5 ms·

Mozilla – We need more than deplatforming (2021)

42 points by 13years 5y ago

13years 5y ago
All praise the enlightened who will guide us into the new 1984 utopian dystopia.
- h2odragon 5y ago
  Nah, it wont be a dystopia, they'll tell us it's wonderful! and make sure no one can tell us differnt. Ain't that hard to build an offset press from scratch. Ben Franklin could do it, we got geeks today who can do it.
josephcsible 5y ago
We need a way to support the development of Firefox without supporting the rest of Mozilla.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  The simplest way is to support one of the forks.
  - timbit42 5y ago
    Is there a list of them somewhere? Where do I find the pros and cons of each?
    - captn3m0 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_browsers_based_on_Firefox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_browsers_based_on... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-based https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-bas... should cover most of them.
  - Mandatum 5y ago
    Which fork has the most merges?
uejfiweun 5y ago
This is such a stupid take. What on earth does Mozilla have to do with any of this? This is just a bunch of hysterical virtue signaling. Nothing to see here folks, just delete Firefox (I'm sure you already have) and move on.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
easrng 5y ago
(2021)
bronzejaguar 5y ago
“Please, give us more power to tell you what’s right-think and wrong-think.”
miked85 5y ago
I can't believe Mozilla is posting stuff like this.
easrng 5y ago
It seems like people are mostly reacting to the title. This is what they are asking 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. Only #3 seems like it would be remotely controversial to anyone but adtech vendors and services trying to maximize "engagement".
- miked85 5y ago
  > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation Technology companies shouldn't be deciding what the facts are or aren't.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    But they are deciding already. They can't show you everything, so they pick and choose for you based on your behavior profile. Maybe that's not deciding what truth is, but they definitely know what not to show to keep people clicking.
    - miked85 5y ago
      I can't argue with that. I guess they used to be more subtle about it though.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Number three is crucial for disinformation campaigns. Social platforms maximize interactivity, not transparency or honesty. The disinformation echo chambers have done great harm to society's mental health.
  - prirun 5y ago
ASalazarMX 5y ago
Why are people getting worked up about this 2021 post? The things it proposes seem very reasonable, and it's not like it meant changes to Firefox. - Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken: - 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. [links to Facebook algorithm deliberately promoting engaging 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. Edit: I think flagging should ask for a reason to display with the flag. I have no idea why someone would flag this without at least reading the very short article and realizing it's not flag worthy.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  Why does it matter if it's a 2021 article? Unless Mozilla changed it's stance since?
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    I don't know if they've changed their posture, I'd expect them not to because it's a very reasonable set of suggestions aimed at social networks. It's less relevant because a year ago everyone was talking about the presidential election and the disinformation campaigns on social networks (cough Facebook), but the issue is much less talked of these days.
    - 13years 5y ago
      It has only increased over the past year. It is now control of medical information, but same principle. Joe Rogan's episode with Malone hit over 40 million viewers as a direct result of attempts at information control. This topic is even more relevant today than a year ago.
- pndy 5y ago
  > it's not like it meant changes to Firefox And perhaps that's the issue. Mozilla doesn't seem to be particularly interested in acknowledging the position in which their browser now exists, or even listening to the feedback and criticism that arose around it in the last, let's say, 15 years. It literally does everything else but focusing on the browser development or figuring out how to make it attractive again. Changing the UI of Firefox once again to the somewhat dull bulky mobile-oriented modern style (for a browser which was always a desktop software) doesn't constitutes as a progress or helps the popularity and that's the only big change done in the last months. This post done by Mitchell Baker is about american politics and the outcome of events from the last year and what Mozilla (assuming that's Foundation statement and not only Baker's) seems to suggest as "solutions" against. And I'd say that's the reason this submission is being flagged.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
detaro 5y ago
discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941
miked85 5y ago
I'm curious why this post would be flagged? A bit of irony.
- 13years 5y ago
  Truly, it seems we are already living it.
md2020 5y ago
> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. Since other comments here and everywhere already covered that, left unchecked, this just devolves straight back into a bad system where a select few end up as the arbiters of truth, I want to ask: as technologists, what sort of systems are possible that incentivize people to find the truth instead of finding “facts” that just confirm what they already believe? The only thing I can think of is prediction/betting markets. These are good at discerning truth of events with easy to observe outcomes, and anyone is free to contribute provided they’re willing to have skin in the game. Outside of that, it becomes harder.
anotherhue 5y ago
Perhaps the CNCF or linux foundation could take over technical stewardship? Apache?
theknocker 5y ago
AnonC 5y ago
At the point in time I’m writing this, this post is flagged, and I don’t understand why. Mozilla Foundation’s mission is for an open web, and I’d think that this includes asking more of platforms to be open and transparent in their decisions. Will these requests really work anytime soon? That’s hard to say with large companies with almost unlimited money to shove problems away. Will technology alone solve the problems? Surely not, but technology is a key part to solving them since it’s the one handling the massive coordination. Should we ask these of platforms and people? Certainly!
- Handytinge 5y ago
  > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. This seems to be the opposite of "open" to me.
blisterpeanuts 5y ago
Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, meaning that (in the U.S.) donations are tax deductible. One of the requirements of 501(c)(3) is to avoid promoting any political candidate or influence legislation[1]. It appears that Mitchell Baker is walking on thin ice, by attacking Donald Trump and in general calling for censorship. There was actually a time when I supported Mozilla enthusiastically, as an innovative open source alternative to the (then) Microsoft hegemony. Today I avoid Mozilla like the plague; I feel they have betrayed their libertarian roots. 1. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

42 points by 13years 5y ago

13years 5y ago

All praise the enlightened who will guide us into the new 1984 utopian dystopia.

h2odragon 5y ago
Nah, it wont be a dystopia, they'll tell us it's wonderful! and make sure no one can tell us differnt. Ain't that hard to build an offset press from scratch. Ben Franklin could do it, we got geeks today who can do it.

josephcsible 5y ago

We need a way to support the development of Firefox without supporting the rest of Mozilla.

akvadrako 5y ago
The simplest way is to support one of the forks.
- timbit42 5y ago
  Is there a list of them somewhere? Where do I find the pros and cons of each?
  - captn3m0 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_browsers_based_on_Firefox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_browsers_based_on... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-based https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-bas... should cover most of them.
- Mandatum 5y ago
  Which fork has the most merges?

uejfiweun 5y ago

This is such a stupid take. What on earth does Mozilla have to do with any of this? This is just a bunch of hysterical virtue signaling. Nothing to see here folks, just delete Firefox (I'm sure you already have) and move on.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

easrng 5y ago

(2021)

bronzejaguar 5y ago

“Please, give us more power to tell you what’s right-think and wrong-think.”

miked85 5y ago

I can't believe Mozilla is posting stuff like this.

easrng 5y ago

It seems like people are mostly reacting to the title. This is what they are asking 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. Only #3 seems like it would be remotely controversial to anyone but adtech vendors and services trying to maximize "engagement".

miked85 5y ago
> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation Technology companies shouldn't be deciding what the facts are or aren't.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  But they are deciding already. They can't show you everything, so they pick and choose for you based on your behavior profile. Maybe that's not deciding what truth is, but they definitely know what not to show to keep people clicking.
  - miked85 5y ago
    I can't argue with that. I guess they used to be more subtle about it though.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
Number three is crucial for disinformation campaigns. Social platforms maximize interactivity, not transparency or honesty. The disinformation echo chambers have done great harm to society's mental health.
- prirun 5y ago

ASalazarMX 5y ago

Why are people getting worked up about this 2021 post? The things it proposes seem very reasonable, and it's not like it meant changes to Firefox. - Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken: - 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. [links to Facebook algorithm deliberately promoting engaging 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. Edit: I think flagging should ask for a reason to display with the flag. I have no idea why someone would flag this without at least reading the very short article and realizing it's not flag worthy.

mardifoufs 5y ago
Why does it matter if it's a 2021 article? Unless Mozilla changed it's stance since?
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  I don't know if they've changed their posture, I'd expect them not to because it's a very reasonable set of suggestions aimed at social networks. It's less relevant because a year ago everyone was talking about the presidential election and the disinformation campaigns on social networks (cough Facebook), but the issue is much less talked of these days.
  - 13years 5y ago
    It has only increased over the past year. It is now control of medical information, but same principle. Joe Rogan's episode with Malone hit over 40 million viewers as a direct result of attempts at information control. This topic is even more relevant today than a year ago.
pndy 5y ago
> it's not like it meant changes to Firefox And perhaps that's the issue. Mozilla doesn't seem to be particularly interested in acknowledging the position in which their browser now exists, or even listening to the feedback and criticism that arose around it in the last, let's say, 15 years. It literally does everything else but focusing on the browser development or figuring out how to make it attractive again. Changing the UI of Firefox once again to the somewhat dull bulky mobile-oriented modern style (for a browser which was always a desktop software) doesn't constitutes as a progress or helps the popularity and that's the only big change done in the last months. This post done by Mitchell Baker is about american politics and the outcome of events from the last year and what Mozilla (assuming that's Foundation statement and not only Baker's) seems to suggest as "solutions" against. And I'd say that's the reason this submission is being flagged.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

detaro 5y ago

discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941

miked85 5y ago

I'm curious why this post would be flagged? A bit of irony.

13years 5y ago
Truly, it seems we are already living it.

md2020 5y ago

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. Since other comments here and everywhere already covered that, left unchecked, this just devolves straight back into a bad system where a select few end up as the arbiters of truth, I want to ask: as technologists, what sort of systems are possible that incentivize people to find the truth instead of finding “facts” that just confirm what they already believe? The only thing I can think of is prediction/betting markets. These are good at discerning truth of events with easy to observe outcomes, and anyone is free to contribute provided they’re willing to have skin in the game. Outside of that, it becomes harder.

anotherhue 5y ago

Perhaps the CNCF or linux foundation could take over technical stewardship? Apache?

theknocker 5y ago

AnonC 5y ago

At the point in time I’m writing this, this post is flagged, and I don’t understand why. Mozilla Foundation’s mission is for an open web, and I’d think that this includes asking more of platforms to be open and transparent in their decisions. Will these requests really work anytime soon? That’s hard to say with large companies with almost unlimited money to shove problems away. Will technology alone solve the problems? Surely not, but technology is a key part to solving them since it’s the one handling the massive coordination. Should we ask these of platforms and people? Certainly!

Handytinge 5y ago
> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. This seems to be the opposite of "open" to me.

blisterpeanuts 5y ago

Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, meaning that (in the U.S.) donations are tax deductible. One of the requirements of 501(c)(3) is to avoid promoting any political candidate or influence legislation[1]. It appears that Mitchell Baker is walking on thin ice, by attacking Donald Trump and in general calling for censorship. There was actually a time when I supported Mozilla enthusiastically, as an innovative open source alternative to the (then) Microsoft hegemony. Today I avoid Mozilla like the plague; I feel they have betrayed their libertarian roots. 1. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...