4 ms·

This thread is a joke. Mozilla is putting forth some great ideas to fix the internet without overt censorship. A plan that can work in the long term to improve

This thread is a joke. Mozilla is putting forth some great ideas to fix the internet without overt censorship. A plan that can work in the long term to improve the internet.

war1025 6y ago
The article leads with a big "HEY LOOK, we can be trendy and dunk on the President too!" And then sort of whimpers its way into the ever popular "let's have 'independent' fact-checkers to tell you up is down and left is right." "All animals are equal, but left leaning animals are more equal"
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  If there's one person you don't have to be pursuing trendiness to criticize, it's Trump.
  - war1025 6y ago
    And if there's one group you don't have to feel bad spitting on, it's Jews. This is not a good road to go down. We've seen where it leads.
stale2002 6y ago
The blog post also explicitly advocates in favor of deplatforming. It doesn't just get to walk away from that, even if it has additional recommendations.
- undersuit 6y ago
  I support deplatforming. Private companies and such. Twitter should never be a public forum unless the US government feels they need the existing user ecosystem when they turn it into a utility.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    You originally said this "some great ideas to fix the internet without overt censorship". This statement is false. That was my point. Mozilla explicitily was supporting censorship. So, therefore it is not "without censorship". It seems like you are walking your original statement back though, and instead simply saying that you personally support censorship. So great. Glad that you agree that your original statement was false, and that Mozilla is actually supporting deplatforming.
    - undersuit 6y ago
      Deplatforming isn't censorship.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        Yes it is! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." Anything that "suppresses" or controls speech is censorship, no matter who does it. That's the definition of the word.
        undersuit 6y ago
        He's still able to speak. If this is censorship then I should be able to force any publisher to produce my ramblings and drawings.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > He's still able to speak Does not matter. This is still the definition of censorship, according to the relevant authorities on definitions of words. Basically every definition that you find will agree with me that private companies can censor people. > should be able to force Who said anything about force? I am just saying that private companies can censor people, according to basically every definition of the word. You can have whatever opinions that you want on if censorship is good or bad.

This thread is a joke. Mozilla is putting forth some great ideas to fix the internet without overt censorship. A plan that can work in the long term to improve the internet.

war1025 6y ago

The article leads with a big "HEY LOOK, we can be trendy and dunk on the President too!" And then sort of whimpers its way into the ever popular "let's have 'independent' fact-checkers to tell you up is down and left is right." "All animals are equal, but left leaning animals are more equal"

happytoexplain 6y ago
If there's one person you don't have to be pursuing trendiness to criticize, it's Trump.
- war1025 6y ago
  And if there's one group you don't have to feel bad spitting on, it's Jews. This is not a good road to go down. We've seen where it leads.

stale2002 6y ago

The blog post also explicitly advocates in favor of deplatforming. It doesn't just get to walk away from that, even if it has additional recommendations.

undersuit 6y ago
I support deplatforming. Private companies and such. Twitter should never be a public forum unless the US government feels they need the existing user ecosystem when they turn it into a utility.
- stale2002 6y ago
  You originally said this "some great ideas to fix the internet without overt censorship". This statement is false. That was my point. Mozilla explicitily was supporting censorship. So, therefore it is not "without censorship". It seems like you are walking your original statement back though, and instead simply saying that you personally support censorship. So great. Glad that you agree that your original statement was false, and that Mozilla is actually supporting deplatforming.
  - undersuit 6y ago
    Deplatforming isn't censorship.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      Yes it is! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." Anything that "suppresses" or controls speech is censorship, no matter who does it. That's the definition of the word.
      - undersuit 6y ago
        He's still able to speak. If this is censorship then I should be able to force any publisher to produce my ramblings and drawings.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > He's still able to speak Does not matter. This is still the definition of censorship, according to the relevant authorities on definitions of words. Basically every definition that you find will agree with me that private companies can censor people. > should be able to force Who said anything about force? I am just saying that private companies can censor people, according to basically every definition of the word. You can have whatever opinions that you want on if censorship is good or bad.