[Boogie_Man]

I think the commenter is referring to the generic "rainbow coalition" language about helping disabled marginalized pregnant women in Africa. I don't think anyone would consider those things as bad, but I can see someone considering them a needless deviation from what (they perceive) Mozilla should be: a FOSS company. It strikes me personally as exceptionally cooperate, which is fine as long as it's not distracting from the core tenants of FOSS. Not everyone can be the FSF.

[jonhohle]

Were I a donor to Mozilla, that would tell me they already have more money then they can use toward furthering their goal and in future years I would look to donate directly to organizations helping the impoverished, oppressed.

There is no expertise at managing humanitarian efforts at Mozilla. There is no overlap with their primary purpose and external charitable contributions outside of those supporting open web standards. It’s a waste of everyone’s resources.

[lupusreal]

It's not just the 'rainbow' initiatives, but the vague way those initiatives are described. Take this for example: "These projects range from creating virtual support networks for LGBTQI+ individuals"

What did they actually do here? Host a mastadon instance for gay people? How many of those people wouldn't have a chatroom with like-minded people if not for Mozilla's efforts? There are countless such spaces on the net already, for instance on traditional social media, on other fediverse instances, on discord or reddit, etc... so how much money did Mozilla spend creating yet another chatroom for LGBTQI+ people and how much real world impact did their effort actually have?

(Aside, saying 'individuals' instead of 'people' exemplifies the sort of swarmy weasel language used by cops, corporate PR, and other snakes putting on airs. Why do they do this, don't they know this kind of language betrays them for what they are? I guess they use this language to impress each other and don't really care that normal people perceive it as inauthentic.)