4 ms·

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

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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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...
  - gspetr 8y ago
    Mozilla are directly violating their own manifesto, where they claim "We are committed to an internet that promotes civil discourse"[0]. Have you even read the article? When they were asked to clarify what exactly was violating their ToS, they replied with the most standard bureaucratic non-answer, the kind you might receive from an auto-response email service, full of corporate-speak. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ EDIT: According to this[1], Mozilla supposedly cares enough about this free speech, free platform issue to donate $100,000 to "a coordination platform used by activists across the political spectrum, to improve the security of their email service". Do you still believe it's a stretch to hold them to a much higher standard than a for-profit corporation? Note the "activists across the political spectrum" part in their own words. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half-million-open-source-projects/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half...
- jjulius 8y ago
  Here's what I posted in another response in this thread just now: >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.
  - forgottenpass 8y ago
    >>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. Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda. ...and we're to conclude that, because Mozilla has "hegemony", and are denying a political agenda, they must actually have a political agenda they're not admitting to? I mean, hegemony could just as well mean never having to deny you have an agenda, because what can anyone do? The US certainly doesn't hide its agenda regarding its military or nuclear hegemony.
  - gspetr 8y ago
    > It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned. Probably a good idea to provide evidence on a case-by-case basis first, otherwise how is this position different from right-wingers that want to play the numbers game too, and preemptively claim that since blacks commit a disproportionately large amount of crimes per capita, any black person should be kept away?
syshum 8y ago
So if dissenter was created by Antifa it would be ok?
cheez 8y ago
Dissenter was created by a person or group of people who have thoughts and opinions that deserve to be protected.
- jjulius 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jjulius 8y 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 8y ago
    The only thing Gab/Dissenter itself does is have less speech restrictions than their competitors. Are you saying thats political?

phasnox 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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...
- gspetr 8y ago
  Mozilla are directly violating their own manifesto, where they claim "We are committed to an internet that promotes civil discourse"[0]. Have you even read the article? When they were asked to clarify what exactly was violating their ToS, they replied with the most standard bureaucratic non-answer, the kind you might receive from an auto-response email service, full of corporate-speak. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ EDIT: According to this[1], Mozilla supposedly cares enough about this free speech, free platform issue to donate $100,000 to "a coordination platform used by activists across the political spectrum, to improve the security of their email service". Do you still believe it's a stretch to hold them to a much higher standard than a for-profit corporation? Note the "activists across the political spectrum" part in their own words. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half-million-open-source-projects/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half...
jjulius 8y ago
Here's what I posted in another response in this thread just now: >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.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  >>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. Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda. ...and we're to conclude that, because Mozilla has "hegemony", and are denying a political agenda, they must actually have a political agenda they're not admitting to? I mean, hegemony could just as well mean never having to deny you have an agenda, because what can anyone do? The US certainly doesn't hide its agenda regarding its military or nuclear hegemony.
- gspetr 8y ago
  > It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned. Probably a good idea to provide evidence on a case-by-case basis first, otherwise how is this position different from right-wingers that want to play the numbers game too, and preemptively claim that since blacks commit a disproportionately large amount of crimes per capita, any black person should be kept away?

syshum 8y ago

So if dissenter was created by Antifa it would be ok?

cheez 8y ago

Dissenter was created by a person or group of people who have thoughts and opinions that deserve to be protected.

jjulius 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
[deleted]
jjulius 8y 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 8y ago
  The only thing Gab/Dissenter itself does is have less speech restrictions than their competitors. Are you saying thats political?