7 ms·

Please, tell me again why Firefox is not evil and respect their users.

by luhego 7y ago

jjulius 7y ago
Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. Such groups are known for fostering hostile environments online towards people of various religions, races, cultural/political views, etc.. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination for Mozilla to claim that users of the app were using it for such purposes. As such, it would be apropos for Mozilla to remove an app that provides a platform for individuals to disrespect others. Were Mozilla to keep it up, they would not be "respect[ing] their users".
- phasnox 7y ago
  This is a lie. Gab is not a far/alt right specific platform. It's just a place where you can say whatever you want. Problem is the left calls far right or offensive to anything they disagree with.
- howiroll 7y ago
  Yeah.... immagine trying to respect everyone on the planet and to start a conversation. Oh? Mozila did not respect the dissenter’s users, did they? Why are they not respecting them to respect others? Does respect have priority or preference? Yesterday’s agenda for authoritarianism was against hate crime and child protection. It seems today’s agenda for authoritarianism is respect. Pathetic.
- freshm087 7y ago
  Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.
  - evgen 7y ago
    Does the removal of the extension from the extension gallery prevent people from using the extension or just limit its exposure? If the latter then there is not censorship but simply Mozilla deciding the cost is not worth the bother. No one has any particular right to be promoted by Mozilla.
    - freshm087 7y ago
      So if Verizon would block certain websites for its customers it will not be censorship? Well, it will be. You seem to believe that censorship implies denying legal rights, and only is real when it's total. But censorship can be perfectly legal, and it's never total (albeit it requires either efforts, or money, you can reach forbidden websites in China). I'm not arguing about legality of Mozilla's decision at all. Nevertheless, it is censorship, and as long as it's motivated by ideological differences it's ideological censorship. And as Mozilla pretends to be just browser (not some party's browser) it looks weird, and no exactly smart. My question is why anybody who's not fanatically partisan would support it? Does it mean one feels a lot of pain using Mozilla just because political adversaries use it too? Consequently, do we need a separate fork of every browser for every faction nowadays (apparently, with separate sets of ideologically proven extensions)?
    - javagram 7y ago
      As far as i can see from the article, Mozilla is still agreeing to sign the addon, just not to list it in the AMO site. The article lists an 8 step process and claims users would have to follow that on each restart of Firefox to enable the addon. I’m not sure if that’s true, as the guidelines I can see on other websites seem to suggest self hosting addons shouldn’t have that problem.
      - mymindstorm 7y ago
        If Mozilla won't sign it, you have to install it manually. [0] [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Distribution#Signing_your_add-ons https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...
- syshum 7y ago
  So if dissenter was created by Antifa it would be ok?
- cheez 7y ago
  Dissenter was created by a person or group of people who have thoughts and opinions that deserve to be protected.
  - jjulius 7y ago
    They're free to voice those thoughts wherever they can, just as Mozilla is free to opt not to host their app if they find said thoughts and opinions to be offensive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of said speech. If Mozilla received enough complaints about the speech being promoted via the app, then it is within their right to choose not to host it. How is that such a hard concept for so many people in this thread to understand?
    - cybersnowflake 7y ago
      True freedom of speech ultimately comes from a society's culture and morality not a law. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean much if the powerful can harass and intimidate its opponents into silence while still remaining in the technical letter of the law. Just like you'd probably wouldn't like it if women were denied employment opportunities because only 'men were created equal' How is this such a hard concept for liberals, the supposed founders of the 'Free Speech Movement' to understand?
      - jjulius 7y ago
        Here's what I posted elsewhere in this thread - twice now - and is what so many people seem to be missing. It's not the subjects they're discussing, it's likely the manner in which their users are discussing them. >Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw). >I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned. This is the point: Discuss whatever you want, that's OK. Just don't be surprised if you get banned for being an asshole while discussing it.
- cybersnowflake 7y ago
  There is no sign at Gab saying 'no commies allowed' At its core, Gab itself is apolitical or at least far more so than its rivals. The left are welcome to use it as much as the right. The main difference is that Gab allows more freedom in many respects, which apparently is a rightwing thing to some people.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjulius 7y ago
    It might position itself as apolitical, but in practice it is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
    - cybersnowflake 7y ago
      The only thing Gab/Dissenter itself does is have less speech restrictions than their competitors. Are you saying thats political?
Digital-Citizen 7y ago
Because Mozilla (unlike most other web browser publishers) publishes free software -- software users are allowed to run, inspect, modify, and share at any time for any reason. This is known as respecting a user's software freedom. Programs that don't respect a user's software freedom are called non-free or proprietary. That's the saving grace of Firefox. That's what makes Firefox better than any of the other currently widely-used browsers. A program's technical problems can be fixed, a program's speed can be improved (Mozilla recently proved this in the most recent versions of Firefox), but software freedom cannot be added to a proprietary program. Therefore if you don't like how Mozilla treats add-on programmers or Firefox users, you have the software freedom needed to make a free derivative of Firefox which behaves in a better way (where "better" is up to you to define, it's purposefully vague). Perhaps you want your Firefox derivative to let its users easily install whatever add-on they like that will persist across restarts, or get add-on updates without hassles by checking multiple sources for updates, or installing add-ons signed with unfamiliar keys after getting a user's approval. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas you could come up with to implement. But with software freedom the limits of what you can implement are limits you impose on yourself. This doesn't make Mozilla or Firefox evil and distributing free software is respectful of the users. Don't confuse unrewarded labor (complaining that Mozilla doesn't make Firefox do what you want) with respect for the users. The Dissent add-on, similarly, is really just another single point of censorship forum. We can't evaluate whether it is better at respecting user's free speech until they are challenged in a serious way (such as the implicit threats to big social media firms when they are given vague inactionable requests to 'do better' when their CEOs are brought before Congressional hearings and told to respond favorably to Russiagate lies). Already on this forum we see some posters confusing freedom of speech with reading something that echoes their views. One post, for instance, claimed "[Dissent's] audience is primarily folk on the far/alt-right". As George Orwell said, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear". Or as Noam Chomsky reminds us, "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.". So both Firefox's add-on repo and Dissent's forum are singletons that don't liberate users so much as they establish their respective admins as censors. Perhaps you could come up with a way to let users more easily distribute comments from their own comment database so that all comment threads on a website come from multiple servers, and no censor power exists because no single user has admin control over all of the comment servers. Dissent is also free software (licensed under Apache License 2.0) so even if you believe Gab or Dissent aren't to be trusted, you could choose to improve Dissent to make it decentralized.

Please, tell me again why Firefox is not evil and respect their users.

by luhego 7y ago

Please, tell me again why Firefox is not evil and respect their users.

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. Such groups are known for fostering hostile environments online towards people of various religions, races, cultural/political views, etc.. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination for Mozilla to claim that users of the app were using it for such purposes. As such, it would be apropos for Mozilla to remove an app that provides a platform for individuals to disrespect others. Were Mozilla to keep it up, they would not be "respect[ing] their users".

phasnox 7y ago
This is a lie. Gab is not a far/alt right specific platform. It's just a place where you can say whatever you want. Problem is the left calls far right or offensive to anything they disagree with.
howiroll 7y ago
Yeah.... immagine trying to respect everyone on the planet and to start a conversation. Oh? Mozila did not respect the dissenter’s users, did they? Why are they not respecting them to respect others? Does respect have priority or preference? Yesterday’s agenda for authoritarianism was against hate crime and child protection. It seems today’s agenda for authoritarianism is respect. Pathetic.
freshm087 7y ago
Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.
- evgen 7y ago
  Does the removal of the extension from the extension gallery prevent people from using the extension or just limit its exposure? If the latter then there is not censorship but simply Mozilla deciding the cost is not worth the bother. No one has any particular right to be promoted by Mozilla.
  - freshm087 7y ago
    So if Verizon would block certain websites for its customers it will not be censorship? Well, it will be. You seem to believe that censorship implies denying legal rights, and only is real when it's total. But censorship can be perfectly legal, and it's never total (albeit it requires either efforts, or money, you can reach forbidden websites in China). I'm not arguing about legality of Mozilla's decision at all. Nevertheless, it is censorship, and as long as it's motivated by ideological differences it's ideological censorship. And as Mozilla pretends to be just browser (not some party's browser) it looks weird, and no exactly smart. My question is why anybody who's not fanatically partisan would support it? Does it mean one feels a lot of pain using Mozilla just because political adversaries use it too? Consequently, do we need a separate fork of every browser for every faction nowadays (apparently, with separate sets of ideologically proven extensions)?
  - javagram 7y ago
    As far as i can see from the article, Mozilla is still agreeing to sign the addon, just not to list it in the AMO site. The article lists an 8 step process and claims users would have to follow that on each restart of Firefox to enable the addon. I’m not sure if that’s true, as the guidelines I can see on other websites seem to suggest self hosting addons shouldn’t have that problem.
    - mymindstorm 7y ago
      If Mozilla won't sign it, you have to install it manually. [0] [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Distribution#Signing_your_add-ons https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...
syshum 7y ago
So if dissenter was created by Antifa it would be ok?
cheez 7y ago
Dissenter was created by a person or group of people who have thoughts and opinions that deserve to be protected.
- jjulius 7y ago
  They're free to voice those thoughts wherever they can, just as Mozilla is free to opt not to host their app if they find said thoughts and opinions to be offensive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of said speech. If Mozilla received enough complaints about the speech being promoted via the app, then it is within their right to choose not to host it. How is that such a hard concept for so many people in this thread to understand?
  - cybersnowflake 7y ago
    True freedom of speech ultimately comes from a society's culture and morality not a law. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean much if the powerful can harass and intimidate its opponents into silence while still remaining in the technical letter of the law. Just like you'd probably wouldn't like it if women were denied employment opportunities because only 'men were created equal' How is this such a hard concept for liberals, the supposed founders of the 'Free Speech Movement' to understand?
    - jjulius 7y ago
      Here's what I posted elsewhere in this thread - twice now - and is what so many people seem to be missing. It's not the subjects they're discussing, it's likely the manner in which their users are discussing them. >Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw). >I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned. This is the point: Discuss whatever you want, that's OK. Just don't be surprised if you get banned for being an asshole while discussing it.
cybersnowflake 7y ago
There is no sign at Gab saying 'no commies allowed' At its core, Gab itself is apolitical or at least far more so than its rivals. The left are welcome to use it as much as the right. The main difference is that Gab allows more freedom in many respects, which apparently is a rightwing thing to some people.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jjulius 7y ago
  It might position itself as apolitical, but in practice it is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
  - cybersnowflake 7y ago
    The only thing Gab/Dissenter itself does is have less speech restrictions than their competitors. Are you saying thats political?

Digital-Citizen 7y ago

Because Mozilla (unlike most other web browser publishers) publishes free software -- software users are allowed to run, inspect, modify, and share at any time for any reason. This is known as respecting a user's software freedom. Programs that don't respect a user's software freedom are called non-free or proprietary. That's the saving grace of Firefox. That's what makes Firefox better than any of the other currently widely-used browsers. A program's technical problems can be fixed, a program's speed can be improved (Mozilla recently proved this in the most recent versions of Firefox), but software freedom cannot be added to a proprietary program. Therefore if you don't like how Mozilla treats add-on programmers or Firefox users, you have the software freedom needed to make a free derivative of Firefox which behaves in a better way (where "better" is up to you to define, it's purposefully vague). Perhaps you want your Firefox derivative to let its users easily install whatever add-on they like that will persist across restarts, or get add-on updates without hassles by checking multiple sources for updates, or installing add-ons signed with unfamiliar keys after getting a user's approval. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas you could come up with to implement. But with software freedom the limits of what you can implement are limits you impose on yourself. This doesn't make Mozilla or Firefox evil and distributing free software is respectful of the users. Don't confuse unrewarded labor (complaining that Mozilla doesn't make Firefox do what you want) with respect for the users. The Dissent add-on, similarly, is really just another single point of censorship forum. We can't evaluate whether it is better at respecting user's free speech until they are challenged in a serious way (such as the implicit threats to big social media firms when they are given vague inactionable requests to 'do better' when their CEOs are brought before Congressional hearings and told to respond favorably to Russiagate lies). Already on this forum we see some posters confusing freedom of speech with reading something that echoes their views. One post, for instance, claimed "[Dissent's] audience is primarily folk on the far/alt-right". As George Orwell said, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear". Or as Noam Chomsky reminds us, "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.". So both Firefox's add-on repo and Dissent's forum are singletons that don't liberate users so much as they establish their respective admins as censors. Perhaps you could come up with a way to let users more easily distribute comments from their own comment database so that all comment threads on a website come from multiple servers, and no censor power exists because no single user has admin control over all of the comment servers. Dissent is also free software (licensed under Apache License 2.0) so even if you believe Gab or Dissent aren't to be trusted, you could choose to improve Dissent to make it decentralized.