4 ms·

Care to give more context? Are you boycotting Firefox because of some triggering keywords in that article? Or what?

by q-rews 5y ago

sfink 5y ago
I don't know, but I'll paste the specific things that article is calling for: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact. > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. > Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things. I'm at a bit of a loss to guess which of those might be triggering. But then, I agree with them. (Disclosure: I work for Mozilla too, so yeah, I'm biased. I'm a long way from the relevant policy discussions, though.) I've always had mixed feelings about that article. The whole "deplatforming" thing is kind of a red herring. The article seems to approve of deplatforming, which is something I'm generally not comfortable with, but it isn't actually about deplatforming at all. I suspect that's the part that triggers reactions, for reasons that I sympathize with even though I don't think they apply to the particular case in question.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hn8788 5y ago
  > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. If we've learned anything over the past year, it's that tech companies have no business deciding what is factual. "We're going to decide what's true, then make sure people only hear what we want them to hear" is just deplatforming with extra steps.
  - sfink 5y ago
    That's fair. If you follow the link, it's talking about Facebook reverting a temporary change that penalized "hyperpartisan" news sources. That's not quite the same as FB deciding "what is factual"; it's FB deciding what news outlets are "hyperpartisan". It's still on the same slippery slope, but it seems like the cost:benefit ratio is far better, if you keep in mind the status quo -- regardless of which side of the left/right divide you may be on, you'll probably agree that the people on the extremes are nuts. (Yes, you will have a different opinion of what is "extreme", but the hyperpartisan outlets are in a feedback loop that rewards greater extremism so there's a fairly stark separation between left/right-leaning and the extremes.)
zoobab 5y ago
Firefox had already crossed several red lines on the free software side, such as: 1. including DRMs 2. including patented MPEG4 decoders
- sfink 5y ago
  So then you're boycotting Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Brave too? If Firefox is being held to a different standard, then I'm afraid that practicality had to win out here. You can either have a pure and dead browser, or a live browser that can still fight winnable fights. (Or you can have a pure and live browser that doesn't play video, for your own use; Firefox still keeps this stuff at arm's length so you can disable it.)
im3w1l 5y ago
Given the title, it's reasonable to assume that it's saying that suppressing right leaning people is good and needs to go further. This theory is further supported by the context, i.e. other statements by Mozilla as an organization, and it's leader in particular.
- sfink 5y ago
  I agree with the implication of the title. The article is also anti-Trump, though anti-Trump != anti-right. Although Mozilla does take an ideological position on some issues, I have not yet seen any mechanisms within the browser that favor one side of the partisan divide, intentionally or practically. I can't say it'll never happen, but Mozilla has been even-handed so far, and I'm sure there's not a lot of appetite to piss off any large contingents.

Care to give more context? Are you boycotting Firefox because of some triggering keywords in that article? Or what?

by q-rews 5y ago

Care to give more context? Are you boycotting Firefox because of some triggering keywords in that article? Or what?

I don't know, but I'll paste the specific things that article is calling for: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact. > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. > Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things. I'm at a bit of a loss to guess which of those might be triggering. But then, I agree with them. (Disclosure: I work for Mozilla too, so yeah, I'm biased. I'm a long way from the relevant policy discussions, though.) I've always had mixed feelings about that article. The whole "deplatforming" thing is kind of a red herring. The article seems to approve of deplatforming, which is something I'm generally not comfortable with, but it isn't actually about deplatforming at all. I suspect that's the part that triggers reactions, for reasons that I sympathize with even though I don't think they apply to the particular case in question.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hn8788 5y ago
> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. If we've learned anything over the past year, it's that tech companies have no business deciding what is factual. "We're going to decide what's true, then make sure people only hear what we want them to hear" is just deplatforming with extra steps.
- sfink 5y ago
  That's fair. If you follow the link, it's talking about Facebook reverting a temporary change that penalized "hyperpartisan" news sources. That's not quite the same as FB deciding "what is factual"; it's FB deciding what news outlets are "hyperpartisan". It's still on the same slippery slope, but it seems like the cost:benefit ratio is far better, if you keep in mind the status quo -- regardless of which side of the left/right divide you may be on, you'll probably agree that the people on the extremes are nuts. (Yes, you will have a different opinion of what is "extreme", but the hyperpartisan outlets are in a feedback loop that rewards greater extremism so there's a fairly stark separation between left/right-leaning and the extremes.)

zoobab 5y ago

Firefox had already crossed several red lines on the free software side, such as: 1. including DRMs 2. including patented MPEG4 decoders

sfink 5y ago
So then you're boycotting Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Brave too? If Firefox is being held to a different standard, then I'm afraid that practicality had to win out here. You can either have a pure and dead browser, or a live browser that can still fight winnable fights. (Or you can have a pure and live browser that doesn't play video, for your own use; Firefox still keeps this stuff at arm's length so you can disable it.)

im3w1l 5y ago

Given the title, it's reasonable to assume that it's saying that suppressing right leaning people is good and needs to go further. This theory is further supported by the context, i.e. other statements by Mozilla as an organization, and it's leader in particular.

sfink 5y ago
I agree with the implication of the title. The article is also anti-Trump, though anti-Trump != anti-right. Although Mozilla does take an ideological position on some issues, I have not yet seen any mechanisms within the browser that favor one side of the partisan divide, intentionally or practically. I can't say it'll never happen, but Mozilla has been even-handed so far, and I'm sure there's not a lot of appetite to piss off any large contingents.