17 ms·
Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension
- okket 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Tolerance_and_freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Tolerance...
- jamsch 7y agoIn other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them by any means necessary.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoSame "mental gymnastics" that were used to go to war against nazis in WW2, yes. Was that wrong?
- kaolti 7y agoI rephrased this quite a few times, but I can't put this any other way: You are delusional.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoNot even a little. If you actually have an argument, do make it.
- kaolti 7y agoFair enough. Do you not see the problem with a monopoly deciding what is and isn't okay to say? You're comparing people who comment on websites to nazis? Did you not get the memo about the media calling everyone they don't like a nazi - including Pewdiepie? Do you really think these companies have YOUR best interest at heart instead of just siding with the political views of their shareholders?
- zimpenfish 7y ago> including Pewdiepie? I think one Nazi-related mistake might be forgiveable. When it keeps happening, well, you've got to start thinking the tar on the brush is from the same pot.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoI am calling nazis nazis. Gab has a very large population of actual nazis. It also is the home of people who go shoot up large crowds of people for having the wrong religion. I feel pretty confident in calling these people bad names.
- DuskStar 7y agoI feel rather confident in saying that Gab does NOT have a very large population of actual nazis when using sane definitions for 'very large' and 'nazis'. Let's say... 10k and unironic 'Sieg Heil!'. Or, really, anywhere close to that. But if you use the media/leftist definition of 'nazi', which seems to be 'anyone to have ever made a politically incorrect joke or to have associated with the same', then OF COURSE you'll find a very large population of nazis. But you'll find that anywhere.
- belltaco 7y agoThere are actually very few jokes on Voat or Gab. Also, neo-Nazis are different from actual Nazis.
- untog 7y agoFirefox and Chrome can't both be a monopoly.
- Ygg2 7y agoChrome is a monopoly. Firefox is just a backbench player at this point.
- 7y ago
- Ygg2 7y agoIf you think the current crop of neo-nazis has the same clout and power as the WW2 ones, I have several bridges to sell you.
- ShrinkingWild 7y agoI think the main difference here is that the nazi's were actually doing bad things as well as saying bad things. In this case, bar the rare exception by individuals, these are people who are vocal that they think they're superior based on a superficial biological trait and nothing more.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dkns 7y agoNazis started with just saying bad things as well.
- ShrinkingWild 7y agoNazis also drank water and some probably even had pets. A lot of things started because people have said bad things, a lot of things also haven't started even though some people said bad things. The problem is something has to start and in order for that to happen, action has to be taken. Taking action based on the fact that some bad people one time said the same things is a bad idea, you're initiating the actions and inevitably they'll respond with more than just the words they started with.
- repolfx 7y agoThe USA didn't go to war against the Nazis until they had gone well beyond even the most terrible actions, let alone speech. Almost all of Europe had already been conquered, the last holdout in the UK was getting pounded daily and the US still didn't join until attacked directly. The core difference between then and now is that America of the mid 20th century didn't believe ideas were inherently dangerous - even the communist threat led to at worst the McCarthy hearings which are universally regarded now as a stain on America's history. What we see today is lots of Valley Ivy League graduate types who are convinced that reading a few tweets of the wrong kind wipes people's brains and literally turns them into the third Reich, in ways that nobody can stop or control. But there's no evidence for this viewpoint, and arguably it just led to the largest and craziest conspiracy theory in American history (the idea that Trump is a Russian spy).
- Ygg2 7y agoIt makes perfect sense. If you create tools to ban certain types of speech, say intolerance of homophobia, what happens when a homophobe acquires those tools? Because any tool will be eventually misused and abused.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoWhat "tools" do you need to "create" to "ban certain types of speech"? What does that even mean? You don't need tools to kick nazis off your platform. And who cares what homophobes do on their platforms? Don't use them.
- Ygg2 7y agoLaws and practices that help you exclude certain opinions. Like for example in this case the Mozilla Acceptable Use Policy. Change a few words, add some statements, and it can be used against Antifa. Homophobes were just an example, you can substitute with Nazis or others.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoThen don't change it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- DuskStar 7y agoWhen you start summoning demons, you don't always get to choose who the demon decides to eat... Oh, you might get to point it in the direction of your enemies to begin with, sure. But eventually it'll start eating people you like, and by that point it'll have grown far too large to control.
- saithir 7y agoYou don't even need to change anything. The article already mentions promoting violence was one of the reasons. So yes, the whole point of Antifa is already unacceptable by that policy.
- tuxt 7y agoQuestion: Does Google have freedom of speech here?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kljdsjiodjaof 7y agoBoth browsers offer sideloaded extensions as well as open source cores that can be set to use their own stores. While troubling that they have such ability, they make their terms of use clear and do offer motivated users the ability to chose alternative plugin sources.
- comex 7y agoNeither browser allows sideloaded extensions in its standard build: Chrome: > As of Chrome 33, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Windows (see Protecting Windows users from malicious extensions). As of Chrome 44, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Mac (see Continuing to protect Chrome users from malicious extensions). https://developer.chrome.com/apps/external_extensions https://developer.chrome.com/apps/external_extensions Firefox: > What are my options if I want to install unsigned extensions in Firefox? > The Nightly and Developer Edition versions of Firefox have a preference to disable signature enforcement. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing
- madeofpalk 7y agoSure you can. You can load unpacked extensions in Chrome - I do it all the time when developing extensions.
- starfox64_ 7y agoThey don't stay enabled though I think, you need to turn them back on after every restart.
- madeofpalk 7y agoThat’s Safari. I have unpacked extensions loaded up in chrome all the time because I can’t figure out how to push an update to an extension I made
- seymourbuttes 7y agoWhy are people assuming this is only usable by alt-right, hitleresque people? This is a fantastic tool for users to 'dissent' locked wikipedia articles, political posts on news sites, and perhaps is a better version of twitter itself. It is evident megacorps are manufacturing consent on a colossal scale - tools like this become critical and necessary for freedom of speech. I just can't comprehend the want for people to shut down discourse. You think they're going to disappear and change their opinion or is it more likely they become radicalised at a world which won't even provide a platform for discussion?
- kaolti 7y agoCensorship will be their downfall :)
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoGood. Far-right hate is unacceptable, and no company with a conscience should ever support it.
- xfitm3 7y agoFar left is no better than far right - nobody is even listening to each other anymore.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoThe far left is not killing people. The far right is, in significant numbers. Do you see a difference now?
- kshatrea 7y agoIf you consider communism as far left, then yes the far left has absolutely killed millions. If you do not consider communism far left, I don't know what to tell you.
- untog 7y agoExpanding your criteria to encompass all of history isn't really all that helpful. Today, in the actual situation we are experiencing as opposed to political movements that have been dead for decades, the far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin.
- dagw 7y agofar right are more violent than the far left by a large margin. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but you're going to have to define your terms more narrowly if you want your argument to hold. Which countries, who's "we", are we talking state actors or individuals, how to Maoist rebel groups in Asia and South America feature into your calculus etc.
- 7y ago
- dTal 7y agoThis just seems short-sighted more than anything. It doesn't sound like there's anything technically wrong with the extension (indeed I have often wanted just such an extension), it's merely that the "wrong sort" of people use it. Well, banning it will keep the "wrong sort" of people using it. If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it. Instead, by "suppressing" it, they have basically gone out of their way to create a breeding ground.
- madeofpalk 7y ago> If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
- busymom0 7y ago> You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Not sure what your definition of "hate speech" is but if it includes racism, then yes, racists can change their mind: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-southerners-who-changed-their-views-on-racism https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-sou...
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoYes, through long-term building of trust and deep personal relationships. This is very, very different from an internet comments section, where it is basically impossible.
- busymom0 7y agoI would argue that internet comments section is exactly what's needed actually. Simply banning them away is basically hiding it under the rug. But that's not going to do anything productive. Banning them will now re-enforce their beliefs and now they will just go to another platform which will be an echo chamber of even more similar "hate" views. This brings up 2 problems - 1. Now we don't even know what they are talking about / planning some extreme crime etc 2. Those people are now only exposed to views which agree to their own points and not exposed to opposing views. So there's nothing which would even allow them to change their minds. Humans aren't born racist / hateful. They learn it from the environment around them. By exposing them to more counter points, you can make them unlearn that hate too.
- stefan_ 7y agoCan people stop trying to make "comment on every website" extensions happen. That must be the 1000th attempt.
- tumetab1 7y agoFunny how even this article, which kind supports gab, always associates them with terrorism (violence for political goals) while in both cases mentioned the perpetrators used other social media networks more and with more impact. When you get bad reputation, truth doesn't matter. Everyone "knows" they are trash so... vaguely say it's against ToS. Right now they should pull a corporate spin, rebrand and move on. CommunityChat™ - a comment section for tribe and vibe; Share you goals, feelings and achievements with a global community of mind-liked users.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoThese are from https://gab.com/popular https://gab.com/popular right now: https://gab.com/brannon1776/posts/cDQ4dUJNKzIycHRib3ZKSU9lbTNUUT09 https://gab.com/brannon1776/posts/cDQ4dUJNKzIycHRib3ZKSU9lbT... https://gab.com/TheSeven/posts/NUZFZXQrTk9qS0tJVlo5SHZsYnFEZz09 https://gab.com/TheSeven/posts/NUZFZXQrTk9qS0tJVlo5SHZsYnFEZ... https://gab.com/Doomer90/posts/MERObDkzVHlKK2dISDg0OFE2Um9rUT09 https://gab.com/Doomer90/posts/MERObDkzVHlKK2dISDg0OFE2Um9rU... https://gab.com/IKNOWTHETRUTH1488/posts/Q1VhM3h1REJNa05udE93VHk5YjJSdz09 https://gab.com/IKNOWTHETRUTH1488/posts/Q1VhM3h1REJNa05udE93... Is this really what you are wanting to defend? Is this just a "bad reputation" where "truth doesn't matter"?
- seymourbuttes 7y agoThis is like grabbing bugchasing subculture screenshots from the 80s or 90s and using them to argue against the entire homosexual community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing
- busymom0 7y agoIf you go out looking for it, you will find a LOT more of that stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Patreon (Search for it) and Reddit. Gab is a free speech platform - similar to how phone carriers aren't held liable for what people speak on it, same way for Gab. It's not Gab's responsibility if the users are talking garbage.
- 7y ago
- teekert 7y agoHmm, first time I heard of this. Maybe I can even continue some of my beloved flagged HN discussions on there! Sounds great!
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoSure, if you are looking for somewhere to be a racist, islamaphobe or antisemite, it's a wonderful place.
- boobsbr 7y agoYou sound like the stereotypical leftist redditor that calls everyone that disagrees with you 'Hitler'.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoSure is convenient that this little cliché lets you ignore me and stop thinking about what I say.
- boobsbr 7y agoI didn't ignore you, I read your comments and pondered, and reached the conclusion that your arguments are feeble. What you've been spouting all over the comments: people I don't like are using this tool, thus everyone using this tool and the tool itself is evil. SHUT IT DOWN! If you disagree with me, you are evil as well. You're advocating censorship.
- untog 7y agoEveryone's in favour of the free market until it does something they disagree with. Anyone can start a new browser. Gab could fork Chromium or Firefox, even. Or they could probably just make a bookmarklet. But that wouldn't get any attention and hate groups like Gab thrive on controversies like this. HN is doing them a favour here. They're not doing anything new or original (remember the Genius annotator, anyone?).
- ShrinkingWild 7y agoDisagreement with a particular provider or producers actions within the free market is not equal to disagreement with the free market in general. AFAIK Gab isn't calling for regulation of the market to prevent this, so there's no contradiction here. In fact gab is participating in the free market exactly how you'd expect a believer in the free market to act, they're creating their own browser: https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser
- boobsbr 7y agoWell, publishing an article and complaining on Mozilla's platform is part of the free market as well. As long as Gab is not demanding government intervention, it's up to the private parties to solve their conflicts.
- user17843 7y agoHN is not doing them a favor, except when you think that HN reader are actually incapable of thinking themselves, and need to be protected from knowledge. I refute this picture of humans. Silencing developments with ignoring them would actually do Gab a favor, whatever that means exactly. The term "hate group" is not clearly defined, anyway, and a propaganda-term in itself, and a tool of so-called 'hate'. .
- gfosco 7y agoGab is now releasing their own browser, based on Brave, without the BAT token, and with the Dissenter extension built in. https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser People seem to like it: https://twitter.com/james_a_quinn/status/1125496383883042816 https://twitter.com/james_a_quinn/status/1125496383883042816
- user17843 7y agoWhile Brave is building from the core to the periphery, i.e. creating something based on solid fundamentals, Gab is taking Brave and polishing it a bit to their liking. Due to this I suspect that the Gab browser will only get a following in a certain sphere, i.e. ideologigcal Gab followers. Otherwise you can simply use Brave or Chrome. There was criticism by Eich et al. who noted that Gab is sending all kinds of data back home. Gab seems to be focused on providing a service to their followers, without having the actual technical expertise to create something solid based on true privacy. (I.e. it doesn't matter when we collect the data because we are actually on the right side of the fence) Nevertheless I am excited to see where all of this is going and I welcome any additional browser, which is good for creating a competitive market. The fact that Gab can, without much knowledge, "create" a browser interface within days shows how great Chromium is for the advancement of the open web. The only thing that needs to be solved is the governance of chromium with it becoming the de facto standard on the web.
- gfosco 7y agoIt's actually not true, what Eich was talking about, w/r/t data collection, and Gab appreciated the feedback. Using a Google Font is not tracking, and the YouTube/other embeds which are a feature of the extension have been made opt-in. Gab has also pointed out instances of Braves data collection and analytics gathering. Unlike Brave, the Gab team doesn't benefit from betraying user privacy, they don't want it. Of course Gab is focused on providing a service; they're building and shipping, defending free speech. I find the project very interesting: A browser that focuses on free speech, on enabling easy user modification, on refusing to be limited to what the big tech app stores say is okay... It could be a big jumping off point.
- hankhill 7y agotoo bad so sad
- kristianc 7y agoWasn't was something similar to this in the late 90s - I can't remember the name but I remember it having similar issues.
- belorn 7y agoWith safe harbour laws the concept of editorial control comes up as a legal test that courts use to determine intermediary liability. By going this route Mozilla is now declaring that not only are they taking responsibility of what extensions they publish, but also how those extensions in turn are used by users. One level deeper of indirections. So any site which has an EULA that forbids adblockers can use this case as a example of Mozilla exercising editorial control of extension use by users. If Mozilla is willing to exercise editorial control over users behavior for the dissenter extension, then the same apply for any other extension. Looking in my list of extensions I can identify several which could be potential abused. I would be very sad to see the kind of restrictions that would happen if Mozilla would be forced to be liable for it.
- sintaxi 7y agoYip, in other words section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has limits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- repolfx 7y agoThe real question in my mind is when do browser makers start directly blocking websites they believe to be bad? After all both Chrome and Firefox are made by people with very strong political views. So far they've not abused SafeBrowsing to exercise political control over the internet, but the companies producing them are willing to block or politically rerank extensions, web links, domain names they host, news they summarise and so on. How long do we have before browsing to gab.ai triggers a "This page has been blocked for your safety" page because a bunch of activists said the content made them feel unsafe?
- LyndsySimon 7y agoThis is a very good point, and one that I hadn't considered. From TFA: > When asked for more clarity on which policies Dissenter did not comply with, Mozilla said that they received abuse reports for this extension. It further added that the platform is being used for promoting violence, hate speech, and discrimination, but they failed to show any examples to add any credibility to their claims. If that's the case, who's to say that Firefox itself hasn't been used for these purposes?
- zimbatm 7y ago10 years ago we had something similar already. "Why the lucky stiff" from the ruby community wrote MouseHole, a local web proxy that could be used to inject a commenting overlay to the web. Only the participants would see it. It was a lot of fun being able to comment on that overlay of the Internet.
- beardicus 7y agoThis is a bizarre blog post to have on the Packt website. Can anybody write these? Packt already had a bit of a low-quality book-mill smell to it, and now they're beating the "why can't the nazis catch a break" drum. Do not want.
- hsod 7y ago"free speech" has become a wedge issue, a cudgel used by crypto-fascists to induce well-meaning centrists to actively fight for their cause. All you need is the thinnest veneer of respectability covering your bigotry and a stampede of individuals who nominally hate what you stand for will fight relentlessly for your interests. In the world of the free speech absolutist, we are all obligated to sit politely on the sidelines listening to white nationalists recruit and further their cause, cheered by the health of the marketplace of ideas. Thin gruel.