No he can't always contribute himself because most people myself included can't contribute to whatever project just because it is open source. You need to have an intimate knowledge of the technology and the experience and since you suggesting that he "can always contribute" I'd ask you: can you?
You're conflating different forms of ads. Ads that get your info through trackers are invading your privacy. The Mr. Robot ad is as invading of your privacy as an ad in a paper magazine. It didn't collect your data. Come on don't pretend you don't know how invasion of privacy works.
The Mr. Robot extension didn't send data about you to other people so that means it didn't invade your privacy. It was strange that Mozilla would allow such an extension but it wasn't spying on you.
I have an account on Pinterest because I like the service but having to sign-in for the simplest of things surely bugs me. Sometimes I just want to see one image and I end up having to navigate a bunch of sign-in pages just to see something. Recently I've found myself skipping Pinterest pages just because of the hoop jumping that signing-in creates.
Speak the name loudly to someone and ask them to write it. I know all about the company but I couldn't stop laughing after reading the headline. It gets to me every single time.
The reason for his detention is mentioned near the end of the article:
"After several hours, Carrillo and another detainee were driven to a privately run immigration detention center in Adelanto, 85 miles outside Los Angeles in the Mojave Desert."
Privately run centers don't get paid based on citizenship or not but on services rendered.
I think it should be illegal. Frame it in terms of a burger. If McDonald's says "since you say our food is bad we're messing with your burger after you bought it and we'll give you your money back if you return it" that would be illegal and probably, not sure though, a form of discrimination.
This makes me think that the claims to pursue informants/leakers is false. It also makes me believe that the purpose of the leak was to create an alibi to conduct a procedure that looks like a prosecution to intimidate potential leakers.
Frankly I think this posting of github pages instead of the authorative source is inappropriate. I see it a lot on HN and find myself having to check that this is the official repo by going to the original website. If you know it you don't need to be told about it but if it's being posted to get it to people's attention then the canonical source is the right link even if it only has a link to github.
What do you mean by "another move" here? Mozilla isn't gathering anything!