the right people who can help.
Your knee-jerk cynicism saddens me. If someone doesn't want to help, they generally just ignore. They generally don't suggest hopping on a call ASAP. When they want to call you is when they're taking it seriously.
> It's also well-known language from product managers and UX researchers trying to gather data to improve their product. And well-known language from customer support people trying to gather more information in order to escalate to the right people who can help.
No it is not. The particular phrasing that was used I have never seen used in any other way than to be dismissive towards people.
> Your knee-jerk cynicism saddens me.
My cynicism isn't knee jerk, My cynicism stems from roughly 20 years working as a developer, being in and observing the industry.
> If someone doesn't want to help, they generally just ignore. They generally don't suggest hopping on a call ASAP. When they want to call you is when they're taking it seriously.
Not if it gets noticed and talked about on forums. It is then used as damage control.
If you're never seen it used to be helpful, I don't know that to tell you. I have, all the time, and it seems entirely normal and unremarkable.
> My cynicism stems from roughly 20 years working as a developer
That saddens me. It seems like you've worked at some rough places, I'm sorry. But they're not all like that, and I wish you could see that.
> Not if it gets noticed and talked about on forums. It is then used as damage control.
I don't see how it's going to work as damage control. Can you explain how? Either it helps resolve things (good), or it doesn't and people keep complaining in the thread. I don't see any scenario where it controls damage. Damage control is things like locking a thread or shadowbanning. Not offering to call.
I'm really sorry you see everything through such a cynical lens.
> If you're never seen it used to be helpful, I don't know that to tell you. I have, all the time, and it seems entirely normal and unremarkable.
I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation. If you aren't used to dealing with it, you will take the comment on face value, if you are like me that had to deal with it most of my life, you won't.
> That saddens me. It seems like you've worked at some rough places, I'm sorry. But they're not all like that, and I wish you could see that.
I got paid well enough. I prefer to be a gun for hire and deal with the reality. I actually prefer these environments, I can assume everyone around me is a snake.
> I don't see how it's going to work as damage control. Can you explain how? Either it helps resolve things (good), or it doesn't and people keep complaining in the thread. I don't see any scenario where it controls damage. Damage control is things like locking a thread or shadowbanning. Not offering to call.
I am sure other people have explained this to you. However it is extremely simple.
1) Feign concern. This fools enough people so it gets quieted down.
2) Call up, pretend to care, person calms down as they feel like things are being addressed.
3) Do nothing.
4) It gets forgotten about, person that initially instigated complaint doesn't bother following up.
> I'm really sorry you see everything through such a cynical lens.
I don't see everything through a cynical lens. I see communications of this type as cynically because they have almost always been disingenuous.
> I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation.
I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
> I actually prefer these environments, I can assume everyone around me is a snake.
Again, I'm really sorry. That's a very, very sad thing.
> I am sure other people have explained this to you. However it is extremely simple.
This process you're describing doesn't make any sense. People who are quitting a volunteer position don't get fooled. They're not going to feel like things are being addressed if they aren't. They tend not to forget, but rather tell others, write long blog posts, share them on social media, etc. If the phone call doesn't try to address things but just ignores them in a call, it only adds fuel to the fire. It wouldn't be a good strategy.
> I see communications of this type as cynically because they have almost always been disingenuous.
And I'm sorry. If you think an offer to delve into a complaint over the phone to get more information is a cynical ploy, I really am sorry. It seems like there's nothing that could convince you someone is really trying to help, because of the lens you're choosing to interpret everything through. And because of the lens you've chosen, it seems self-reinforcing, which makes it extra-sad.
> I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
No I am not. I don't appreciate being gas-lite about this.
How this office politik is used is covered in blogs, covered on YouTube. My parents, friends and colleagues are aware of it. Maybe you need to open your eyes.
> Again, I'm really sorry. That's a very, very sad thing.
Stop apologising, I find it patronising and insincere, even if that isn't your intention.
BTW. I've done the best work under those circumstances, I got paid a lot and it made me HTFU, which helps with personal growth.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/HTFU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile_(book)
> This process you're describing doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense. You are assuming they care if the get a small amount of negative press about it. They don't.
This will be forgotten about within a week, even by most people commenting even here.
> And I'm sorry. If you think an offer to delve into a complaint over the phone to get more information is a cynical ploy, I really am sorry. It seems like there's nothing that could convince you someone is really trying to help, because of the lens you're choosing to interpret everything through. And because of the lens you've chosen, it seems self-reinforcing, which makes it extra-sad.
Firstly. Speaking to me like this is quite honestly patronising. I am quite capable of doing value free analysis.
Secondly, The sort of language people are complaining about almost always been used as a way to deflect valid criticism back on person making the critique. Almost always for disingenuous reasons. Feigning concern about my cynicism doesn't change that fact.
In any event I am tired of being patronised by you.
>>> I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation.
>> I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
> No I am not. I don't appreciate being gas-lite about this.
It's not gaslighting to simply disagree. So please don't throw around accusations like that. Subtext is by definition open to interpretation.
I wasn't trying to be patronizing, and I certainly wasn't "feigning concern". Again, that's the response of a cynic who refuses to believe that sincerity and good intentions are possible. But you are making it clear you don't want to continue the conversation so that's fine.
I did previous work on a product where there was intended to be a message in many languages saying “call XXX for help in (language name)” but they’d obviously used “English” in the text to be translated as several of the translations into Asian languages literally said to call the number for help in English. I raised this and got nobody to care.
From my read, the software didn't go wrong. It did exactly what they intended it to -- machine translations replaced handwritten translations provided by community volunteers. Seems like a pretty big middle finger to those volunteers.
The lead realized that Mozilla doesn't care about their opinion (they did this without discussing with them) nor do they care about the work they were doing (by replacing their work with machine translations). A "quick call" doesn't solve this.
Those are a huge number of assumptions you're making, absolutely none of which are in the post.
Generally speaking, orgs aren't trying to replace high-quality human translations with lower-quality machine translations. They are often trying to put machine translations in where there are no translations, though. Getting the balance right requires fine-tuning. And fine-tuning requires a quick call to start to better understand the issues in more detail.
> Generally speaking, orgs aren't trying to replace high-quality human translations with lower-quality machine translations.
Seems that this is exactly what Mozilla did? And Microsoft, and Reddit, etc.
Correct.
Companies are absolutely falling over themselves to replace high quality human translations with lower quality machine translation. I’m not sure how a hacker news poster could miss this trend.
A hacker news poster is very likely to consume the original English text and never encounter anything else, regardless of whether it's human-translated or not. Just like the people who make these decisions in the first place
> Generally speaking, orgs aren't trying to replace high-quality human translations with lower-quality machine translations.
How would you handle updates to an article? Would you blindly replace all existing translations or would you notify the maintainers and wait for them to get around to it?
I wouldn't be surprised if orgs blindly opted for the first, which also means that a single spelling correction would be enough to overwrite days of work.
Hence why I said "from my read". This is how I view the situation, and why the lead is reacting the way they are.
> They are often trying to put machine translations in where there are no translations, though.
And at what point are all of the translations done by machines and the work the community is doing no longer needed? At the very least, the nature of their work will change and I think they're not interested in participating anymore.
(Unlike GP) I don't actually have a problem with your assumptions. They seem likely to me. But I still have a problem with the whole sentiment of, uh, people on your side of the discussion.
Let's just assume it is how you say it is. (The only assumption I am not willing to make is that people at Mozilla are already convinced it was a bad idea after all.) What in your opinion would be the right move now, after they rolled this bullshit auto-translator out and pissed off a lot of people in the community, including a major contributor for the last 20 years? Surely they could just ignore him and go on with this auto-translation initiative (BTW, thay don't even have to worry about whatever he wants to "prohibit" to do with his translations, because he waived off his rights by posting them). Would it be better than trying to set up a call and discuss things, try to find some compromise, gather a number of recommendations she may then pass onto people working on the auto-translator initiative (because surely this Kiki person, whoever she is, is not the sole person responsible for this and cannot magically just fix the situation)?
I'm not sure if just this individual is upset, or if he's speaking on behalf of the entire community he's the leader of.
I think it's clear that Mozilla wants machine translation to take a bigger role in producing localized content, and this new process will be a large shift in the way things have been done. I think it's fair for Mozilla to do this, but I also think it's fair for the maintainer to be upset with this decision and no longer want to volunteer his time to clean up slop.
The initial response feels premature and tone deaf which is why people are irked by it.
Given that Mozilla "shot first" so to speak, the onus is on them to take action first e.g. disable the bot, revert changes to articles, etc. Only after doing this can discussion on a path forward happen.
There is no such person as "Mozilla". There is Kiki, a "Support Community Manager", probably a relatively low-level worker (but it doesn't matter much if she is actually has some weight in the organization). So, you are Kiki. You just saw that message. What do you do now? Just ignore it? Do not respond anything and immediately call the CEO and try to convince him/her that he/she must order to disable that auto-translation bot, without even trying to gather more information? No onuses and stuff, what are your actions, exactly?
Because a lot of people in this thread are whin… ahem, expressing their discontent with Mozilla, as we all usually do, but I've yet to see anybody to propose anything realistic at all, let alone better than ask an offended community member for a call and at least to try to talk it through and establish what could be some actionable steps to remedy the situation.
Kiki's profile says "Mozilla Staff", "Staff" and "SUMO Administrators".
> What in your opinion would be the right move now, after they rolled this bullshit auto-translator out and pissed off a lot of people in the community
In Japan? Sincere appology followed by resignation.
No, the Japanese absolutely do not set up a call to discuss things after you've scerwed and disrespected them. They respectfully give you the cold shoulder.
Mozilla should not be surprised if their market share dwindles in Japan after this.
> Would it be better than trying to set up a call and discuss things, try to find some compromise
Are you serious? First, make a decision without consulting anyone, foist it on people that don't want it, then 'try to find a compromise'? If you care about people, you consult them before you make a decision, not after they've been burnt by it.
How do you know they didn't consult anyone?
There many, many translating teams. When they designed this, it would be normal to consult with some of them. Not every single one. Maybe they sent some plans to every team and many of the teams never read them. Maybe the plans were hard to understand.
People aren't perfect. Setting up a call to discuss things is how you start to fix things.
and actually understanding their contributors would require a lot more than a fucking "quick call"
that's the problem. stop thinking about the org and think about the person. these are volunteers who feel taken advantage of, being met with corporate jargon
fly out and take him to dinner if you actually give a shit. or write a check. a "quick call" is so insulting
What are you talking about?
A quick call is a courteous first step. The other person might not have time for a long call, so you want to show you're respecting their time. Then you follow it up with a longer meeting with the relevant engineer and manager, etc. "Taking someone to dinner" is not the first step here. The way to show you care is by trying to understand the situation before anything else.
There is no world in which this is insulting.
No, a quick call is not a courteous first step when someone tells you that you've destroyed 20 years of their work and they no longer want to have anything to do with you.
Suggesting that such an offence can be resolved by a "quick call" is extraordinarily disrespectful. A courteous first step would have been to apologise profusely, revert the damage that the bot did, and ask to set up a call to discuss what it might take to re-enable it in the future.
This is NOT the leader of the new transition tool! This is just a customer service manager in Indonesia who is trying to gather more information.
The steps that you describe might well be taken after the "quick call" gathers more information and figures out the people to escalate it to.
You are being entirely unreasonable in what you are demanding. This isn't a response from the Mozilla CEO. This is sometime in customer service, responding to a short post in a forum. Their response is entirely appropriate as a first step.
If she doesn't have responsibility for this, she just shouldn't respond. The transition team should have responded. Or, she could have responded with "I'm contacting the transition team leader to escalate your issues as soon as possible" or similar. There is absolutely no excuse for responding to someone who has announced that they are quitting over very explicit grievances with "let's hop on a call to get some details". If ever there is a time to escalate, it is this.
To escalate, you need to have a better idea of the issues to know who to escalate to. Plus this is turning into a personal issue (quitting) so a forum isn't appropriate for that part. Asking to talk on the phone is a perfectly reasonable, appropriate, and sensitive way to find out more and figure out how to most helpfully address things. A phone call is the first step in escalation. I honestly don't understand your negative read here. Things don't get 100% addressed immediately in a single exchange. Communication is a back and forth process and this is an entirely appropriate initial response from a customer service manager.
The way to show you care is by having a meeting of the minds before you shove your changes in their face. The fact that the deployment was done carelessly demonstrates disregard.
I doubt "take them out to dinner" is the right solution in this situation, but any attempt at redressal must understand the above point and acknowledge it publicly.
"Ask for forgiveness rather than permission" is far from universally true, and carries massive cultural baggage. You cannot operate within that framework and expect all humans to cooperate with you.
It is absolutely insulting. The manager/administrator doesn't apologise, but instead is "sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel". They are dismissive of the concerns as just a "quick call" is proposed, in a short response to a detailed message.
Had I been thrown in this situation:
"Dear Marsf,
I'm sorry that sumobot was introduced to the Japanese SUMO community without consultation. I have disabled it, and the development team are working to undo the changes it has made. We will revert articles to how they were on 21 October. Contributions made since then by the Japanese community could be retained in the staging system, where they can be approved or rejected. Please let me know whether you would like this, or would prefer them to be discarded returning the whole system to the 21 October.
We very much appreciate the Japanese SUMO community's contributions and your work as locale leader, and we hope it can continue. Sumobot will remain disabled on the Japanese translation. If, with some changes, it could be useful to you, we can discuss that here, or schedule a meeting if you prefer.
Thank you"
In this exact situation, before sending I'd check it with my Japanese colleague.
This follows an offense, and the insult is the implication that the offense is trivial.
[dead]
The thing about English language is that, just like Japanese, it's highly contextual and has different constructs for expressing different level of respect. The problem is, English speakers are completely unaware of this, so either they get it right based on intuition, or they fuck up. In this case, the guy used "I'm your superior and you'll do what I say" mode, while the appropriate mode would've been "oh shit I'm sorry how do I fix this".
But he fairly in depth described the problem and his reasoning for why it is a problem. There's nothing really to "jump on a quick call" about without actually first addressing the issues. Plus it just sounds, for lack of a better term, retarded. First off, in comparison to basically any other communication, calls aren't quick. Much less the one that you have to schedule around time zones. Calls require focused attention which if you are used to multi-tasking are a huge drain. Secondly I don't really feel like going too deep, but the use of the verb jump is like a bludgeon to the frontal lobe of anyone that's had to spend time listening to buzzword heavy C-suite speeches when they could have been doing their actual work.
Very bill lumbergh energy.
Quite. "We may have made a mistake, would you be open to discuss this with us either through email or a call at your preference?" would work a lot better in this setting.
> But he fairly in depth described the problem and his reasoning for why it is a problem. There's nothing really to "jump on a quick call" about without actually first addressing the issues.
No, he didn't. I'll repeat a comment I made elsewhere:
The problems are nowhere near actionable. A lot more information is needed. E.g. literally the first bullet: "It doesn't follow our translation guidelines". OK -- where are those guidelines? Is there a way to get it to follow them, like another commenter says works? Does the person need help following the process for that? Or is there a bug? Etc.
These are the things a call can clarify. It's the necessary first step, so why are people complaining?
> Calls require focused attention which if you are used to multi-tasking are a huge drain.
Solving important problems requires focused attention. Which is why you get on calls to solve them when they're urgent and important, and not something that can be multitasked.
I think you misunderstood what people are taking issue with. You explain that this matter is complicated and non-trivial - and yes, that’s exactly the point!
People don’t have a problem with real-time communication via audio or video in general. They have a problem with the suggestion that it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call."
The point about there being a "fairly in-depth" description of the issues isn’t that there’s nothing more to discuss - fixing those issues would obviously require talking through the specifics. The point is that this is a real problem that requires action and commitment, so suggesting it’s a non-issue that can be clarified with “a quick call” comes off as dismissive and unproductive, whether that’s intentional or not.
> it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call."
Where are you getting this from? Nowhere is it suggested that a quick call will resolve it. You're inventing that. The actual text is:
> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
This is the first step towards fixing something. Understanding it.
The idea that this is dismissive or unproductive is frankly absurd.
It is dismissive.
"Your AI just deleted 20 years of my hard work"
"Let's hop on a quick call so we can truly understand what you're struggling with".
The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all and the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions.
This is the kind of reply you'd get if you contacted Dell tech support because your computer is not turning on.
> "Your AI just deleted 20 years of my hard work"
I assume it didn't. I can't imagine it's not versioned.
> The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all
Offering to escalate to a phone call immediately seems to acknowledge the severity to me. Not really sure what you want here. The person came in with complaints, the response is to dig into them over the phone. That's ideal.
> the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions.
This is a bizarre interpretation. I read it as validating that the person is having a rough time. There is zero indication of whose fault it is, or that it has anything to do with intelligence. That's coming from you, not the text. The fact that you are reading empathetic wording as an insult to someone's intelligence baffles me.
If I take the time to organize my thoughts and present them, I want the person to whom I'm presenting them to attempt to respond.
If I failed to make myself clear, at a minimum, presenting me with a list of things needing clarification is helpful for me to take the time to prepare.
"Hop on a call" is to me almost always shorthand for "I don't respect the issue enough to attempt to organize my thoughts ahead of time, but I'll ramble about it and let you pick my brain." Or in the most malicious cases, the other party is seeking plausible deniability.
In my experience it's not that way 100% of the time, but it's damn close.
> the fastest way for both parties is over the phone ASAP rather than through a bunch of emails
I feel that's subjective. Personally, I both receive and distribute information much more efficiently via written text.
Text also has the added bonus of being redistributable which is extremely valuable in collaborative scenarios.
> the fastest way for both parties is over the phone ASAP rather than through a bunch of emails
I don't disagree with your statement, but I read the sentence: "Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further?" with a similar gross reaction as the OP comment did.
Reading that in response to Marsf's original message of airing grievances and feelings of disrespect towards his work felt entirely tone-deaf and corporate in nature. Especially in context of this being in response to the Japanese team, where Japanese business communication norms are often at odds with the American standard.
You might think that this method of communication is inefficient, but the heart of the matter seems that the Japanese team finds the very emphasis on efficiency as disrespectful when it comes at the cost of the human element of respect.
> felt entirely tone-deaf and corporate in nature. Especially in context of this being in response to the Japanese team
The person is a "Support Community Manager" in Indonesia if you click on their link. They're not the CEO of Mozilla who is supposed to be an expert in intercultural communication. I think you're being kind of harsh on someone who is presumably not high-level and just trying to do their job and get more information to be helpful.
> The person is a "Support Community Manager" in Indonesia if you click on their link. They're not the CEO of Mozilla who is supposed to be an expert in intercultural communication.
This is completely backwards. The CEO is not expected to manage intercultural communication. You know whose job that is? The community manager.
The community manager for Indonesia wouldn't be expected to manage communication with Japan, but managing local contributors is absolutely a job for the community manager and not the CEO.
> This is completely backwards. The CEO is not expected to manage intercultural communication. You know whose job that is? The community manager.
Sorry, you're wrong. Intercultural communication is very much a core skill for the CEO of a global organization. They're expected to know how to communicate appropriately so some international deal doesn't get torpedoed due to a faux pas.
> The community manager for Indonesia wouldn't be expected to manage communication with Japan
Right. So on that, we agree.
Even if not a high level, then s/he had to learn that style of communication from peers in the corp, and the tone is set by managers. It's entirely OK to blame someone who has title “Manager”.
The style of communication seems perfectly fine to me. It's acknowledging there's a problem, apologizing as much as they can before they have the real facts, and offering to communicate over the phone to figure out what's really going on. I honestly don't know what more you want from someone who is a customer service manager. Not the leader of the team who built the translation product.
The problem is, its false to insist that the manager does not have real facts. The facts have been stated by OP in the first post in the thread, and while the statement can be true or false, it's not like it's not there. The responder should have listened and evaluated this, possibly with consultation with PM of the feature, and just by this response we can assume s/he just didn't listen.
Moreover, OP chose the very thread as the venue, and attempting to switch it to a different, intransparent one is a disservice to the community. Community is very important context of this message, and the response seems to validate the proposition that it's really the end of it, per the subject of the thread.
"quick call?" in corporatespeak means "I believe our disagreement to be a minor misunderstanding that can be clarified in a few minutes of conversation"
In a company you should never ever "quick call" someone (especially on a group forum) who has presented a genuine list of grievances against whatever you're doing, unless you're subtly trying to pull rank to override those grievances.
He didn't say "quick call". Here is what he said:
> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
You're right. I misquoted, and that was an error on my part. While I regret the error, I don't feel the word "quick" really changes the sentiment too much. It certainly doesn't change my visceral response.
A person who has no awareness of the problem should not be the first responder in cases like this, that's just a recipe for further escalation.
I am fascinated by the nuanced opinions people have about word choice. What phrase would you use to ask someone to discuss a matter, but which you feel would be more appropriate for this kind of situation?
My guess would be the anger comes from implication that is a possible solution at all. This type of “hop on a call” request is not usually actually designed to “truly understand what you're struggling with.” (words from the post)
Instead it is usually a PR tactic. The goal of the call requester is to get your acquiescence. Most people are less likely to be confrontational and stand up for themselves when presented with a human - voice, video, or in person. So, the context of a call makes it much more likely for marsf to backpedal from their strongly presented opinion without gaining anything.
This is a common sleazy sales tactic. The stereotypical overly aggressive car salesman would much rather speak to you in person than via email even though the same information can be conveyed. It is also used in PR and HR situations to grind out dissenters, so it comes off in this context as corporate and impersonal.
It's also often a way to avoid saying things in public, in writing, that normal people would be upset about.
If they truly think they're in the right, they can discuss it in public, like the poster already did.
> The stereotypical overly aggressive car salesman would much rather speak to you in person than via email even though the same information can be conveyed.
There might be an element of personality there. I was texting with a real estate agent (for apartment rental, not purchase) in China once, when he decided that as long as we were talking he might as well call me. He didn't bother mentioning this to me beforehand.
Of course, all I could do was hang up on him. It's not like I could understand what he said. And I don't think that was especially difficult to foresee.
So he wasted some time and seriously annoyed me in the most predictable way possible. Why? Not for any reason specific to the situation. Maybe there's emphatic training somewhere that says "always call". Or maybe the type of people who become salesmen have a deep, deep instinct to call.
I've been a typical IT person for a very long time. In the last few years, I got into contact with salespeople, by being basically a sales engineer.
And I've learned that there is a reason to make a call besides the publicity aspect: A call (and I mean call with voice and possibly video) forces immediacy. It puts both parties on the spot. Or rather just the party being called, because hopefully the caller did prepare for the call. Also, this immediacy enables rash and uninformed decisions, whereas asynchronous communications enable more deliberation and research. In sales, you don't want deliberation. You want to get this over quick and easy. And if you've dealt with a long long email chain that goes back and forth quibbling over minutiae, a call can reduce this kind of indecisiveness and inhibition.
So I see this whole thing as insulting in even more ways: A "quick" call means that it is an unprepared one. Also emphasized by the lack of real topic or agenda beyond what the original post already stated. No way forward for the other party that is possible to prepare for. No prior chain of communications, so if the call is really the first reaction in the first short email, this means "you are unimportant, I don't want to waste time, let's get this over with".
Also, in many cultures (I've only had to deal with European ones, so no idea if this really applies to the rest of the world), setting a stage is important. There is a cultural meaning to CC-ing a manager, to inviting more people than necessary to a meeting, or to do things publically or in private. A bigger stage formalizes things, gives importance, emphasizes seriousness. A smaller, private stage can mean the opposite: you might want the other party so safe face, because what you are going to tell more informally them is that they fucked up. You might want to get them to agree to something they could not easily agree to in public. Announcing publically, that there should be a private meeting is the worst of all kinds: Basically, this signals to the public that this person fucked up and is getting scolded, more serious than a totally private scolding, less serious than a totally public one. Why else would you widely announce a private meeting invite?
I don't know if the resignation in the original article is really a final resignation or rather some kind of cultural signal. I've seen that kind of drama used as means to an end, just think of the stereotypical italian lovers' discussion where both are short of throwing each other off the balcony, just to get very friendly a minute later. But in any case, whether it is deliberate drama or a genuine resignation, the necessary reaction has to be similar: You need to treat it as if it were a real resignation publically and respond with all the usual platitudes that they are very valuable, you are so sorry to see them go and you'd do almost anything to keep them. Then you privately meet in private and find out which one it is, and maybe fix things. It is a dance, and you have to do the right steps. If you don't know the right ones, at least think hard (you have the time, it is email) on how not to step on any toes. The Mozilla people failed in that...
I think the complaint people are voicing in the HN thread is fairly straightforward, but it's being phrased in many different ways because the concept isn't viewed positively in American culture: Kiki, in her attempt to respond, has used an inappropriate level of linguistic formality.
More specifically, she's used a level of formality below what would be appropriate for most communication between strangers. Someone speaking in an official capacity (almost anywhere) who went much more informal than that would be at serious risk of getting fired. There's a similar effect to what was complained about in this meme tweet: https://xcancel.com/cherrikissu/status/972524442600558594
> Can websites please stop the trend of giving error messages that are like "OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!"
Forced cheerfulness and fictional intimacy are a bad call as a response to "after having 20 years of contributions overridden without warning, we can no longer work with you". That's true regardless of whether the complaint is meant as a dramatic opener to a negotiation or as a severing of relations.
Are we reading too much into one sentence? HN comments dese days
No, we aren't.
It was this exact part of the conversation that touched me negatively too. marsf expresses some very valid criticism that, instead of being publicly addressed, is being handled by "let's discuss it privately". This always means that they don't want to discuss, they just want to shut you down.
I don’t think so. Working in tech with many busy people, I say “hop on a call”, but only in “let’s sync live, it’ll be faster” situations.
This stuck out to me as rude. I would never say that to someone on my team who expressed serious concerns, far less than this person quitting after years of dedication.
I would offer an apology, explanation, and follow up questions to understand more in public, then say I’m happy to set up time to talk privately if they would like to or feel more comfortable.
> This stuck out to me as rude.
Very much so, and I'm German ;)
In my experience, and in my feeling as someone reading such things, you need to tone-match. The resignation message was somewhat formal, structured and serious in tone. Replying in such an informal tone means that you are not taking things seriously, which is insulting. Even more so because that informal answer is public.
I'm tone-deaf by culture and by personality. I often make those kinds of mistakes. But a public resignation like this is a brightly flashing warning light saying: "this needs a serious formal answer".
What about the reply in the link indicates to you that the person has empathy for marsf’s complaints and is willing to change anything at Mozilla in response to them?
For the reasons I stated above, the response comes off as faking understanding to manage a PR issue rather than genuine empathy and possible negotiation, but I am often wrong about many things.
I mean, its right and also not the only sentence too.
'We're sorry you feel this way' implies that this is the fault of the person that feels that way, not of the party that made them feel that way. Given the very clear message this was entirely uncalled for. This is not the kind of feeling that goes away by being talked down to like that, it might go away after a reversal of a very bad policy decision and a very sincere apology about a mistake that was made and even then the damage is severe enough that I would not be surprised if the person that was slighted decided to stick to their decision.
'I'm sorry for how you feel' is in the same class as 'I'm sorry if my words hurt you'. They are both classes of non-apologies.
'I'm sorry that our actions caused such distress' come a bit closer to being a true apology.
Importantly, 'if' was changed to 'that'.
Asking someone to "hop on a call" is phrasing you use with someone you are close with, not someone whose work you've just destroyed and is no longer interested in a relationship with you.
The fact that the preceding apology was absolutely awful does not help. "I'm sorry for how you feel" is wrong, since nobody asked them to react to "feelings" but the clearly delineated problems with the automation that Mozilla rolled out.
Asking to discuss something like this over synchronous voice comms is basically asking to go off the record and handle things privately. Sometimes that's appropriate, but if that's what the correspondant wanted they would have asked for it.
These three things combine to tell anyone who is paying attention that this is damage control, not meaningful engagement, and it's offensive to act this way toward someone who has put this much time into your project.
It’s really not a word choice thing (though it’s definitely the favorite word choice of orgs who are committed to not doing anything about it).
It’s that the complaint is descriptive on 5 or so actual problems and a couple of impacts that stem from them and the response doesn’t address any of them, it just looks like an attempt to take this issue out of the public space.
I suspect GP has had negative experiences with that specific phrase, "hop on a [quick] call", hence their "irrational rage". I also hate seeing that phrase at work:
1. "Hop" and "quick" suggests very simple matters, so to text-based people like me it doesn't really make sense why we wouldn't be able to resolve this matter asynchronously over text.
1b. Alternatively, the matter isn't actually trivial, so we should've had a proper meeting with other stakeholders instead of the caller debating me solo in a "quick" call.
2. I'm in the middle of something important or just hit my stride, and the caller is completely derailing my train of thought instead of just scheduling a meeting.
2b. The worst outcome is when I agree to "hop on", but the caller has gone AFK within 5 minutes of sending their invitation, so I'm just quietly seething by myself in the call.
3. The caller and I can't understand each other's accents so I'm trying to accommodate for the both of us by communicating through text, and I find it difficult to bring this incompatibility up without getting fired. I also had a caller who always whispered at his laptop mic so I had to turn up the subwoofers to have a chance of understanding him.
But we should point out that "quick" doesn't exist in Kiki's message. I think that goes back to point #1 about how the specific word "hop" can imply that the issue is trivial. Or maybe we're all going insane over unnecessary ad-hoc meetings.
Unrelated: I hate to appear anti-remote work, but I've noticed that remote workers tend to send more of these ad-hoc invitations, even more than getting tapped on the shoulder in the office. Are you all doing well out there?
It appears we're kindred spirits. I identify with every one of your points.
I'd add the following at an even higher priority than those you shared:
0. Folks whose first, and often only, reply to text comms is "quick call?" are often just unwilling/unable to organize their own thoughts and instead seek to offload the cognitive load by "talking through" the issue which just results in unproductive and circular discussions.
> Unrelated: I hate to appear anti-remote work, but I've noticed that remote workers tend to send more of these ad-hoc invitations, even more than getting tapped on the shoulder in the office. Are you all doing well out there?
I chortled at this! I have made the same observation and I have the same question.
With regards to your last point - in-person, you have more opportunities to connect with people at times that they're clearly not in the middle of something. Whether that's at the coffee machine, or right after a meeting, or just by reading their body language to see if they're concentrating.
When you're remote, you don't have that context, so everything you need from somebody has to be either scheduled (with the overhead and delay that entails), or potentially randomizing. When you need 5 minutes of somebody's time, it can be hard to do that in a respectful way. (Personally, I do try to do a "do you have some time today that we could talk about X," and try to handle stuff over text with coworkers who prefer text.)
"I'm sorry for how you feel about it" isn't exactly an empathetic opening stance
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831614 jack1243star pointed out the possibility that English might not be Kiki's first language and they perhaps even have used ChatGPT to make the comment sound more polite.
It is a passive aggressive dismissal.
The right thing to do is undo what you did and then ask to talk about it. There is nothing the person can say to make up for the destructive effects they took.
> What phrase would you use to ask someone to discuss a matter, but which you feel would be more appropriate for this kind of situation?
The only thing to ask for here are some clarifications and expanded explanations so that the original text does not get misunderstood. If the Mozilla representative does see such potential points he can perfectly ask for them publicly.
I mean, almost anything would be better. But here's my swing:
After you fuck up and before you ask to discuss the matter, you APOLOGIZE!
There is nothing you can do, because you already traded away the community for your AI project and money. The same corpo goons who don't see anything past their slop projects are the one who use the "jump on a quick call" lingo
Jump on a quick call to discuss further? I want to fully make sure I understand your question.
It's actually the "We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with" which ignores the whole original post that did it for me.
I always read "call?" as, "I won't bother trying to understand what you took the time to present, can you craft a tailored summary for me, then intepret my own ramblings and figure our how to apply that to what you are saying?"
I also agree. For me it was “sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel…”
“Sorry for your feelings” comes off as dismissive and avoiding taking ownership for the lost work and years of volunteer contributions.
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831614 jack1243star pointed out the possibility that English might not be Kiki's first language and they perhaps even have used ChatGPT to make the comment sound more polite.
Making a comment sound more polite should be done by addressing the other person correctly and respectfully, and making sure that you are actually responding to the issues that have been raised. When whatever you wrote is so completely offensive and disrespectful, asking ChatGPT to make it sound more polite will undoubtedly make it worse. Like writing "Sorry, not sorry", when the content of your message clearly conveys that you're "Not sorry". It only adds to the disdain of your original message, putting even more emphasis on the fact that you are wasting the recipients time and patience while refusing to show any remorse.
Agree. "what you're struggling with" did it for me.
Shoot first, jump on a quick call later.
Yeah it’s a strange request. No acknowledgment or even indication that the other person understands the issues raised.
And they’re happy to eat up more of that person’s time, probably ask them to explain all over again. Also it seems they don’t think it is worth a long call… just a quick one.
I think a phone call can be better for resolving a conflict because it allows a more rapid back and forth, you can adapt in real time to how the other person is responding. If someone gets upset about some word choice like here, you can quickly say "I'm sorry I didn't mean it like that" and get back to the actual topic over how the work should be organized instead of some superficial detail.
In the end it may boil down to some strong hatred for AI, this seems to be very common recently and "I prohibit to use all my translation as learning data for SUMO bot and AIs" certainly points that way. If that is the root cause then it may be impossible to resolve to the satisfaction of both sides.
> Hi Marsf,
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced. Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
> My timezone is UTC+7, so it should be easier for us to set up time. Let me know how that sound!
What a horribly condescending and patronising response. If I'd received this it would just further vindicate my decision to quit.
As someone from the Netherlands I read absolutely 0 condescending or patronising behaviour in this.
It just looks like someone trying to get in contact and help out. I could've written this myself, genuinely trying to help.
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced.
English is also not my mother tongue, but this translates to "I'm sorry you feel like that, but we don't care or change anything, can I call you to convince you into doing things our way while completely being off the record?" in my mind.
This is forceful and rude in my culture, but it's very rude and a no-no in Japanese culture AFAIK.
If the person wanted to help genuinely, I'd expect to read something like "I'm sorry you feel like this. I read your comments but I want to clarify some points so I can transfer these up the chain with utmost clarity. We might have made some mistakes and don't want to leave you out in the cold".
This reaction baffles me and feels like online indignation culture. All I could see, as a Latin American English speaker, is someone who's sincerely trying to help and picked their words carefully. Your proposed phrasing sounds unnatural and AI-like.
This is exactly what cultural difference looks like. What sounds rude here sounds perfectly fine over there.
While I have written that comment somewhat quickly, that's not AI at all, I can assure you about that. :)
You're touching the heart of the question, but not in the way you think. Any arbitrary statement could be construed as offensive by SOME culture out there. But people prefer to immediately assume the worst and be offended instead of giving others the benefit of the doubt.
For instance, if I followed the principles of indignation culture, I could be offended by your "I can assure you about that :)" statement. I could say "Are you making fun of me?!?!"
To be clear, your statement is perfectly fine. I understand what you're saying, despite disagreeing.
Also, this happened in an English language forum. It's reasonable to expect that foreign speakers would be somewhat versed in the conventions of the English language and see that the comment was not offensive at all.
It's not just the words that differ. Rudeness can come from underlying values betrayed by language, and those values do matter -- words aren't simply interchanged atop them.
Some cultures value relational power in leadership, and so their language reflects preserving relationships as a base resources. Some cultures value authority, and so their idea of being polite might involve some maintenance of authority at the expense of perceived care or relationship.
I'm just saying the words that convey rudeness are not necessarily just a superficial dressing on the same thing. Politeness is a shorthand that is also about alignment with a cultural value. Cultural values differ. My being annoyed at someone else's cultural posturing as default, that's not just mindless indignation. Values matter.
As a native speaker (American) the phrasing is classic condescending soulless corporate customer service speak. 1) You must always apologize, 2) you must never admit fault. "I'm sorry you feel this way about what we did" comes across _to me_ as "what we did was totally fine, it's too bad that you don't understand the wisdom of our actions." That kind of phrasing is also a bit of a trigger because the majority of the time you hear it from companies that don't give a damn how you feel and will fight to avoid doing anything to actually help you.
It's of course impossible to say if this was just an unfortunate choice of phrasing or if it's a sign that Mozilla has become that soulless corporate entity (I say this as a Firefox user for more than 20 years).
> but it's very rude and a no-no in Japanese culture
What, specifically, about that phrasing is "very rude" and a "no-no" in Japanese culture?
I am genuinely curious.
Every culture has a way of discussing and resolving disagreements. Some are noisier and some are calmer. Some cultures do this dance with "apparent" disrespect, with forceful exchanges, some with calmer and tidier demeanor.
Japanese are the latter. There's a polite dance of disagreement. Every side listens others with respect (with respect to the process even if they don't respect the others) and answer politely yet firmly.
This comment smells like there's already some disagreement under this, and none of them have been listened and they are steamrolled with the new workflow.
Implying "Hey you're overreacting, let us convince you" doesn't help on top of it.
Politely say "I don't care what you think but I won't change anything" is perfectly fine in Japanese culture. Taking an issue privately instead of showing disagreements in public is also perfectly fine for Japanese people.
The issue has nothing to do with Japanese culture, but with how you work with a community of volunteers over the web. "Let's jump on a call" is what you say to a coworker, not to a volunteer in an online community.
> "Let's jump on a call"
Let’s jump on a call is something you say when you feel that the tone and intention of your communication is getting lost in text. And whether it’s common in all cultures or not, tone and intention getting lost in text is universal.
"We want to make sure we trully (SIC) understand what you're struggling with."
I'm afraid you skipped this part though
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
I mean, that question is already well answered within the first (opening) comment of marsf, so that part smells "tl;dr. Can I call you".
This sentence makes it even worse. All the pain points are openly written there.
> I mean, that question is already well answered within the first (opening) comment of marsf,
No, it's not. Half of the listed reasons are obvious enough, but the half is very vague. I don't know if they are something you would understand as an insider, but as an outsider there would be many open questions if it would be my task to make this work.
The whole communication seems like people on one or both sides lacking information, and one trying to fix this to start the process for solving the other sides' problem. Nothing wrong with this in a professional environment.
Does it read like a canned response? Yes.
But it is not "forceful and rude" by any means and your interpretation is way over the top for what looks like two people from different cultures trying to communicate in a mutually non-native language using words on a screen.
Written messages can feel cold even when it's two native English speakers communicating over email or text and it's best to assume good faith until you see clear evidence to the contrary.
I don't think it even matters how canned it sounds.. it seems like a polite way to move the discussion to a phone call where some real communication can happen. I think that was a perfect response. Forums are not ideal for resolving conflict, especially if language barriers exist.
> I'm sorry you feel like this
Nope. Start by apologizing for the impact of what YOU did. Contributor of 20y just quit and provide a clear list of what is wrong. "your feelings" and "your struggles" is not respectful.
You should be sorry that YOU pushed changes on them in a way that impacted badly their work and made them quit. Thank them for the feedback and try to open a discussion on finding a positive outcome.
But they might not be sorry.
Being sorry about how the bot works implies an intention to change/remove it.
Yep, it's pretty clear they are not that sorry, from the tone. They just want to smooth things over. No ACK of making a mistake or changing anything.
"I'm sorry for how you feel about this" (we won't admit that we harmed you with our bad behavior, and it's probably your fault for feeling pain.)
"your struggles" (it's your fault that you were harmed by our bad behavior.)
"Hop on a call" (we are the boss, you aren't, and your concerns are trivial.)
As a native English speaker, I don't see it as condescending either. Yes it's a bit "corporate" in tone, but that is not uncommon at all in large human organisations (not just for-profit corporations but also government, NGOs, political orgs, etc). Also the reality is that "hopping on a call" can often help to resolve problems that would otherwise devolve into months of bikeshedding on mailing lists. Which is often entertaining but rarely very useful.
But it's Mozilla. There is a segment of the community that will be pissed off by everything they do. Check the username of the person you're replying to.
I am English and the phrasing used is a backhanded way to tell you to shut-up and go away. I've seen it used by both native and non-native speakers in this manner.
It is about 50/50 though as many people don't seem to pick up on backhanded way that many English people speak.
> Also the reality is that "hopping on a call" can often help to resolve problems that would otherwise devolve into months of bikeshedding on mailing lists.
This is also sometimes done to shut you up as well.
The core thing here is the "I'm sorry you feel this way". This immediately deflects all sense of wrong-doing from the people actually doing wrong to the people feeling hurt. There are so many other ways to phrase this that are either more neutral or even acknowledging of some kind of mistake being made that's not on the volunteer's side, but that's not what's happening here. Essentially this means "We did the right thing and now we need to figure out how to make you understand this", not "Something went wrong and we need to figure out how to come to an understanding which might include us having done something wrong".
Exactly. I never ever seen it used in any other way.
Having a call is fine, but it's not like the original complaint didn't lay out in plenty of detail what the problem was.
Given the context of corporate doublespeak, I saw the response as "Oh shit, we can't refute your issues, but maybe we can bullshit you privately into putting up with them?".
(I see a few disagreements here, back up with "I'm a native speaker". Me too friend, but understand messages like this is (imho) more about the subtext than the text itself, so interpersonal knowledge is more important than linguistic.)
Or even worse, it's public posturing with full knowledge that the call isn't likely to happen, and it wouldn't resolve anything even if it did.
It's not really an apology - it's "I'm sorry you feel that way" and not "I'm sorry for the thing we did wrong".
As an English speaker, I 100% disagree. This does not come across as someone wanting to understand or to help. It’s someone wanting to avoid a scene. Private phone calls are not an appropriate way to deal with community issues like this. In other threads on the site (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/717387...) it’s clear this change has received massive pushback for months since it was announced, and community members specifically called out the issues enumerated in the OP as potential problems. So the responder already knows exactly what is wrong. No clarification is necessary.
I dunno man, the "what you're struggling with" part is pretty condescending, perhaps unintentionally
Native English speaker and worked in IT in multiple corporations for over 30 years and none of this is condescending. The person is trying to reach out and talk.
This is not to dismiss what happened, but to just address the poster who thinks this is condescending.
Reframing someone's disagreement as them "struggling with something" is incredibly patronizing and condescending and dirty conversational pool.
No it's not. It's a validation of the fact that something is so frustrating they are quitting over it.
The idea that it is patronizing or condescending makes zero sense to me. It's a factual description.
Its framing the issue as something that should be fixed by a change in the mentality of Marsf, not by rolling back the changes.
No it's not. Where are you getting that? It's framing that there is an actual struggle, which is the acknowledgement that it's something they can work on resolving. Rolling back changes might be the answer.
I honestly don't understand where you're getting this cynical interpretation from. It's not in the words.
Not only the user name - that account was created specifically for this.
If this were some small bug report, even from someone pretty ticked off, I'd agree.
But this is a response to someone who has just announced that they are quitting an organization they had spent 20 years of their life volunteering for, because of the disrespect they have felt from the org. This is not a "hop on a call" moment. This is a "please accept to meet so I can apologize in person, and see if we can repair this" moment, preferably after acknowledging the disrespect.
I don't know the original author but as a non-native speaker I guess I miss the cultural connotation surrounding "hop on a call".
Doesn't seem weird to me, seems apt to ask to escalate the method of communication when a serious issue like this arises.
Would you consider it more respectful to deal with this issue just by posting in the thread?
It's a community matter posted in a public place, a non-statement with an immediate attempt to direct it to private conversation reads like trying to avoid attention to your mistakes (e.g. hypothetically you don't have to public admit you didn't do anything to check for guidelines to follow). More vibe-y, it all sounds very corporate, like any PR statement in response to criticism ever, or a manager writing to an employee in a big corp, not "humans working together in a community, and one of the humans is clearly pissed off right now".
Also while it's phrased as a question, it doesn't offer any alternative next step. So a better approach would be writing down the initial questions you have and then offer that you'd be open for a call if the OP prefers that. If they don't, they can immediately engage with your questions, and they are open to everybody else in the community. Whereas right now if they say "no, I don't want to call you" that's all you've given them.
(To be clear I can easily believe the writer of the response is not intending any of that and means well, but that's how it comes across)
I am from the UK, and I also think this is true. Hop on a call and the wording sounds like they do not want to fix the issue
It comes across very condecending. Maybe it is a US problem
Reading other comments, US folks seem divided; I am with you and the others on this side of the fence, I've seen this exact situation play out in corporate life many times. They are attempting to quiet a public discussion of dissent and dissatisfaction.
I’m an American. The response is coded as “do nothing”. The proper response here would be to say “we’re going to roll back the changes until we understand and fix things that are going wrong.” The individual may not have INTENDED the dismissive due to the way American corporate language has internalize “do nothing, take no position, take no risk, admit no fault” but it’s definitely the tone. Essentially this is a human problem: how do you deal with someone motivated by project passion rather than revenue goals or personal income? It happens ALL THE TIME with nonprofits interacting poorly with volunteers because the motivations and associated daily language are so divergent.
Non-native here. People "hop on a call" to have a personal guide that helps in stepping through tasks of a proposed solution. Such a call is made to remove ambiguity and provide immediate feedback, to apply the solution as seamless as possible. Used in the context here (without a proposed solution) it just screams "let's avoid public outcry" with a touch of "why don't you overthink your annoyances with me".
Hop on a call is very informal language, and suggests that this is just a small problem we can quickly workaround. The issue isn't so much the idea of getting in a direct call (though there are problems with that as well, especially the tendency to remove this from the record). It's the wording that suggests this is a tiny issue that we can just "hop" on a call to address.
And I’d say claiming that she should hop on an 8 hour flight from Jakarta to Japan to apologize for a decision she didn’t make is more than a bit overly dramatic.
I wasn't suggesting it should be an in person meeting, just that it should be a more formal call.
Given that the written complaint already had a list of ways Mozilla had stepped on the toes of those volunteers, expressing regret about their feelings without at least acknowledging that Mozilla's actions might have been rash is very condescending indeed. These volunteers are adding value to M's product for free and they are very angry and threatening to leave and this is your response? Basically saying "I'm sorry you're being such big babies, do you want some tissues?"...
"I'm sorry for how you feel" is widely accepted as a non-apology in English. Sincere apologies show awareness of how one's actions led to the situation that would require the apology.
That's great but we're not all native English speakers. And "I'm sorry for you" seems like a hollow phrase to a Dutch person but this is used all the time in English.
It's like how you say "How are you" when you really don't care but it's just how you start a conversation.
Not saying you "have" to know or that the interpretation is even correct for this case, but, just to explain:
The "I'm sorry you feel this way" is quite a recent phenomenon. It started showing up in public apologies by companies and celebrities, purely for PR. It's basically a deflective euphemism for "I'm sorry that you don't like whatever happened" without really admitting culpability, sidestepping all responsibility.
With that said: I don't even know if the author (Kiki) is a native english speaker, since she's part of other language translation groups, so it might be 100% without intent. But that's how a lot of people perceive it today.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" is shaped like an apology, but is essentially blaming the other party's feelings as being the problem.
"I'm sorry I did that" is an actual apology.
To be clear, I'm agreeing with you. I think that the former version emerged as it's litigation proof. Corporate PR can say that without it being an admission of anything if whatever they fucked up results in a lawsuit.
It has spread to personal communications from corporate ones and it's now so prevalent that it is possible someone might use it and actually mean a real apology. But it's ... tainted.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" was literally the first thing I ever got taught when doing front of house/customer service training. Its definitely a super common phrase, at least in English speaking countries
Not sure if this is what you intended but you're just proving his point. Customer service is full of corporate-speak, scripted deflection, and hollow niceties. Of course the first thing you were taught was an empty apology.
"I'm sorry for you" is a bit weird, normally we would say "I feel sorry for you", both having the meaning of showing sympathy. It would typically be inappropriate to use either of those in a sincere apology message.
Not a native speaker, but to me it reads as canned or AI generated response that acknowledges nothing in the post besides there being some kind of tiny disagreement. I don't see how "I'm sorry for how you feel about this" can be inteprented as anything other than "I'm not at fault, and I'm sorry I'll have to spend time pacifying you".
Feels extremely disrespectful.
> As someone from the Netherlands I read absolutely 0 condescending or patronising behaviour in this.
To be fair, Dutch culture is known for its directness[0] and for not interpreting even the harshest criticism as offensive, so I'm not sure I would trust your judgment on this… :-D
That being said, as a fellow European, I concur.
[0]: There was a great video on this a while back, which I don't seem to be able to find right now. https://www.tiktok.com/@letsdoubledutch/video/73822692756517... seems close enough, though.
I read it in the following "code".
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced.
This is an emotion that you are feeling, not an actual problem.
> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further?
I'm not going to say that anything is actually wrong, we just want to discuss the best way to dismiss this.
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
Reiterating that the Japanese translators are the ones struggling to adapt, not that there could be a problem with the new reality.
From my perspective, this is typical middle management speak to allow people to complain into a void without promising improvements. The approach I would recommend if there was going to be some opening to change the approach would have been.
> I'm sorry that the changes to the workflows have disrupted your processes. Would you be interested in hopping on a call so that we can discuss the changes that we will be making, as I think that at least some of the issues have been identified and should be fixed soon? We want to ensure that we do not introduce problems with the community contributions.
If someone, especially one who pretty much worked for free for 20+ years to make YOUR PRODUCT BETTER and you just burned off all their hard work in front of them, just publicly quits with a proper explanation given as to why, and then you ask them to come to a quiet corner to "discuss things", maybe as damage control or whatever, without returning the favor and explaining your point of you as publicly as they did, or even preferring up the chance to give them some sort of agency and an opportunity for yourself to rectify things, I cannot see anything except condescending and disrespectful behavior.
This doesn't need any low-context/high-context nonsense to figure it out, given when the complainer's post was plaintive enough for someone from the Netherlands to appreciate.
As somebody from your Neighboring country, its really comes over as condescending...
"I'm sorry for how you feel" is the definition of non-appology...
Hey, even the AI overlords agree on this...
> The phrase "I'm sorry for how you feel" is often perceived as a non-apology because it shifts blame to the other person's emotions instead of taking responsibility for one's actions. Instead of a genuine apology, it can sound like you're sorry they are upset rather than sorry for your behavior, and it can imply their feelings are the problem. A true apology acknowledges your role and expresses sincere regret for the pain you caused.
In Dutch its something like "Het spijt me, hoe u hierover voelt" ... See the issue, the first part is a apology, that is then reflected to the other person.
"We want to make sure we truly understand what you're struggling with." ...
We do not understand why *you are struggling with this*. For us its perfectly normal, so why are you having a issue with this.
So in Dutch its something like "We willen echt verstaan, waarom u moeite hebt hiermee". Aka, sending the issue back to the other person.
See the issue how both parts flow and shift the issue to the other person. This is not a English language issue because the same way of writing is also done in Dutch if you want to do a non-apology with a dose of gaslighting.
I never see anybody write like this, beyond those that have the intention to rile people up. Its gaslighting 101 ...
As a native English speaker, "I'm sorry for how you feel" is patronizing. Genuine apologies acknowledge mistakes rather than invalidate feelings.
I'm from the United States and I read the exact same thing that you did. Somebody really trying to help. Zero condescending or patronizing behavior. It seems like somebody doing their best to reach out and get in contact and yeah I agree completely that hell I could have written this myself. And probably have something like that before. I don't understand what culture would find that condescending at all.
I'm from The Netherlands but have lived in the US for a while and unlike other country brethren responding in this thread, it did come across as condescending to me.
Trying to dissect why it comes across, I think it's just me kneejerking to the 'pattern' of specifically "I am sorry you feel that way". I think my kneejerk disdain of that turn of phrase is correct, though.
Being blunt here: Because that's a terrible apology! You are sorry that I feel this way? We're barely using the same dictionary here; how I feel about a thing is textbook 'stuff you cannot change or barely even fathom', so what is there to be sorry about? You might as well say "I'm sorry for the fact that 2 + 2 is 4". It's not apologetic in any way. It says sorry without taking even a millimeter of responsibility.
A minimal apology that is slightly less condescending might be "I am sorry how our choices led to you feeling this way" because at least now you're sorry about your choices instead of being sorry about how I feel.
I wouldn't want to be buoyed by false hope either, so taking as axiomatic that the moz team wants to hear how to improve matters but are not willing to completely 180º on their sumobot policies, something like: "I apologise for how we've kinda steamrolled y'all with rolling out sumobot. We were trying to improve the state of translations of our knowledge base articles and might have gone too far. We shouldn't have done it without keeping you out of the loop either. Is it possible to have a video call, apologise in person, and try to work out if there's a way sumobot can be helpful for all japanese language users of firefox in a way that works with your excellent work maintaining the KB so far?"
I get that it's just american corpospeak, "hop on a call". But the number of times something that's perfectly normal in dutch culture (a bit brash, but not at all intended to be rude) gets jumped on by americans as being ridiculously rude... well, trying to write a way to be culturally aware of the recipient has to be a two-way street, right?
I dont think this 'apology' is rude, not at all. But it's not apologetic. If you're peeved off at mozilla for foisting sumobot on you, you've already decided to cut ties, and then team mozilla tries to mend the relationship, this is a very poor attempt. In the context of an attempt to mend the relationship this is condescending. Or at least bad diplomacy.
To me the reason it feels like a non-apology is purely contextual: for some time, it was very fashionable as a public non-apology by celebrities and companies doing PR damage-management. Until people started calling it out.
I think there might be a disconnect on how people handle calls in the first place.
At this point getting on a call is seen as a major chore for a majority of people. It's an already tense situation, trying to defuse it by "hopping on a call" is just not great IMHO. They should at least acknowledge they're putting undue burden on the other side and are asking them to go the distance when they're already volunteering their time.
I'm saying that setting aside the opacity of moving from an public to a private setup.
This is a pointer to a somewhat US related POV, but this is nether a generational thing nor a limited phenomenon:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgklk3p70yo
Also from The Netherlands, this is 100% condescending and patronising to me. I read this as corporate-speak for "go fuck yourself". Let's go through it line-by-line:
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced.
"We have zero regrets about the changes we made and have no intention of making any changes - the problem is how you feel about them".
> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further?
"I can't be bothered to engage with the points you already raised. You can do some venting in a Teams call, but we don't want there to be a record so we can't be held to any promises we might accidentally make."
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
"You are the problem: you haven't embraced our glorious changes yet. Accept our "help" to adapt to your new reality, or get out"
So no, that's not what you'd write if you genuinely wanted to help: that's what you write when you want to get rid of someone who is bothering you.
If they genuinely wanted to help, the response would've read something more like this:
> Dear marsf, > It is shocking to me to learn that our recent rollout of sumobot has caused enough friction to make a 20-year veteran of our community quit. Our intention has always been, and will always be, to use new technology like sumobot to help our communities - not harm them. Reading your report, we have clearly failed at that. > To prevent it from doing additional damage, we have chosen to pause sumobot for the moment. We still believe that it can become a valuable tool, but it'll remain paused until we have discussed its modes of operation and the impact it has on the way you contribute with representatives of the various communities. We'll work out an approach over the following weeks. > I hope this is sufficient for now to change your mind about leaving - people like you are essential to open-source applications like Firefox. If you wish to discuss it face-to-face, my team and I am more than happy to hop on a call with you to make sure we are doing the right thing.
200% agree
In particular I think your alternative response is excellent and what I would have hoped for in an ideal world.
I can't believe I had to scroll this far to find a well-articulated example of a proper response. It isn't just a few words that needed changing, the original response by Mozilla mas missing the whole point that you bring up in your example: a 20y veteran volunteer is leaving. Within a small community, the action of a single veteran/leader leaving this way will certainly have an effect on the rest of the volunteers, even more so when you consider the cultural aspects of this specific community.
I don't think there is something inherently patronizing about this. But this tone seems like the most generic possible American corporate faux-friendly tone.
In order to sound truly friendly, one has to break the script
I think what the grand parent meant is that the staff doesn't acknowledge issues - instead, clearly says that this is how _they_ feel, points out that changes were "only recently introduced", and says that is interested in learning what they are struggling with, again, not acknowledging issues with the process or bot, instead wording as if this is marsf issue.
Personally, I don't think this is that bad. This is a public thread and he's Mozilla staff - the wording has to be clinical. The worse part is the _recently introduced_ bit, but I would look over it.
The condescension is coming from "We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with." which is completely dismissing the points they made in the post. Basics "surely there is more to it than just what is in the post". A better response would have responded with actions/talking points to the items listed in the post. Then asking for a call for further clarification of the respondents point.
I'm from the Netherlands as well and I wouldn't interpret this as condescending but as disingenuous corporate BS-speak where someone is doing damage control by showing "how much they value your opinion". And in the end not doing anything at all with your concerns.
As somebody from Spain, I concur.
> As someone from the Netherlands I read absolutely 0 condescending or patronising behaviour in this.
Not really painting us in good colors here, are you.
"I'm sorry" can mean "I am apologizing" but often it instead means "I feel bad". It depends on context which applies.
"I'm sorry for how you feel" without more explanation often sounds like "The thing that makes me feel bad in this situation is your reaction to it". It can come across as blaming the person for the feelings, regretting not being able to control others' feelings better, or dismissing the root causes of the feelings and any agency in them.
It's a bad apology because of the ambiguity, though passive aggressive types like that aspect. It's honestly a bad way to sympathize as well.
yeah nah mate, it is 100% tone deaf - does not reflect the frustration of the OP
you don't reply like this to just open forum
lazy ass business world reply
you get in touch ASAP and personally, if you really want to keep them
I don't understand people like this. No, I don't want to "hop on a call", I've already written down everything. Can you not read?
It's a combination of inability to read anything longer than a tweet and not wanting to put anything on record.
I'd say otherwise - it's a reach out to have a relationship. It's hard to have human relationships only by writing. Of course the best way to build it is to meet in person, but if impossible - it's always good to have a video call.
If someone is frustrated, the following chats won't do much really. They have already built a wall, and we need to meet around it, not throw our letters over it.
Who wants "a relationship" here with some manager who has just delivered the standard corporate nonpology? The problems are listed in the first message, start by fixing them.
> It's hard to have human relationships only by writing.
I don't follow. Some of my most important friendships were built on forums and text-based communication. We never felt any need to have video calls. Some of them I met in person once, 15+ years after we started messaging each other, and we're great friends regardless.
I don't mean to say you're wrong in an absolute sense, but I can't relate to your post at all. Not a single one of my friends has video calls as their preferred method of socialization with online peers.
Your claim is based on the very strong assumption that if you have a phone or video call with a person that you already hate, things will get better.
My life experience does tell me that this is often not the case: if people are already frustrated and have built a wall, it is better to use something more impersonal, like such an online text discussion.
True but organizations are not uniform, one person decided to take a destructive action and another one might want to fix it.
But I agree, if after receiving such a message someone is saying "let's hop on a call", there's little chance of things going right on the call.
Then at least try to sound like a genuine human that cares and not a PR response when reaching out. Offer a "you can call me if you want" vs making the call the expectation (it's phrased as a question but there is no other path offered).
> It's hard to have human relationships only by writing.
No, it's pretty easy, actually, people did that since writing was invented, with mediums much slower than a modern mailing list.
It _is_ much easier to manipulate people behind closed doors, as well as lie about what happened there.
How about:
**
First of all, I'm shocked to learn about what happened. We at Mozilla had no idea that sumobot is wreaking such havoc on your work. Please accept my sincere apologies.
It would be a great pity to have all your precious work done, so we'll do our best to fix it. I would be very grateful if you could schedule a meeting with me so that I could understend the issues you described better so that they are fixed asap?
Once again, I'm very sorry for what happened and I hope in spite of that you can continue doing great work for the Japanese Mozilla community. **
> I'd say otherwise - it's a reach out to have a relationship.
They HAD a relationship: it was 20 years of volunteer work. That relationship was broken by Mozilla's actions.
> not wanting to put anything on record
It is clearly this. Management hates written communication.
"We tried but this unpaid volunteer didn't cooperate by continuing to work for free"
Human communication consists of so much more than just words. Tone, loudness, speed, accent (a hint of the other person maybe not being a native English speaker), all that gets lost in pure text. And even voice calls lose a lot of context like facial mimic or gestures that convey emotions.
IME an n vs. m written discussion in a public forum can be clearer, more productive, and a hell of a lot more accountable than some potential n vs. 1 adversarial corporate firing-squad 'discussion' intended to reinforce whatever policy the n have already decided upon. IMO, much of the benefit of voice over text is likely offset by the latter scenario being real time with potential translation issues.
There have been a ton of complaints on HackerNews about companies never letting them talk to a real person. Here's a company offering up a real person, and apparently that's still bad somehow. You can always just say "no" to an offer to talk.
Because so much nuance can be lost in writing, especially if both parties are working in a second language. There is a lot of value in actually talking to someone, especially in a fraught situation like this. Hearing the other person express genuine concern can do a lot to overcome the anger. Otherwise we tend to build up stories in our head about what the other person “really means” and those stories tend to be wildly negative.
Some people need AI to explain to them the meaning of words. /s
Decisions are not fixed. Changing the situation, could revert the decision. Why should someone silently accept a situation, when simple communication could improve the world for everyone involved? That seems like a very ignorant mindset.
Why is it condescending and patronzing? I read it as a person trying to understand the situation.
I'm not part of Mozilla or any of the communities and I understood the situation by reading the damn post, on the first time.
In the follow-up, any words concerning how the person feels, words on how to talk about this further, and wanting to truly understand what he just wrote in plain and simple terms simply reek strongly of "we really won't change anything, we've made our decision, we are disagree with you but we want you to agree with what we're already doing".
I can hear the exact same tone in exact similar situations with various customer service reps, HR, corporate smooth-talkers, public officials/politicians where the decision is already written in stone and they just pretend they're listening to the customers/employees/citizens affected to quiet down the criticism.
To add to this fire. I recently left my 'recently bought by private equity' workplace of 8 years to work somewhere else not-yet-ruined-by-PE (yet..) A major part of my decision to quit was this communication pattern.
The whole organisation was very efficiently structured with two separate layers of managers - those who had actual decision power, and a separate layer whose task was to 'deal with us employees' but no decision power. All communication flowing one way, the same way shit drips (the only resource following 'trickle-down' mechanics). The only time I got into contact with the former level, was after I had put in my resignation; then they suddenly wanted a 1-1 to "see if there was anything they should learn from this" (presumably to sharpen/hone their skills in mistreating the employee level more efficiently in the future).
yup.
it's american english for "oh this must be hard for you. how can we help you to cope?" and no intent to change.
a better response would rather be:
"We're sorry, we were not aware. please can we meet and you help us understand? so we can fix this situation? We'd also like to share our intentions and we hope together we can improve the situation."
telling
The person gives a clear, detailed answer in the post about their problems > "We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with"
To me that's very condescending, like someone who reads but doesn't understand
Borderline AI response
And personally offering a call is like a sidestep "lets move this problem out of the public discourse" which is especially funny considering it's about a forum
> And personally offering a call is like a sidestep "lets move this problem out of the public discourse"
Maybe. But that’s also assuming the worst from the get go, and that’s no way to settle a dispute.
For all we know (which is very little, and thus should offer the benefit of the doubt), offering a call is an admission that text is an awful medium to resolve conflict: It’s time consuming for both parties and a poor conveyor of tone and nuance. Even writing this unimportant comment I had to stop and think and rewrite some parts to get it closer to the meaning I intend, but even so I fazer zero doubts someone will misunderstand it in the worst way imaginable.
Calls aren’t perfect either, but they allow you to understand in real time when a point is not getting through to the other person and calmly resolve each issue as it surfaces. It gets you on the same page faster.
After the call they can still decide to post their conclusions publicly if they so wish, but not every discussion needs to be public. It’s fine (and productive) for two people to discuss something in private and only have to worry about making themselves understood by the relevant party, not worry about having each word scrutinised by every internet rando.
> Maybe. But that’s also assuming the worst from the get go, and that’s no way to settle a dispute.
Offering a call would've been totally fine - if the rest of the reply hadn't been a borderline-insulting cookie-cutter corporate non-apology. If they start by showing bad intentions, why suddenly assume the best for the phone call?
> if the rest of the reply hadn't been a borderline-insulting cookie-cutter corporate non-apology.
“The rest of the reply” is basically one sentence, so let’s avoid reading too much into it. I very much agree it was a bad non-apology and that that is infuriating, but let’s not let irrationality cloud judgement in the pursuit of a resolution.
> If they start by showing bad intentions, why suddenly assume the best for the phone call?
Why are you assuming bad intentions from the start? For all we know this person may just be a bad (textual?) communicator or trying to avoid miscommunication (which seems like a perfectly valid concern, since the original comment isn’t exactly the clearest English). Worse still, the comment I replied to assumed a specific malicious reason for the offer to a call with no evidence, it was just speculation.
Is anyone here familiar with this Mozilla staffer? Do they even know if they interacted with this Japanese user before, online or offline? Do they have a pattern of bad behaviour? Or is everyone just piling on and assuming the devil from a single reply from someone they don’t know? Maybe this staffer is indeed an asshole. Or maybe they’re trying their best and just don’t know how to do better but are open to recognising their mistakes and learning from them. Maybe they would have preferred to be more open, human, and honest in their reply but corporate policy prevents them from doing so. Maybe they have personal issues on their mind and jut couldn’t do better this time. I don’t know. Do you? If anyone in this thread does, they’re not saying it.
This thread is populated by (what seem to be) uninformed commentators throwing fire at the situation from the outside, and that’s unhealthy. Let me ask you: What is, in your view, the desired/best outcome of this situation? Is it to bash Mozilla and/or this staffer? Or is it to provide a solution that would fix the situation in a way the original Japanese commentator would feel valued and happy to come back?
This is the type of response you shouldn't make. Instead you should do your homework and then come back with the receipts.
E.g. figure out why this happened, express why it shouldn't have happened, why it should happen never again, how it is understandable how they feel, express that you cannot expect them to come back, make them an actual offer that would make them come back (e.g. by giving them a better place at the table or offering compensation), etc.
But "I am sorry you feel" is bordering on gaslighting. That is as if you are sorry your wife feels sad after you beat them. You should feel sorry and ashamed for doing the beating, not for how someone feels as a result of it.
The described things are clearly unacceptable and whether someone feels outrage or not doesn't make them more or less acceptable.
> Borderline AI response
I can’t believe what I’m going to say now, but AIs are better at this. Granted, their apologies are good for shit since they have no agency and can’t really learn from their mistakes, but they at least leave no doubts at who is at fault and should be ashamed.
(Cue Gemini with its “I’m a disgrace” self-flagellation)
Basically, this response doesn't acknowledge any of the concerns marsf mentioned.
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel [...]
He's not talking about what he feels - but a very real change, detrimental change of workflow. Simply not addressed.
In addition to not responding to any of the specifics that the poster clearly put time into, there's also a huge mismatch in tone. In general, do not act very corporate when people are personally pissed off, this has a tendency to just annoy most people further.
Well. Too late. Now that they go you want to talk? If I was the one who finally had enough why the fuck would I want to talk to something I turned my back to?
There were very clear statements of what will happen and why. First acknowledge those, express you are sorry for what happened and hint some mea culpa and how you plan to solve it.
Only then if you feel the need to talk realize that you are the one begging them, not the other way around.
It’s the boilerplate every junior account manager uses when they don’t actually have a solution.
>I read it as a person trying to understand the situation.
I have been on the receiving end of such comments enough times to read it as a person trying to appear as if they are trying to understand the situation.
It's always the, "I'm sorry for how you feel," that strikes me as belittling and disingenuous.
It is gaslighting even. It is extremely manipulative to be sorry about a thing someone else did, while in fact the the fuckup originated from you. Own it or offer to investigate/fix it.
A decent answer would have been worded among the lines of:
"I am personally deeply sorry to see you go [acknowledge you take their decision serious]. I don't know the details, but if what you describe is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), this is clearly unacceptable and should never have happened [acknowledge the issue is serious and confirm it wasn't intentional]. You feeling betrayed as a result of this is only natural and understandable, and it is Mozilla that should feel ashamed for it coming to this [validate feeling, admit guilt]. I will investigate why this happened and want to find ways to ensure something like this never happens again [show that you're willing to do something substential solbing the root of the problem]. Nobody should have their hard work just automatically replaced by AI, not you, nor anybody else [afirm you're on the same page as them by appeal to general principle]. I know you likely don't want to have anything to do with this now, but I would be deeply grateful if you had a moment to talk about this with me, personally, not as a member of Mozilla but as a member of the community [ask them about help, acknowledging you can't expect any, show that you care about this beyond any purely official duties]."
Of course that means some work, but this is how I would answer such a thing.
The OP/article is very clear and very direct on what the problems are. The response is so typical american conflict-shy “let’s talk so we can slowly dimish your critique, and also let’s do talking instead of writing so we cant really be held accountable for specifics”. And, to me it comes across as lazy: the op/article is very specific on the problems, just get to work already, no need to “further clarifications” (obviously disable that stupid bot for the japanese community; then get to work restoring original KBs from backups. Then reach out to talk about next steps)
It’s a tonedeaf response from the staff person. Zero respect for what’s clearly many, many hours of contribured work.
I can feel the junior manager trying to repair but it is really someone higher-up should have properly apologised
Same.
How would you form this response to make it less condensending and patronizing? I won't judge if it is patronizing or not because I'm not very good at this kind of thing but would like to understand the issue.
OP has given all that they need, English is probably not their first language, and the first response was to ask for even more unpaid time and labour (presumably in English) in a format that is likely much more difficult for them to summarise coherent thoughts succinctly in, while addressing zero of their issues. They’re asking for MORE effort of the volunteer to fix their bot’s fuckup.
I’m honestly struggling to think of a more insulting way to respond to this. At least “Fuck off” isn’t pretending to care, it’s fewer words to read and isn’t asking for an indeterminate amount of time from you.
a) don't apologize for the other persons feelings, but for your actions that lead to it
b) don't look like you are trying to take the conversation out of the community space it's happening in and/or hiding details by going to a private call (you can offer a call, but it shouldn't be the expectation)
c) Acknowledge the concrete complaints made. Are you truly "struggling to understand" what someone means when they complain that it didn't happen in a staging environment first?
d) a-c also lead to "don't sound like any cookie-cutter PR response to a complaint ever, people have learned those are not genuine". Especially if you are a project that makes a big deal out of its community interacting with said community.
e) ideally announce some concrete first step, e.g. pausing the bot
One point I'd like to add as someone who has worked in IT support for years:
Don't answer when you haven't done your homework. Either you check for yourself if what they claim has happened happened and acknowledge the fuckup or you just trust them as go on "if this is true and we have no reason not to trust you, it should never have happened".
But not understanding? The description of the incident was pretty clear. Maybe think about it and investigate till you understand what the problem is, and then answer.
Or answer being clear about that if you feel like you need to respond now. Acknowledge there is a problem, say you'll have to look into the details before you can say more, come back with specific questions if you need answers.
> Are you truly "struggling to understand" what someone means
You've turned this around into a very different quote, and shouldn't use quote marks for that. They wrote:
> We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
I don't like their response and agree with a lot of people in the thread it looks like they are trying to do the call to take it private. But we don't have to make up stuff.
Yes, but what is there to understand? A bot erased the hard work of people. That is the point.
Sure there may be more fine detail to understand around the guidelines etc, but first you should acknowledge that (A) your bot fucked up big time, (B) everybody would be pissed if years of work would be overwritten in such disrespectful manner and (C) that this isn't how you want to treat your community.
If you don't manage that this person made the right call when they decided to leave.
Sure, but there is no reason to fabricate a quote they never said. Their offputting real response can stand on its own without imagining a new one that never happened.
If the post gave any acknowledgement to the already stated complaints I'd agree with you, but it does not, and that does stand out and leads to my reading.
"We are sorry for overwriting the manual translations of all our volunteers. We have disabled the workflow and are working on restoring the old, manual translations.
We had planned to use the translation bot to help you guys, but based on your response, we have understood that we have overshot our target, and actually made it harmful.
Would you be interested in a call where we can apologize in person, and interview you about how the workflow integration could be designed so it actually helps you and other translators?"
You wouldn't form this response. 'We didn't understand it was this bad, so we've shut down SUMO bot for the Japanese Wiki'.
Maybe something like:
"Fuck, sorry, we're going to take the bot behind the barn and shoot it. Hopefully one day we can make it up to you. Also the person responsible for this atrocity was just fired."
Or, alternatively, if you do not intend to even try to do better, at least be honest: "ok, bye."
There's a good example from another poster here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45833236
I just read someone asking someone else for a phone call.
Yes. In an online community that operates in written text and is separated by timezones, there's several reasons why that's a no-no.
To me, this seems very simple: they introduced a machine translation workflow. Doing so signals the intent to replace their human translators. The human translators understandably quit rather than collaborate with their replacements.
Speaking a second language live is much harder than taking your time and writing something.
That's not necessary true. Regardless the response is totally trash and the timezone (US west coast) likely doesn't help, either
Also I'd expect if a person volunteers as translator they'd be pretty decent at speaking.
> Also I'd expect if a person volunteers as translator they'd be pretty decent at speaking.
Translators (of texts) are not interpreters.
To learn nuances, spoken language is quite important.
I am not a translator and English is not my 1st language (technically) - I'd have no issues 'hopping' on a call.
I do. My written English is orders of magnitude better than my spoken English - simply because I practice it a lot more.
I have no problem "hopping on a call" if it's a casual conversation between friends, but when stakes actually matter it would be stupid to put myself in a worse position than strictly necessary. Native speakers have a habit of talking a lot, talking fast, and talking with a lot of subtleties, nuances, and hidden meanings. In written conversations I can read a sentence twice and think a second about the right phrasing to use in response, but in face-to-face conversations this is simply not possible.
It would be like a professional debater like college kids "debating" with late Charlie Kirk: no wonder they end up "getting owned" - they are punching way above their weight class!
> To learn nuances, spoken language is quite important.
In my experience, it's quite the opposite: written language carries a lot more nuances than the (often more shallow) spoken language.
The timezone is UTC+7. That's in Asia, two hours from Japan time. That's why the staff member making the reply brought it up:
> My timezone is UTC+7, so it should be easier for us to set up time.
thanks a ton! I did read it as GMT-7... I had to recheck it (just in case).
Mia maxima culpa!
The only context I can think of in which it wouldn't be true is if someone learned the language through full immersion with no text involved, it's a bizarre situation.
There's also no reason as to assume that a volunteer translator is good at speaking, especially in regards to English, which pronunciation is not explicitly stated in its writing (like, say, Spanish).
You can't really ascertain how good I am at speaking, for an obvious example.
>You can't really ascertain how good I am at speaking, for an obvious example.
That comma, gives you away. The commas (and punctuation in general) in English are rather special in a way they convey the spoken language rather than designated rules.
Edit: As for the full immersion when I was learning English (as kid, 5th grade or so), I recall visualizing the words (letters) in my head while speaking. Certain mistakes like than <> then, it's <> it, their<>there etc. are unlikely to happen while writing due to the way language was initially perceived (and b/c I leaned if-then much earlier). Still, esp. with English I'd not consider translating anything unless my spoken version of it was good enough.
It's the "I'm sorry how you feel" that's the problem here.
If they just said "Hi, I want to see how we can fix this. Can we get on a call".
It sounds much better
Fully agree with you, and people who don't understand this should follow through to read the actual link. Marsf explained that sumobot deleted the volunteers' translations, zero coordination, and Kiki's response is "I'm sorry for how you feel?"
Is someone supposed to be happy when a machine deletes their volunteer work? WTF? This needs to be explained further? Marsf needs to risk his time getting on a call to explain that having a machine delete your volunteer work is some fucking bullshit, and expect what, more of the "I'm sorry you feel bad we deleted your work" bullshit?
Further down someone mention a bug that surfaced prior, and I take this as an attempt to understand the bug further.
> I'm sorry
good start
> for how you feel
oh.
> hop on a call
...oh.
To me it comes across like a community outreach flavour of sealioning. I wonder if there's a different name for that?
what
[flagged]
You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't get it. It's not the best possible phrasing, but people who find this sounds "horribly condescending" are excessively sensitive in my opinion. Like a grown man complaining about being "horribly hurt" when a careless passer-by bumped into him.
I'm sorry you don't get it and that you feel they're excessively sensitive. On the behalf of the HN community would you like to share with us more about how you feel about it so that we can better understand your position. I'm sure we can help you find the best possible phrasing to better express the excess of said sensitivity. We're sorry you've had to encounter such a wording and attitude on our forum.
In keeping with the grand traditions of corporate communications, perhaps we should all jump on a call to explore these issues in an unaccountable and likely adversarial way.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
No need to be sorry, I'm not a snowflake. :)
sorry you're struggling with the way the community responded
I'm sorry for how you feel about us kicking you in the balls.
Would you like to hop on a quick call to chat about this further?
Just a quick lil call.
Quick lil ol' callerino.
Hoppity hip hop.
Yeah, the “I’m sorry you feel this way” response really irked me too. There are so many different ways to respond that would have been more appropriate and conveyed the same message.
The “I’m sorry you feel this way” is the first thing you learn from that HR workshop about communication when you get a promotion where you have to manage people.
The thing is that having a lot of people working in corporate environments, where you constantly need to be political and backstab others to achieve some task you've been given, this is the norm, so for many this is normal, the type of stuff where they say: I'm just trying to be helpful and constructive, but for anyone not having time for this corporate double-speak, this seems rude and condescending.
I understand this is corporate double-speak, trying to signal empathy without admitting any fault. But it’s the fact that it is double speak that is so irking. It might be appropriate in manger/subordinate/HR conversations - but in this context it just adds insult to injury (IMO).
"We want to better understand the issues your balls are going through right now."
"..and how we can help you engage further with our automated ball kicking machine we used on you without consent.."
“Let’s put a pin on this and circle back in the next quarter after the shareholders meeting to align on next steps.”
> They are all happened on the product server, not on staging server. I understand that this is mass destruction of our work and explicit violation to the Mozilla mission, allowed officially.
Could this have been a mistake rather than a malicious act?
If this was a mistake, the proper response might have been "sorry, we applied automation in error, those changes have been rolled back while we fix the process that allowed it to happen". And not "call with us to talk about this further".
At the very least, ‘we will discuss how this could of been handled differently’, not I’m sorry you feel this way.
By one side, we all know[1] that automated translations are always inaccurate, and this is specially deep with translations into languages like Japanese.
On the other hand, we all know that LLMs are guaranteed to introduce an error in the result, therefore always needs human supervision.
Also there are other details like the 72 hours timeframe they comment...
Therefore, to me, introducing LLMs without designing them just as an usable tool (UI/UX) to support the work -of the volunteer community- doesn't sound like a mistake, but sounds like an "I don't care at all, get out of the way".
[1] who speaks more than one language at least.
Then say so if someone complains about it? "Shoot, we accidentally ran it in the wrong mode, sorry about that, I'll look into someone fixing it ASAP" is a lot better than "We're sorry for how you feel".
Mozilla has offered to call the OP, too. I’m curious on the outcome.
They said sorry for how you feel about it which is insincere and unhelpful.
My partner has been picking me up on the specifics of wording.
Is there a slightly different phrasing that would make this better, or is it the sentiment that's crap?
"I'm sorry for how these changes impacted you"? Personally just the sentiment feels insincere to me haha.
Don’t use passive voice in an apology. “We’re sorry that we made the change without consulting your team or considering your circumstances.”
The change did not fall out of thin air. It was something they did. If they do not own it explicitly then it’s insincere full stop.
The sentiment is more important. But I'm sorry for how you feel suggests to many people the sole problem was their feelings. I'm sorry for how these changes impacted you suggests the changes could have been wrong.
I don't think it's the specific phrasing. They could have said "I'll contact you by email to try and understand your concerns" and it's still dodging the explicit, concrete list of grievances.
However, "let's hop on a call" is just additionally dismissive.
Two things stand out, besides what has been already mentioned.
* The infantile corporate-cutesy wording "hop on a call" is not appropriate when talking to somebody who feels that you deeply wronged them. It has the same vibes as cheery "Remember: At Juicero, we are all one big family!" signatures on termination notices, and Corporate Memphis.
* In the first sentence, Kiki says "about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced". Why is this level of detail shoehorned in? Everyone in that conversation already knows what it is about. It's as if Kiki can't resist the temptation to inject an ad/brag about their recently introduced workflow for any drive-by readers. "I'm sorry you were dissatisfied with your Apple(R) iPlunger X(TM), which is now available at major retailers for only $599!"
The response was likely also written by AI so there is no point analyzing it. It just ads insult to injury.
How?
They don't know what exactly has gone wrong. All they can say sorry for is for how the person is feeling. Then they want to get on a call to learn more. Which is the start of helping.
The response is as sincere and helpful as it could be for an initial response from someone who wants to figure out what the problem is.
This isn’t out of the blue. The responder was the lead on rolling out this new translation workflow to the community. Check out the thread (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/717387...) and you’ll see people immediately called out the exact potential problems the OP here is complaining about, nearly three months ago. This is no need for the responder to follow up to better understand the complaints. They know exactly what the issues are.
even if that were the case (others have explained why that’s not so), that would be an inappropriate time to apologize. you don’t apologize for how someone else feels. you apologize when you recognize that you did something harmful and when the harmed party is amenable to receiving it. otherwise, you’re really just being a jerk who’s only acknowledging that you don’t like how someone else feels.
But he lists the problems? Pretty unambiguously.
The problems are nowhere near actionable. A lot more information is needed.
E.g. literally the first bullet: "It doesn't follow our translation guidelines". OK -- where are those guidelines? Is there a way to get it to follow them, like another commenter says works? Does the person need help following the process for that? Or is there a bug? Etc.
These are the things a call can clarify. It's the necessary first step, so why are people complaining?
> where are those guidelines?
It's entirely possible that such information is well-known to everyone involved in the translation community.
I would consider it outright insulting if someone who ostensibly "wants to help" doesn't know basic information like that - if the people making decisions about SumoBot are NOT aware of basic information like "where to find the local translation guidelines" then they are presumably not qualified to release a tool like SumoBot in the first place.
It's also entirely possible that the Japanese translation team didn't put the guidelines in the right place for the bot to follow them. Or there's a bug. Since another commenter says it's following guidelines just fine.
> I would consider it outright insulting if someone who ostensibly "wants to help" doesn't know basic information like that
Well, the person who wants to help is a customer service manager in Indonesia. They presumably are not the leader of the machine translation product. They are trying to get more information so they can, you know, escalate to the right people.
So how is that "outright insulting"?
Yep agree with this. Nothing is more infuriating than someone Kramering into a space trying “to help” without spending any time or effort trying to understand that space.
They should have understood the guidelines before turning on their machine translation in a given locality.
Turning off the machine translation and reverting all the changes it made seems pretty actionable to me. They can turn it back on when issues are addressed.
Indeed. Turning it off would still satisfy marsf's requests:
- I prohibit to use all my translation as learning data for SUMO bot and AIs.
- I request to remove all my translation from learned data of SUMO AIs.
Before fixing it and re-enabling it in some capacity, they could work with marsf to find a solution.
They are actionable by entirely canceling the machine translation operations in that community,
The third, more likely option is that it was a careless act. Clearly a mistake in any case.
What's the saying?
> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
At some point the rate of stupidity becomes suspicious again.
The damage is done when the mistake was allowed to happen.
What is the logic behind adding machine translation for content that already had a seemingly robust, enthusiastic, and motivated (volunteer?) community maintaining the translations? The "saves money" rationale to deploy LLM/MT automation doesn't make sense when its volunteers are contributing because they want to. This is kind of community and participation destruction wrought by the introduction of LLMs/MT has a serious impact because it undermines the people who are actually willing to do the work. It was presumably costing nothing (or very little) to have the community maintain this content, but the change has cost a significant amount of goodwill. If the Japanese SUMO community wanted to use MT, it should be their sole decision, baring any issues with their stewardship in general. This is someone else saying "look, with this great new automation, you don't need to spend time anymore doing «thing you want to do»". Huh? How does that make any sense to force on anyone?
Mozilla has long suffered from FAANG-envy. If big tech is doing Social Network|Mobile OS|AI, then by golly, Mozilla reflexively has to spend Firefox money on a poorly executed, me-too copy that's discarded when the next fad comes around. The sad thing is the reasoning is usually sound, but the execution... Yeesh.
Mozilla has invested heavily in this technology, and whatever project manager is running it needs more checkboxes in the results column of their next request for a raise. In other words, "business alignment."
In particular, "the content is useful" is not a checkbox. "The content is produced by this technology" is, and overwriting hand-curated content is an obvious action.
Less competent PMs are shoving capital A and capital I everywhere in panic mode, getting even more anxious as every failure exposes and deplatforms them even more.
They couldve spent time to understand the problem domain and think more, if theyre not already busy fabricating a resume to sneak into The Actual Big Tech.
I bet it's nothing more than they prefer a machine they can just use and get no lip, rather than have to deal with humans they have to treat like humans and ask nicely and meet half way on countless issues and pretend to care about etc.
There's probably a bunch of untranslated or badly translated content worldwide, so this was rolled out to help with that, without realizing it would overwrite higher-quality translation.
It probably made a lot of sense in certain contexts, and certain side effects weren't predicted, or it just has bugs that need fixing.
Presumably nothing malicious or stupid. But just ironing out the kinks.
> But just ironing out the kinks.
"Ironing out the kinks" in production on live data is stupid.
All your production code has been entirely bug-free?
Nothing has ever gone wrong in production in ways that were fine on dev?
You've never written code to improve one metric, only to discover in prod it made another metric worse that nobody had considered?
How about a little humility for the ways in which we're all fallible and usually just trying to do our best?
My fallibility doesn't make stupid actions any less stupid. I've done stupid things myself, like ssh into prod to apply a "simple, one-liner hotfix" which ended up upgrading a minor annoyance into a partial outage.
I don't think there's a lot of value in labeling things as "stupid" unless they are somehow willfully or recklessly so, which is rarely the case. I really don't know what it gets you.
Even though you introduced the word/label to the thread, you may replace it with "unwise" or "ill-considered" if you find "stupid" too flippant.
Mozilla is desperately trying to LARP as a tech giant.
It’s sad to see a community built with love for 20 years end like this. AI should help people, not replace the heart behind their work.
Why is one person resigning == end of community?
Isn't it fascinating that despite `while true; do claude --yolo` over a weekend being all it takes to port some project across platforms, LLMs completely fall apart when it comes to speaking grammatical and natural Japanese?
Free tier Gemini CLI literally writes Android app for me by just endlessly wondering in English. AGI's here. And it struggles with Japanese. How!?
The simple truth is that LLMs are still bullshitting their way through life.
In some fields and languages, this is easier, but as soon as you need the LLM to follow rigorous instructions, it'll fail.
A lot of languages require a lot more context to speak and understand than others. English is a very low-context language, at least in formal registers - it just gets very wordy and very specific, and it helps that it is very analytic and isolating, with a massive vocabulary.
But for e.g. Spanish, if a bare subjunctive verb (making the verb "<x>" something like "could <x>," "should <x>," or "would <x>" without specifying) is used in a sentence, there's no way to know from that sentence who or what that subjunctive is being applied to. The unwritten rule is: 1) if it's obvious who or what you've been talking about, then it applies to that person or thing, 2) if there are two or more things it could be about, then you should figure out a way to add more information to specify which, and finally 3) if there are no good candidates, the person is referring to themselves.
I've heard that there's a lot more of that in Japanese, a language that I don't think really has personal pronouns at all. For example, iirc when you refer to an emotional state and don't specify who you're talking about, it's automatically assumed that you're talking about yourself. I'm not too familiar with Japanese, but languages are simply different from each other, they're not substitution ciphers.
LLMs have trouble staying aware of the context as things go on even for a fairly short time, and in some languages, the meaning of the conversation infects every utterance. Seems a little similar to how LLMs are bad at lifetimes in Rust. I'm sure they'll gradually get better.
> struggles with Japanese
It doesn't mention mistranslating, so it's difficult to know the root of the problem is AI "struggling".
> It doesn't follow our translation guidelines. > It doesn't respect current localization for Japanese users, so they were lost.
I believe this is the root of the problem. There are define processes and guidelines, and LLM isn't following it. Whether these guidelines were prompted or not is unclear but regardless it should've been verified by the community leaders before it's GA'ed
That's not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that LLMs just can't constitute a punctually Japanese understanding of text like that guideline and speak in Japanese with native fluency no matter what. I just know this from knowing both sides of English-Japanese language pair. And I find that somewhat fascinating in a sense.
I'm surprised by that. I use ChatGPT for communication with Japanese clients and I was mistaken for a native speaker more than once. I make almost no corrections other than changing the punctuation from western to fullwidth, although to be fair it's mostly simple and technical language.
Wow. That's crazy. I would be very interested in a blog post on this subject if you ever wrote one. I wonder how this affects the perception of LLMs in Japan
I took this to mean it's not translating things consistently. Like, a button in Firefox might say "Show all downloads" or "Open previous windows and tabs". These were localized a certain way, but an AI has no ability to check that. It will just translate them anew, which might be the same or it might translate it to something synonymous, but which then confuses users searching for the "Display all downloads" button or whatever.
To be fair, in my experience LLM-s struggle to some extent with nearly every language that isn't English. Compared to many others, English is a very simple language and it has the largest body of material to learn from to boot. The more nuanced a language, the more LLM-s spout garbage.
They do pretty good Russian, even to the point of very elaborate speech styles etc.
Russian-speaking web was pretty strong once. There was a lot of educated people in ex-USSR who were apt with tech, knew Russian well and were willing to use it.
That's very much in the past now. But it'll linger in the training data for a while.
It's funny because I'm pretty sure modern LLMs wouldn't exist if Alexandra Elbakyan didn't come up with the concept of a shadow library.
As a multilingual/multicultural human it’s been pretty weird witnessing what AI translation has been doing to regional languages & cultures on the internet in the last few years.
Sure we had machine translation before, but it was still a little off. Now the latest language models get us 99.9% there, so they are judged good enough to deploy at scale. What results is a weird twilight zone where everything is in your language, except it feels kind of wrong and doesn’t really communicate in ways specific to the culture from which the language is.
You’re in France, you search for something, a thread pops up with everyone interacting in French - seems reasonable enough, but it just reads kind of weird? Then a message is entirely out of place, and you realize that you’re reading an English language thread translated to French.
Or your mom sends you a screenshot of a Facebook thread in her native language that has her worked up - and reading it, you realize it’s an LLM translation of something that should have no bearing on her.
Same with various support pages on websites - it all reads mostly fine until you hit a weird sentence where the LLM messed up and then you’re transported back to the reality that what you’re reading was not authored by anyone who can actually operate in that language/culture.
There’s a lot of nuance in language beyond the words - how you express disagreement in English is not how you express disagreement in Japanese, how you address the reader in French is not the same as in Korean, etc. Machine translation flattens all modes of expression into a weird culturally en-US biased soup (because that’s where the companies are headquartered and where the language models are trained).
I have no illusions that this trend will reverse - high quality translation work is skill and time consuming, and thanks to LLMs anyone on Earth can now localize anything they want in any language they want for ~free in ~0 time.
The weirdest part is seeing this bubble up to the real world. I’ve been hearing young people use turns of phrases/expressions that I recognize as distinctly American, except not in English.
The classic linguist response to this, which I subscribe to, is “no language is fixed, language is ever evolving in response to various external cultural pressures“. Which is true. But it doesn’t make our post-LLM language landscape any less weird.
I've really disliked Reddit's auto-translation. I'm bilingual (English & Japanese) and when I search for things only to get an auto-translated reddit thread it really is bizarre. The references, flow of the conversation, etc. are all just off and it feels weird.
Bilingual English and Spanish here and I absolutely hate this.
I can read both just fine. Platforms defaulting to always showing one or things like youtube auto-translating titles all to English or all to Spanish is frustrating because I always have to do the math in my head as to "Why does this thing I'm reading sound weird as hell" and realize its because it was lost in translation.
Hell, I watch creators/consume content where the creator or writer themself speaks/writes interchangeably in both languages often within the same sentence because Spanglish is very common, and that just destroys most of these automated generators brains.
Use `https://google .com/search?q=-tl%20%s` as your search engine in the browser. Adding "-tl" to search terms remove most translated results from Google Search results. For now anyways.
I really hate it too especially when I want to search something specifically within the French context and I end up getting pages translated from Englsh to French and waste my time on irrelevant content.
Same for German. It's horrible.
I'm a native English speaker fluent in Japanese, recently moved to Japan this year. The one that really gets me lately is YouTube now automatically dubbing over content in Japanese that was originally in English. It's... so uncanny.
Yeah, that is a massive problem. This can't be disabled by the user, only be the channel owner. It's awful. The only solution is switching the YouTube UI language to English, to get the original English audio track. But then, presumably, all other languages would get machine translated into English. There is nothing one can do.
It's a problem for everyone who speaks >1 language (the majority of the world?) since you can't turn it off.
The YouTube No Translation add-on automatically turns off the robodubs and translated titles:
https://youtube-no-translation.vercel.app/
Before I discovered it I was getting so frustrated with the lousy robotranslations on YouTube.
Nice, thanks.
I recently found out DeArrow (an amazing extension to remove clickbait titles and thumbnails) also has an option to hide translated titles, off by default. But the extension you recommend can be used to force the audio track, which is very helpful.
I'm in a similar situation. I really wish there was a way to stop YouTube from suggesting me auto-dubbed videos.
You can use the YouTube No Translation add-on to automatically turn off the robodubs and translated titles:
https://youtube-no-translation.vercel.app/
ThereShouldBeTheQuoteAudioTrackQuoteOptionUnderGearIconMenuAtTheRightBottomCornerOfVideoUserInterfaceAmongWhichEnglishIsOfCourseNearTheBottomOfTheListButNotQuiteTheLastItem
but it only applies to that specific video, and yeah, it makes no sense that this passed sniff tests for Google.
Me and my GF had plenty of laughs in the beginning. Now it's become just annoying.
It is awful. Its also not so transparent that its being done which feels unethical.
Reminds me of the first time I heard youtube's forced AI translation to my native language. It's just wrong, the same male voice is used for everything, the delivery is grating, the intonation is off, the translation is very MTL in the bad sense.
And it cannot be disabled on mobile. The numbers must go up, I guess, but in my case it greatly reduced my usage of the app.
Yeah it's really jarring to be reading a text in not-english that seems somewhat normal and then to trip over some extremely American reference that makes it obvious it was auto translated. I just want things to have explicit language toggles or maybe allow me to hover over some text to see the translation. Google even allows you to set multiple languages and they still insist on auto translation between 2 languages I have told them I know.
FWIW I recently was watching something that i did not realise had been auto translated from Chinese to English. It was kind of a technical topic, but still it seemed perfectly natural. It struck me that .. as much as conflict hawks and clash of culture theorists might want to do their best to construct an enemy, if we get past the disorientation of language barriers, then mostly people are the same. If AI translation can help with that its a benefit.
The Standard Chinese language was always known to be oddly syntactically close to US English. No one calls it an Indo-European language, but they sometimes feel closer together than English and French on surface levels. Japanese is not like that - even human translations between anything to/from Japanese sound translated.
Japanese can especially be tricky to machine-translate because often the subject is missing from a sentence, where it would be required in an equivalent English sentence. The machine translation tends to insert its best guess of a subject (usually "I" or "you"), which can often flip a sentence's meaning inside-out.
There used to be a website called "Translation Party" where you would input a sentence in English and it would auto-translate it to Japanese and back to English over and over until it got to some equilibrium (where the translations were effectively the same) or hit it's upper bound of like 20 ish swings back and forth.
It was a fun little tool, but I think that really drove home for me how different Japanese is from English in how it structures itself.
Yeah, I occasionally tell my Chinese friends that the grammar of English and Chinese is actually pretty similar. If they respond with surprise, I'd say, "Have you ever tried to learn Turkish?" Chinese doesn't have conjugation; but the basic sentence structure (subject-verb-object, preposition, etc) are similar. There are of course loads of differences; but nothing nearly so deeply structural as Turkish, where you indicate relationships between things by adding suffixes; or Japanese, which just has a completely different way of bringing up topics.
Culture is just as much a part of language as the language itself.
There is an air of arrogance in proclaiming that it is merely language barriers that are an issue. But of course it's a convenient argument for big tech forcing MTL on all of us.
But it ultimately marginalizes smaller communities and kills languages. Cultural genocide if you will.
The dangerous thing is that the current state of MTL is serviceable and even usable, but a bilingual speaker will immediately know something is off.
I have noticed this both for French and German, two languages with lots of training material. I imagine it's much much worse for smaller languages and/or communities.
As more and more content on the web is automatically translated, we will all start to talk like translated-from-English LLMs, and that is a future I'm not looking forward to.
The global trend might not reverse, but surely the people in those cultures are going to push back on low quality content and "the market will sort it out", right? For example, Mistral is has a clear interest in being the "most native-French-speaking LLM", and with that expertise they could also grow to other languages where English-native LLMs are poorly received.
> The weirdest part is seeing this bubble up to the real world. I’ve been hearing young people use turns of phrases/expressions that I recognize as distinctly American, except not in English.
Calquing has been a common thing since long before AI translators, and it's not notable that it now happens for modern memes. It happens whenever a language is notable and nearby; English has a lot of calques from Greek/Latin/German/French as a result.
Ironically, "calque" is a loanword, but "loanword" is a calque.
Do you have any examples of American expressions young generations are using in French?
The ones that are easiest to point to are turns of phrase like “living your best life”, “that feeling when you…”, etc.
I don't think the LLMs are to blame here. Not yet, at least.
This is caused by people active in English-speaking communities translating memes literally and spreading them in their native language communities as-is.
As the meme spreads, monolingual speakers begin using the same format and eventually they reference it off-line.
> This is caused by people active in English-speaking communities translating memes literally and spreading them in their native language communities as-is.
You're right that memes are getting translated literally and spreading, but in terms of pure volume, LLMs doing the translation dwarf humans doing the translation.
Building a bot that picks whatever posts are trending on Reddit/imgur/etc, automatically translates them, and then posts them in target languages on social networks is an easy way to accumulate likes+followers; then those high reach accounts get used to push whatever makes money.
Not really. I have observed the same thing in Russian, and no, it's not for expressions that are translated literally.
Having said that, SOTA models got much better at this kinda stuff. They're quite able to write in a way that is indistinguishable from a native speaker, colloquialisms and all, with the right prompting.
But SOTA models are also expensive. Most automated translations are done with something way cheaper and worse.
That's basically my complaint about all these AI translations being shoved around in places. If they were better, I'd complain less. I suppose they'll get better eventually, but that's not really guaranteed. Google Translate is still somehow terrible and has stagnated for a long time -- things got a little bit better with DeepL but now SOTA LLMs (e.g. ChatGPT) are quite good (even if they still have quite some ways to go) and so far beyond the old stuff, and allow you to actually discuss the translation itself with nuances kept/lost rather than just a straight one-shot A to B.
Reasoning models are pretty interesting for this because they can iterate on the translation to get the subtle parts (like tone) right, especially if you prompt them to do so specifically.
How do the models do if you ask them to translate to X language and adapt the text to suit cultural norms and idioms?
At least in my experience poorly. As a reference I speak one of the smaller European languages and what is interesting that newer models tend to do worse, but what all of them struggle with and is very hard to control using prompting is tone.
Formal language in American English is very friendly, very sweet, to an extent that my language is not. Any piece of text therefore sounds like a psychopath is trying to manipulate you.
> a weird culturally en-US biased soup (because that’s where the companies are headquartered and where the language models are trained)
i wonder why Sony doesn't train a Japanese model, or why some French company hasn't made a French one, etc.
Microsoft nuked the default behaviour of the input method of Traditional Chinese that had been working for the last 50 years with a silent Windows Update
Some people do these type of contribution or charity work not just to do some good but also to feel some autonomy and mastery in a world were much of the regular top down driven drudgery work does not provide much of that feeling. These people are canaries in the coal mine. I expect more people feel a loss of purpose and rise of anxiety and depression in the world.
Conversely, it's a bit strange for a for-profit company like Mozilla Corporation to rely on volunteer labor through its non-profit parent Mozilla Foundation to perform customer support.
There was a period where every company was trying to "crowd source" free labor. It died off because people didn't like working for corporations for free.
I can see why they have it under Mozilla.org. And lots of companies have community support.
But I do think we should ask ourselves whether companies have some sort of moral obligation to continue relying on unpaid labor because it might make the unpaid laborers feel a sense of meaning. I'm very sympathetic to the need to have a sense of meaning. But I'm less sympathetic to for-profit companies relying on unpaid labor and especially to the idea that we should encourage more of it.
There was probably a more tactful way to shift labor from passionate volunteers to soulless AI.
I too would be upset if an organization threw out a decade of translation work without any warning or discussion, in favor of a robot pretending to understand my language and failing.
I agree there could have been more tact, and I would probably be upset too if a bunch of my work got replaced by automation. I would even feel that way if the automation was better. I've criticized Mozilla extensively in the past, and I would see a clumsy rollout as consistent with my concerns about them.
The difficulty with a post like this is it brings out a primal anti-technology impulse in all of us. But once you clear away the piling-on and emotionally charged hot takes there isn't much here to talk about.
This post, aside from a statement of intent to quit, is a report that was made about the bot. Mozilla made an invitation to address the concerns. All of that seems normal. Rollout with mistake -> bug report -> attempting to understand what went wrong. But the bug report contains unrealistic demands that seem almost rhetorical and the attempt to figure out what went wrong is being met with scorn, as in the top comment of this HN discussion.
> passionate volunteers to soulless AI.
Humans don't have souls either as I'm sure you know :-P. To post this comment, you're using a soulless computer that took jobs away from human computers. You probably listen to music made with soulless synthesizers that took jobs from musicians. You no doubt take photos with soulless cameras that took jobs from painters.
I think we have to be clear to ourselves that, although the transition to automation will be painful, nobody is going to prevent technology from advancing. So we have to find a way to use it to build the future we want, not try to tear it down as soulless or evil.
not converse, orthogonal
Exactly right!
With the AI juggernaut picking up steam, i expect this is going to happen sooner rather than later.
That said, Mozilla clearly handled this the wrong way; they should have informed the volunteers before throwing the switch.
> they should have informed the volunteers before throwing the switch
No, they should have involved the volunteers in the design process.
Which I feel honestly in part explains why so many prominent figures in Free software development seem to have some mental issues to be honest. They in a way remind me of that person who at one point was responsible for over half of all edits on the Scots Wikipedia.
Even the paid professionals often started to work for free and then were hired by some company and the reality is that someone who is good at something and willing to do it for free is either a very good Samaritan, or there is some other issue at stake and in the end prominent free software figures often have fairly heated public keyboard wars over things with each other and most of all seem strangely fiercely loyal tribalists who suffer from an extreme case of n.i.h.-syndrome.
Some people just want to contribute to a common cause. Some people just want to spend five minutes of their time to fix that one annoying papercut which been bothering them for ages, others just enjoy working together with friendly people to achieve something tangible they can be proud of.
In my opinion one of the biggest benefits of Github to the open-source community is that contributing now has extremely low barriers. It is absolutely trivial to put an "edit this page" link in your documentation which lets a complete stranger fix a typo and open a pull request within seconds - and seeing your fix go live within a few hours is absolutely magical. That kind of trivial contribution is a gateway drug to becoming a valued community member, and it is absolutely essential to maintaining a healthy ecosystem around open-source projects.
Yeah I’m not even sure it’s easy to decide which side is in the right here and it’s not as simple as people think it is.
Mozilla is painted bad here, but who knows if the automated translations do not help more people than it hurts the translators.
What if the reduced financial pressure allows Mozilla to focus more on privacy and less on ads.
Unfortunately these things are really gray, but you really can’t expect a company to keep you paying in good will.
> I’m not even sure it’s easy to decide which side is in the right here and it’s not as simple as people think it is.
- No prior communications.
- No discussion about what uses the contributed information was being put to.
- No discussion about the release and the parameters around the operation of the bot.
- No discussion about whether or not this was a desirable in the first place (with the community, not just internally).
- Flippant tone to someone who is clearly severely insulted.
If it was a paid job and you treated the person who did it like this it would already be beyond rude, if it is a volunteer group then it is more than enough to throw in the towel. This isn't gray.
> if it is a volunteer group then it is more than enough to throw in the towel
I do a lot of pro bono stuff. Most of my work is free, and I spend a lot of time, trying to get others to pitch in, as well.
Treating "free" labor like shit, is a common, and self-destructive trait. Looks a lot like that's exactly what happened, here.
I could go on, but I won't.
Ohhh shit it was volunteer pardon me!
Yes no gray area!
My comment was assuming that it’s a paid role and also just commenting on the process of translating with ai vs without
Who knows?
Everyone whose native language is not English knows. Seriously, people with this attitude should be forced to run their browser and mail client with a plugin to run everything through a couple of machine translation roundtrips. Give it two months, and I guarantee you'll understand.
My first language is German, but I've got most of my devices set to English. Because of that, Youtube started machine-translating German video titles and audio into English at random. The audio quality is just bad, everything sounds muffled. And the translations are often complete garbage. I absolutely detest this "feature".
I’m in the Netherlands and I get ads for Bol.com on YouTube now with narration that would be more appropriate to Fitter, Happier. I’m surprised advertisers are ok with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tepztGLNYcE
I have a feeling that advertisers have yet to catch up. In Germany, the supermarket chain Lidl recently started running a pretty heavy advertisement campaign on Youtube. Of course, Youtube auto-translated the advertisement into English. The effect is really, really uncanny. "LIDL IS WORTH IT! JA!"
If I were Lidl, I'd shut that down immediately.
this is hilarious, thanks
the wild thing is you _know_ there are so many people at YouTube who speak multiple languages and have issues with this. What engineering team is only filled with single-language-speaking people, especially at a prestige-y place like Google?
It happened to me in French also, one day I was looking at a video that was trendy, podcast like, and the voices were more than shitty, like a badly translated movie. I looked at comments and everyone was praising this video, so it did not make any sense to me. Until I discovered that Youtube somehow decided to auto enable this feature that I never asked for.
Now imagine you are like me, someone who travels the world for work. I get everything in Dutch, German, Swedish, Finnish, Arabic and of course Schweizerdeutsch. And some other languages.
There used to be an “international English” setting.
Pretty black and white to me.
Mozilla destroyed decades of work on a production server without even discussing it with the passionate volunteers that provided them free labor for decades. Didn’t even evaluate on a staging server to check for quality issues.
The AI isn’t the focus of the issue. The management decision to disregard and disrespect their own unpaid contributors and their organization’s history is a clear indication of Mozilla’s current and future priorities.
> Mozilla is painted bad here, but who knows if the automated translations do not help more people than it hurts the translators.
Mozilla should have discussed this with the translators in advance at least.
> What if the reduced financial pressure allows Mozilla to focus more on privacy and less on ads.
My impression was marsf was a volunteer.
> who knows if the automated translations do not help more people than it hurts the translators.
The Japanese translation community leader knows, as will many members of that community, and other Japanese speakers.
This is not difficult.
> who knows if the automated translations do not help more people than it hurts the translators
Everyone speaking more than one language knows. Human translations for things like software are bad enough as-is, but automated translations are universally horrible.
I set all of my software to English despite it not being my native language, simply because a lot of concepts don't translate cleanly and end up with forced and cringeworthy phrasing. Combine that with the un-Google-ability of translated errors and issues, and going for an interface in the native English verson is a no-brainer.
And that's with translations done by actual humans! Sites like Youtube have tried "helpfully" pushing machine translations on me for a looong time, and it is painfully clear to anyone speaking both the source language and the target language that the translation is absolute garbage and essentially unusable.
In fact, I barely speak any German (got a year or two of it in high school, but my grades were fairly embarrassing), but I prefer struggling with the native version over a machine translation. Given my knowledge of German-adjacent languages I can mostly make out the meaning of the original, and there's always the dictionary for the handful of words I'm not familiar with.
I'm not sure why I clicked on this beyond just knowing it was going to be another Mozilla trainwreck and not being able to look away. But what was truly stunning to me was this comment thread. There are people here actually defending the following response:
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced. Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further?
This is horrifically patronizing after someone's volunteer work was effectively destroyed (as laid out in the list of grievances), but there are people here asking "how is it patronizing? seems perfectly reasonable to me".
It's one of those "they live among us" moments, where you realize that you're surrounded by psychopaths. It's not even malice, they're not intentionally being assholes, they just have no empathy.
> This is horrifically patronizing after someone's volunteer work was effectively destroyed
This, 100 %.
"Your bot just destroyed 20 years of my work."
"Naaaw, sorry you feel that way! Let's hop on a quick call so I can explain to you why you're wrong, mkay?"
> It's one of those "they live among us" moments, where you realize that you're surrounded by psychopaths.
Or has this kind of corporate language/attitude become so common that people just gave up fighting it? If so, that's…terrifying.
Yup, you get it.
I wonder if cultural differences might play a role. I'm not from the USA, maybe this way of communicating is perfectly normal there and the rest of the word is just utterly baffled by it?
Where I'm from this is how someone who has no respect for you deals with an inconvenience. Acknowledge no wrongdoing, make the situation about emotions rather than actions (sorry you feel this way), shift the conversation from a public space to a private space with no records.
I don’t know, I feel the Western cooperate culture found it reasonable to completely fuck people over without even understanding and then blame them for it
Talking face-to-face is absolutely the right response, though. Would you have preferred a canned apology?
"I'm sorry you feel that way" is a canned non-apology, worse than a canned apology. At least a canned apology admits fault.
I wouldn't want to get into a call with someone with that attitude. If I'm quitting because no consideration was given to me or my work, and the first response I get shows no consideration to me, my work, or even acknowledge my list of grievances, a "quick call" is the last thing I feel like getting on.
In fact, even that word, "quick", is insulting, because there's no way this is getting fixed with a "quick" call. "Quick call" implies the grievances are minor. More insults.
1. Turn off bot
2. Revert bot's changes
3. Ask to have call for feedback, while expressing fault for deploying bot to prod without collaboration & conceding to making this bot opt-in
(They may not have power to do 1 & 2, but that's a sign of an org not empowering their support team)
The “right” response is owning your mistake, apologizing, rolling back AND talking face to face.
Patronizing “sorry you got your feelings hurt” responses are pretty much canned apologies.
No it's not! There's a support forum right there, use it. The only reason they want a call is because they want to try to grind down the volunteer while having everything off the record.
No, the right response was to talk about it before making the changes.
Talking face-to-face about what though? Apparently it's about "what you're struggling with", not "what we fucked up". There's a complete inability to admit any fault in this message, so the conversation is already primed to be bullshit. I would expect such a conversation to be a waste of my time and would never agree to it.
Can anybody provide some context for this?
I can’t parse what’s going on from the post or the comments here, and there’s no navigation on that page to anywhere but “support “
It sounds like something is happening. What is it?
Machine translated KB articles are destroying the japanese translations made by humans (and probably other languages too)
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/717387...
> If the MT-generated revision isn't reviewed within a set timeframe (which will be communicated later), it will be automatically approved and published, clearly labeled to indicate that it was translated by AI translation was used.
The complaint seems to indicate this "set timeframe" was 72 hours. Add to the fact that there's decent likelihood of an avalanche of articles "that haven't been updated in 6 months", this seems pretty ridiculous to have put into place before at least getting sign-off from senior maintainers that the translations were of sufficient quality.
This almost deserves to be nominated for the AI darwin awards. "Volunteer community destroyed and leadership self-exiled because someone at corporate thought thier machine translation was better than native speakers, of one of the world's most notoriously difficult languages."
I would bet money that Japan has thier own yearly "business fail awards" and this is gonna wind up there. "Just hop on a quick call, never mind the time zone!"
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel about the MT workflow that we just recently introduced. Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.
Talk about being tone deaf. This was so incredibly rude. No consult, no request whether they wanted this or not. Mozilla keeps finding new ways to shoot itself in the foot, these are probably some of the most loyal people that you could wish for, that's a precious resource if there ever was one. And to add insult to injury they want to them 'hop on a call' and to 'trully[sic] understand what you're struggling with' even though they just spelled it out as clear as day.
sounds like it's almost an AI response? I can't believe a person responds that way
A few years in corporate managerial role will turn you into a bot.
Not even necessarily managerial. Any large bureaucracy tends to force this kind of speech on the people who constitute it.
AI wouldnt misspell “truly”. It’s a human.
Two observations: You are probably right. But if a random spelling error would allow a person to get away with using AI in professional communications then you can expect that pattern to show up all over the place.
I'm trying to imagine the prompt here.
"Hey, ChatGPT, it looks like our org fucked up and now a hotheaded volunteer makes us look like idiots. Please generate a flippant response that pretends to show we care and meanwhile ticks them off even further. Oh, and I don't want my boss to know I'm using AI to generate this response, so make it good this time, and make it look human."
I so deeply hope that a prompt like that was used here.
Doing this in production directly without even trying it on staging feels very wrong.
I used to work with manager who told us to "have balls, deploy straight to prod" We spend a month cleaning this up. The other time when another manager demanded I "run this script" from the iphone he shoved in my face a whole warehouse went down in Ireland a month before Christmas and the Police were involved. There is an irrational push to deploy AI everywhere for no reason whatsoever. It, well the LLM part of it, is bad tech and all those "AI success stories" are pure hot air.
Imagine having human volunteers do the work for you, than paying an AI to overwrite their work without communicating this with them (no validation of any sort it seems). And once they quit you corporate-speak to them "let's hop on a call to understand your frustrations!" in response to a post where they outline precisely their frustrations.
Disgusting behavior.
To top it off, it's corpospeak from what ultimately is an org that exists becuase of an open source project.
I understand the matter in theory, but I don't understand the matter in practice. Clicking through on the user, I couldn't identify any machine-translated overwrites of his work. What is an example of this? And if the community that manages the site objects, why not apply a batch temporary revert, and then re-run once/if everything is solved.
This is a trivial operation for me to do on MediaWiki with a bot, so it must be straightforward to do here too. I think "Ask forgiveness, not permission" is fine in order to move things forward, but you do have "ask forgiveness".
> "Ask forgiveness, not permission" is fine in order to move things forward
No, in a community of peers that's a great way to burn goodwill, particularly among volunteers.
One should "ask forgiveness" when managing upwards, and "ask permission" when managing across or downwards. That's what you do if you respect people.
I call this the AI theater. If a company can (still) look good AND decrease dealing with pesky flesh and bone humans, that's not collateral, that's a win. On the surface you act caring, concerned, rendering investors and HR both happy while you decrease "human complexity" - then you are winning the AI game. Mozilla always wanted to join the big boys, but while yearning for their soft power status the yearn bore the fruits of a rotten soul they will also have to embrace. There is no light without shadows and AI's shadows are drawn long and deep.
Late to the discussion here, but the path to make things right (to me) is to reverse the changes. Why doesn't Mozilla do that?
File under “nominative determinism”
Google “sumobot;” ai summary says:
I've been studying Japanese for 15+ years and have really come to loathe machine translations from English. While generally the meaning gets across, they're very unnatural and often use words in contexts that sound weird or are just flat out wrong.
Often doesn't go great the other way either.
KB = Knowledge Base
MT = Machine Translation
In this context.
It’s a shame because “improve an off the shelf llm ti translate in line with this large dataset we prepared” is precisely the kind of project people love to work on. It could have been a chance to immortalize the hard work they did up until now.
> this large dataset we prepared
You mean the two+ decades of labour of love was always done to be a nameless contribution to the AI machine? Somehow I think he would have picked another hobby if he had known that back then.
Is it? I don't think you quite understood the issue.
This issue is specifically centred around the human element of the work and organisation. The translators were doing good work, they wanted to continue that work. Why it's important that the work done is by a human is probably only partially about quality of output and likely more about authenticity of output. The human element is not recorded in the final translation output, but it is important to people that they know something was processed by a human who had heart and the right intentions.
> The human element is not recorded in the final translation output, but it is important to people that they know something was processed by a human who had heart and the right intentions
Not that I entirely disagree with the conclusion here, but…
It feels like that same sentiment can be used to justify all sorts of shitty translation output, like a dialog saying cutesy “let’s get you signed in”, or having dialogs with “got it” on the button label. Sure, it’s so “human” and has “heart”, but also enrages me to my very core and makes me want to find whoever wrote it and punch them in the face as hard as I can.
I would like much less “human” in my software translations, to be honest. Give me dry, clear, unambiguous descriptions of what’s happening please. If an LLM can do that and strike a consistent tone, I don’t really care much at all about the human element going into it.
Oh I wasn't really referring to tone or language like that, I also don't particularly like it and prefer concise clear language. While LLMs can totally achieve that, I want to know a human decided to do it that way. At some point this mindset is going to look very silly, and perhaps even more so for software. But ultimately it's a human feeling to want that and humans are also not deterministic or logical.
I'm sure they'll be as open and communicative with the community as they were when their baked-in CA TLS certs for the add-ons expired and everyone not using $latest's add-ons got disabled. Which is to say they'll explicitly shut down the comment threads where people are discussing it over and over and then set up a non-commentable blog post where they ignore everything. And leave the problem in place to repeat in the future.
The level of arrogance it took to do this is quite simply stunning.
Note, and this is very important: marsf posted this at 2am pacific time. Kiki responded at 6am (I don't know it's timezone, but presuming anywhere in the US, it is literally the earliest it could have responded). Then afterwards, marsf have posted a response publicly. So, we don't know what happened since then. There have been 1 day and a half-ish and coordinating between timezones is interesting, to say the least.
Reading the comments and replies here makes me wonder if I might have unintentionally stepped on some toes at work, especially across different cultures and people with different "takes" on English.
I've also been on the receiving end (written communication) but given that we get along pretty well in-person, I chalked that up to our different writing "style".
I see your POV, but fundamentally the issue here is Mozilla screwing with their AI bot, and some employee jumping in to do some communication after everyone's already pissed.
Sure the Mozilla employee could use better phrasing and have a more considerate approach, but it comes out so worse because the situation is already critically bad.
People will give the benefit of the doubt when they see genuine care in the actual actions and a decent track record.
Context in another thread on that site gives a lot of background and a lot of community pushback that was clearly ignored: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/717387...
If i was this guy, i would take all the translations and move them to his own independent site with proper promotion so that Japanese speaker can find it easily
I'd just begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure: https://ladybird.org/#gi
Firefox is itself someone deciding to make their own fork of mozilla. Maybe we need to do it again every ten years.
What? Firefox (or really Firebird before the rename) came internally from Mozilla way when it got its start (when Netscape was still around) in an attempt to make a scaled down, "just the browser" version of the entire Netscape Communicator/Mozilla suite.
If an intern and a guy who quit Netscape and had been working at Apple for two years is internal, then I need to go back to school and learn words.
I'm happy that somebody is trying to create a new browser -- even though some people say it's impossible nowadays.
But FUTO sponsoring that project gives bad vibes.
Why? You’re referring to tue club that makes Immich, right? What’s so bad about them?
I also love Immich, but it seems like there's some controversy about FUTO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45666239
Appreciate the response. I read the Devault rant. It’s not clear to me that the guy behind FUTO is actively evil, seems more like he’s trying his best and still figuring that whole “being a semi public figure funding stuff” thing out.
Drew’s position that interacting with people with bad opinions makes you evil by association doesn’t strike me as mainstream (or future-proof for that matter).
How is Drew not banned on here? You can't even talk about his obsession with .. "Japaneses child art" let's say .. without it getting flagged and removed. (This comment will get flagged). Meanwhile other people who lean slightly right are totally shadowbanned.
Devault is not a good actor. Everything he says comes out of jealousy and spite.
No, it doesn't. People complaining about someone talking x or y funding is "bad vibes." Why does everything have to turn into ideological BS?
Look, Wikimedia is an evil, biased, insane organization that grifts for money and gives to absolutely insane causes, but if they gave me a few thousand for an open source project, would I turn them down? No. I'd never give them money, but it's not going to prevent me from using their services either (using LibRedirect + a Wikiless instance to avoid tracking and their ads of course).
that's still promoting mozilla/firefox in a way, something they clearly don't want to do anymore
Shocking that Mozilla would roll out a bot - in production - without coordinating with the team that's been doing the work for years so far. Very bad look.
A similar thing is going on at Amazon. Their AI is rewriting perfectly good product descriptions provided by manufacturers and I noticed that I stopped buying there, because I cannot find out what it is that I am buying or how much of it I am buying. I started shopping at sites that sell same products, but do not change manufacturers' descriptions. I have a feeling that post AI bubble we'll be doing a lot of manual cleanup of information "improved" by AI.
It looks like companies are doubling down on shitty AI bots to cut their costs even though it is backfiring terribly, like in Facebook case where they spent billions on their AI and all it did - just banned millions of their core userbase (and still banning). Looks like we will see more companies imploding because they relay to much on subpar AI.
So, they had people working for free for years and didn't think to involve them in a process where they could have been stil "useful"?
But I think they already clarified how much they care about people doing translations since they defaulted to the robo-translation. Which to me is complete nonsense considering how superior the human translations must be. As a human with a brain, I would have just translated automatically the missing pages leaving to them the option of replacing/fixing them. Also they should have been thanked many times for all their hard work.
When you've seen this over and over again, you notice the pattern.
Marsf’s declaration will stand as a warning, yet not a turning point. The Japanese community will fade into quiet dignity, its pages archived and replaced by machine-rendered text that sounds correct but says nothing alive. A few veterans like Michele will remain, mending sentences by candlelight, until exhaustion or disillusion drives them away too.
Within Mozilla, the story will become legend told in conference calls - “remember when the Japanese translators quit over the bot?” Some manager will sigh, another will nod, and the project will move on. In a year, SumoBot will be improved, made less intrusive, and marketed as community-enhanced translation.
What will endure is not the bot or the bureaucracy, but that farewell note - an act of witness that proved people still care enough to walk away.
If Shakespeare wrote the final scene, it would close not on victory or defeat, but on silence: a hall of empty chairs, lit by the blue glow of screens that still translate into nothingness.
Floorp is a fork by Japanese developer, though his English is not perfect. It removes all backwards compatibility to speed things up, competing vs. Thorium to be best performing browser, if anyone's interested.
Can someone please remind what the community coordinators were called long back? I remember they were part of releases, had power and responsibility.
There was an exodus of them around 2015/16 times.
Does anyone remember anyone's post?
Mozilla is more and more disappointing. Always talking about making an internet for everyone, community, bla bla. But then they don't even talk to their own community contributors before changing their workflow. And when someone speaks up, they get the most corporate reply possible.
This should be a wake-up call for any org trying to "AI-ify" community-driven work
The same feeling non-native English speakers have battling native English speaker bias
I am browsing the website on Firefox and Reader Mode does not work. Peak irony.
Saying "I'm sorry for how you feel..." is the most condescending way to begin. Then a "let's jump on a con call"... oh... why would I do that when I just told you? smh.
Enshittification will continue until market share improves.
He sounded pathetic, especially "therefore I declare" that's just ridiculous.
Boss, I declare that you must remove all my code from all our products effective today, because of that coop that easily replaced my 20 years experience and I'm upset about.
mozilla never had a sound business model to sustain its operation anyways, everything they do is just a stunt to make a living out of people's belief and naivety on how it operates.
it's a grift of an organization and it reflects in the simplest ways like this.
Another delightfully awful Mozilla problem
> End of Japanese community
Hurray ! Finally AI is eliminating the need for junior (and, it seems from the post, also senior) developers. /s
What actually happened? What's his complaint?
How did you read the post and miss the complaint?
Because I don't understand what he's saying. Something happened that he didn't like, but I can't tell what.
> the sumobot was introduced to Japanese KB articles.
I dont know what a sumobot is, I don't know what Japanese KB articles are, I don't know why it's bad to have both together.
Am I taking crazy pills or is this entire thread full of some insane reaches
[dead]
[flagged]
Small meta observation: Gemini Flash 2.5 summarises this discussion as a problem with how ML was used and it's flaws, whereas Gemini Pro 2.5 emphasizes that it mainly a cultural communication problem. Both topics are here, but "fast Vs slow thought" sees different things.
Going by title, I thought this is about low birth rate and accumulation of old people in Japan. Is that silly me or click-bait title.
It originally had better title mentioning AI and all but someone edited it
> I prohibit to use all my translation as learning data for SUMO bot and AIs.
> I request to remove all my translation from learned data of SUMO AIs.
It's Mozilla's data...
> explicit violation to the Mozilla mission
I'm not sure what this is referring to. I don't see any explicit violation of Mozilla.org's mission. If anything it seems consistent with that mission to provide universal translation with quick turnaround.
It's funny how Japanese contributors often go nuclear whenever things don't go their way instead of communicating etc. Bugs happen. this is tech. open communication is always the way to go before escalation. we see the same phenomenon in git, ruby etc etc etc.
Ironically, Japanese work culture encourages over-communication. It seems that open-source is considered a counter-culture that they want to escape japanese work culture from.
>In October 22, the sumobot was introduced to Japanese KB articles. I cannot accept its behavior and no words. [...] It has been working now without our acceptance, without controls, without communications.
How exactly did you manage to place the blame for no communication on Japanese contributors here given the actual complaint in question?
Because given the nature and scope of the complaint, they should have disclosed prior communication. It is clear here that they probably attempted, poorly, to communicate but ultimately chose to nuke the relationship instead, claiming that they have a monopoly over japanese translations.
Yes, lets dismiss Japanese culture..
This isn't dismissing, this is respecting that this is a risk factor in involving Japanese contributors.
Please reread what you wrote and try to see if you can see how it comes off as at least culturally insensitive if not outright racist.
I live in Japan so I have seen what danieltanfh95 describes many times in person. Japanese people at work seem to have infinite patience with whatever random bullshit their company will ask for, but outside of work they get easily frustrated when things don't go the way they expect.
When the machine automation quality became okay enough, this conflict of interest happens.
His demand of not using his existing work for AI training is nonsense. Because the entire article is stated:
> Portions of this content are ©1998–2025 by individual mozilla.org contributors. Content available under a Creative Commons license.
Didn't he agree on that?
So, this contributor revealed he doesn't understand the license his work is published under. As such, Mozilla must refuse his contribution because he don't understand the idea behind Creative Commons license. His wish granted I guess.
You can rescind a license. If you own a property, it is yours. Even if you licensed it to someone, you own it and you can kick someone off. They can later address you for a breach of license, but it's still your property. You own it.
If mozilla wants to tell him that his work was valuable and therefore has grounds to sue him for rescinding the license, they will have a lot of difficulty proving that after their sumobot summarily deleted years of it for no good reason at a whim.
Good for him. He should probably consider suing them for destruction of his work.
Once your work is published under Creative Commons license, it is irreversible. No matter you have a copyright or not. You can't undo it the fact at one point you published your work in one of Creative Commons license(there are multiple incompatible Creative Commons licenses so it's bit complicated).
You can make updated version of your work to non-CC, but the version you published under CC is CC.
I would be curious if that is how Japanese courts would view it. They may not consider that a valid way. Or they might. But different jurisdictions vary.
You need to think hard and understand that it is irreversible before you publish your content under certain licenses.
My problem with this type of gate keeping is that machine learning does open up translations that are accurate to the masses. It is quaint having a real human do your translations though. Kind of like having a real human drive your car or do your housework. Not everyone can afford that luxury. But, on the other hand, having a singular organization own the training data and the model and not publishing the model itself is where the gatekeeping continues.
There are some discussion if the whole concept of "license" fits under Japanese law. I think it's understood as "a contract to allow the usage of otherwise restricted work by copyright etc under conditions"
But I'm not a lawyer so I don't know and in real business, they casually use the word "license" in Japan. But in my opinion, everything is contract under Japanese law.
Yeah - I know in US law some terms are simply unenforceable and void. Much of the FOSS movement is designed around US contract law. There are issues with some US licenses being enforceable under other legal regimes - I was chatting a decade or so ago with a Russian who understood the...GPL(? I don't remember exactly) to be invalid in Russia and so it had to be bundled in some fashion to be usable.
Or to put another way, a license (a contract) is a tuple (terms, jurisdiction), and the juridical evaluation process will take both into account.
[dead]
> Once your work is published under Creative Commons license, it is irreversible.
I am not sure how it is under Japanese law, but in some countries a creator cannot be stripped of his rights by agreeing to a license. Even without that there is often a way to rescind any gift given in good faith if the receipients behavior warrants it.
In case of Japanese copyright law, that is 著作人格権(moral rights). A right that protect his work isn't used in a way the author don't want it.
It includes right to be not published(like a personal letter intended to be secret), attribution, right to be identical preservation(modifying in a way author don't intended, like adding extra arm to 3-arms monster)
You see, these rights are covered in Creative Commons, by agreeing and publishing his work under Creative Commons, the author explicitly promised he won't use these exclusive rights against the users.
If he didn't agree on the spirit of Creative Commons, why did he contributed Mozilla in CC license for 20 years? Did he intended to taint free software by incompatible non-free work?
This is exactly what happens if you ignore the free software definition explained by RMS.
this is not how CC / FOSS licenses work. if this is how FOSS worked not a soul would use it
I don't think it's at all clear that some foss licenses (MIT for instance) are irrevocable. Not in the US, and certainly not in any possible relevant country... It's not clear that they are revocable either. As I understand the law it at least in part rests on the question of whether there was consideration in exchange for the license, which might even make it a case by case analysis.
CC licenses (and some other foss licenses, e.g. Apache 2.0) are explicitly irrevocable... which is probably enough for US law though I still wonder to some degree if there isn't some country that would take issue with that term... especially a country which recognizes "Moral rights".
Some other FOSS licenses (GPL for instance) contain explicit terms allowing revocation under certain circumstances (but otherwise claim to be irrevocable).
Whether the license is revokable or not is irrelevant when the action isn't permitted by the license anyway.
In particular, the primary purpose of AI as we know it is to strip off attribution, which is explicitly forbidden by basically every license in existence.
True, license is probably irrelevant here because they aren't even intending to comply with the terms of it.
To nitpick "explicitly forbidden" isn't quite right. Licenses basically only grant more permissions, they can't remove them. It's explicitly excluded from the rights granted by the license, but it's not explicitly forbidden because it is the law that might or might not forbid the activity, not the license.
It's a disappointing that after decades of free software movement, people can't understand this basic fact about license and the concept of "free".
And the fact 20+ years Mozilla contributor didn't understand it too. You can't restrict the usage to things you don't like it under CC.