4 ms·
> Last I checked, it's owned by a foundation that's very okay with advocating that others tell me what I should see on the 'net. "We need more than deplatformin
by sfink 5y ago
> Last I checked, it's owned by a foundation that's very okay with advocating that others tell me what I should see on the 'net. "We need more than deplatforming" are not words I ever want to hear from a privacy organization's mouth.
Ugh, I dislike the title of that post. I still claim that you're misinterpreting it, though. It should have been something like "We need better answers than deplatforming." Deplatforming is not the answer, and we need better ones.
Sometimes deplatforming is the right answer. Not when it's about a political agenda, but there are many many actually harmful uses out there, many of them illegal, and ignoring those on your platform is the same as facilitating them. But deplatforming is about as effective as sticking your finger in a dike for truly improving things.
In my opinion, Mozilla has done a decent job of being apolitical when possible. Yes, it does think you shouldn't see some things on the 'net, but those things are things like scams and malicious disinformation. It does not say that you should not see the latest blatherings of Trump or whoever, except perhaps when they're directly encouraging violence or sedition.
- soundnote 5y ago> In my opinion, Mozilla has done a decent job of being apolitical when possible. Yes, it does think you shouldn't see some things on the 'net, but those things are things like scams and malicious disinformation. It does not say that you should not see the latest blatherings of Trump or whoever, except perhaps when they're directly encouraging violence or sedition. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat... > Turn on by default the tools to [amplify factual voices](link points to below) over disinformation. Their idea of "factual voices"? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/technology/facebook-reverses-postelection-algorithm-changes-that-boosted-news-from-authoritative-sources.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/technology/facebook-rever... > The change resulted in an increase in Facebook traffic for mainstream news publishers including CNN, NPR and The New York Times, while partisan sites like Breitbart and Occupy Democrats saw their numbers fall. The entire post reeked of political tribalism in a way I don't like from people who make my tools. While seeing less Breitbart and Occupy Democrats might be welcome, Mozilla were completely fine with third parties boosting the visibility of openly partisan organizations who'll happily lie to my face. No, no thanks.