>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it] So basically you're saying you'd be o

>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it] So basically you're saying you'd be okay if there's one place you could speak freely and be heard (the internet) owned by one guy (the tech monopolies) and he could shut it down for everybody if one person said a bad word on it? Btw Dissenter does preemptively censors bad language, and they reached out to Mozilla who failed to provide them with specific examples. The same Mozilla shining champion of civility which funds Antifa, the group that does such nonvitriolic things like beat people with bike locks. >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. >they have every legal right to choose not to host that app. Serious question for you, how do you feel about net neutrality and bakers and photographers having to work for SSM weddings?