[mook]

I don't believe they would simply close in that case; I strongly believe that they would instead choose to remain open under the logic that compromised but still working for user security / web "openness" is superior to folding and losing a force which aims to work for the "greater good". I believe this given their past choices in things like H264 and EME.

Given that, though, I also believe that enough smart people are in Mozilla that they would try to prevent themselves from being in a position where they would be a target such that they would face the dilemma. Which might be why they're only hosting middle relays, and not exits or guards :)

[leeoniya]

regarding H264 and EME, there are legitimate reasons for them having conceded on those fronts. Content providers do have a legitimate interest in protecting copyrighted work. Likewise, H264 is widely deployed and is already a sunk cost for most consumers and migrating away from it will take at least a decade, it was never going to work to forcefully go cold turkey; not everyone can pull an Apple and yank Flash support.

while those choices certainly limit user freedom (as in choice), they do not compromise user security (assuming EME is properly sandboxed, etc)

i don't think they would just up and close, they'd likely just sunset/curtail the services which would be subject to interception. in Lavabit's case, that was the entire business.

[MichaelGG]

>Content providers do have a legitimate interest in protecting copyrighted work

Except DRM in the browser doesn't really accomplish that, does it? Hit The Pirate Bay or Google up a torrent and done. Things like Netflix DRM are only one step above HDCP.

[leeoniya]

regardless of how misguided their attempts are, doing nothing is a non-option for studios, right? what alternatives are there? there are none - those who make the content make the rules, it's something i'm confident will not change.

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...

anyways, this is off-topic.