3 ms·

Firefox market share: 3% How far the mighty has fallen. Firefox was once the best browser. We could go into Mozilla's political activism that led up to this u

Firefox market share: 3% How far the mighty has fallen. Firefox was once the best browser. We could go into Mozilla's political activism that led up to this utter collapse. That's unnecessary. Mozilla's political activism was clearly toxic to their organization and they didn't have the vision of the damage they were doing to themselves. So what value does this vision for the web have? Mozilla clearly needs to fix their own house before telling the entire world what we should do. >The experience of using the Web must not subject individuals to harm. I read through this vision and it's all things that are already true today. It's difficult to find things they truly wish to change or improve upon. My take is that this is really what this entire vision is about the "harm" they perceive. This is what they want to change. They don't want to harm people on the internet. Which in a high level virtually everyone agrees. Everyone already agrees Scams, Fraud, phishing, malware, etc should not be allowed on the internet. No vision needs to be written on this. Mozilla wants to go further than this. >This can lead to situations in which users have very negative experiences (including misinformation, .... in the past platforms have actively cooperated in abusive behavior, for instance via providing extremely fine-grained targeting for advertisements designed to manipulate users' political behavior. So they are worried about misinformation and manipulating user's political behaviour? Mozilla and firefox is more than welcome to keep going down this road. I won't try to stop them. That 3% can go lower and lower. >Every company is influenced by its own agenda, business needs, and politics. Left unchecked, those pressures can easily result in the inclusion of ill-conceived features that everyone comes to regret. The irony is that Mozilla clearly proved in this document they haven't fixed anything internally. They clearly have not given up their political activism. >The Web’s multi-stakeholder development process is far from perfect, but nonetheless serves as a powerful bulwark against a corporate agenda-du-jour pushing bad ideas into the Web. "corporate agenda pushing bad ideas" That's what this is really about isn't it. Bad ideas. Misinformation. Mozilla wants to do "more than deplatform" their political opponents. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? Mozilla? Some single government who gets to unilaterally censor the internet for all other countries? No. This is just Mozilla still derailed and crashing. Mozilla might be irreparably damaged by their political activism.

cherrycherry98 5y ago
Exactly, this paternalism over (mis)information needs to stop. What kind of free society can we have if dissent is not tolerated? Some of that dissent will be nonsense but some of it will have some truth to it. It all reminds me of Paul Graham's What You Can't Say essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) "The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true."
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >Exactly, this paternalism over (mis)information needs to stop. What kind of free society can we have if dissent is not tolerated? Some of that dissent will be nonsense but some of it will have some truth to it. In the context of Mozilla. I fully support their intention of stamping out 'misinformation' and 'bad ideas' and I highly recommend to anyone and everyone they must stop using firefox or anything related to mozilla. They are hostile actors. How about society? We had a major societal inflection point in Canada recently. We don't quite know what all the consequences will be at this point. This wasn't new or out of the blue. Unfortunately this denouncement of PM Trudeau and his actions was across the political spectrum. While the current situation is a disaster, it's worse with what is about to come. 'It's the government's responsibility to regulate online speech to prevent radicalization'. Obviously this is being done under the guise of 'misinformation', 'hate speech', 'denazification, and 'anti-racism' This upcoming reality of censoring speech will target dissent far far more often than any sort of nazis in canada which isnt really a thing. The reasoning or why this is happening is far more important. Once you understand this and you really understand why Canada is in this situation. >It all reminds me of Paul Graham's What You Can't Say essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) Yes precisely but what makes things so dramatically different compared to today. Incidentally HN is well confirmed as having been taken over in this wrong way. Something that I wish I could do is do this analysis for right before the american civil war. I bet it wasn't even as bad as it is today. >"The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true." What happened to the universities? Used to be the bastions of free speech but are literally the opposite today. I am 100% certain I understand what's happening and why. I just wish I could see how this will be solved and I just don't see how.

cherrycherry98 5y ago

Exactly, this paternalism over (mis)information needs to stop. What kind of free society can we have if dissent is not tolerated? Some of that dissent will be nonsense but some of it will have some truth to it. It all reminds me of Paul Graham's What You Can't Say essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) "The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true."

incomingpain 5y ago
>Exactly, this paternalism over (mis)information needs to stop. What kind of free society can we have if dissent is not tolerated? Some of that dissent will be nonsense but some of it will have some truth to it. In the context of Mozilla. I fully support their intention of stamping out 'misinformation' and 'bad ideas' and I highly recommend to anyone and everyone they must stop using firefox or anything related to mozilla. They are hostile actors. How about society? We had a major societal inflection point in Canada recently. We don't quite know what all the consequences will be at this point. This wasn't new or out of the blue. Unfortunately this denouncement of PM Trudeau and his actions was across the political spectrum. While the current situation is a disaster, it's worse with what is about to come. 'It's the government's responsibility to regulate online speech to prevent radicalization'. Obviously this is being done under the guise of 'misinformation', 'hate speech', 'denazification, and 'anti-racism' This upcoming reality of censoring speech will target dissent far far more often than any sort of nazis in canada which isnt really a thing. The reasoning or why this is happening is far more important. Once you understand this and you really understand why Canada is in this situation. >It all reminds me of Paul Graham's What You Can't Say essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) Yes precisely but what makes things so dramatically different compared to today. Incidentally HN is well confirmed as having been taken over in this wrong way. Something that I wish I could do is do this analysis for right before the american civil war. I bet it wasn't even as bad as it is today. >"The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true." What happened to the universities? Used to be the bastions of free speech but are literally the opposite today. I am 100% certain I understand what's happening and why. I just wish I could see how this will be solved and I just don't see how.