3 ms·

It doesn't help that they're bleeding their minimal customer-base with political bullshit: https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-th

It doesn't help that they're bleeding their minimal customer-base with political bullshit: https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need...

PKop 2y ago
[flagged]
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  I suspect we have different definitions of "political speech" and "silence" and how that applies to the 1st amendment. Jan 6 was an abomination, and it should not be controversial for a tech company that values democratic values to call for algorithm and advertising transparency.
  - PKop 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      >We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith. Due to the inevitable abuse that unfettered viral social media, black-box algorithms and dark money in social media advertising lead to. I 100% believe Elon Musk's PAC should be shamed and possibly punished for simultaneously running "Kamala stands with Israel" in Muslim Michigan while running "Kamala stands with Palestine" in Jewish Philadelphia. Then again, punished? Maybe America should be punished for electing these charlatans. Support cutting taxes for the rich and recycling the bodies of the poor to feed into a new Monsanto product? Fine. But lie about facts, spin up millions of fake accounts to promote lies, and try to hide where the lies are coming from? Nah, fuck that. Social media should stop disinformation. > It's never not going to be "controversial" for a faction to oppose things that are obviously bad for them. If spewing disinformation is all the right has going for them, then I don't care what they think - cut them off. Just like I'm not surprised that CEOs hate unions and taxes.
      - PKop 2y ago
        Here you are wanting a pity party for how democratic politics work (winning over factions with competing interests). That was a genius political move. He illustrated strong understanding of how politics works, are you confused? Tell me then, which side did Kamala stand with? >Support cutting taxes I love low taxes, I hope they are cut extensively. I'll be thrilled if/when this happens. >Maybe America should be punished The winners, not the losers, get to decide who gets punished. But yes, wishing ill on your political enemies is exactly what I pegged as your main motivation, which is why dressing it up in fake moralism doesn't work. >Monsanto The new head of Health and Human Services on Monsanto: https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0?si=vWOF5LXtMIDL71k9 https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0?si=vWOF5LXtMIDL71k9
        unethical_ban 2y ago
        I don't know what you're talking about in your first sentence. What side is Harris on? I don't know, the side that hates this country and its government less? I'm sorry you're celebrating someone hacking democratic processes with lies and hatred, just because he won. (Shocking how quickly the GOP base decided elections are valid when their side has a win). I support making America more affordable for the working classes. Besides the fact that Donald's policies may raise taxes for the lower class while cutting it for businesses and the rich (Hello, 2017!), his plans would raise prices on all people. Great job. >But yes, wishing ill on your political enemies is exactly what I pegged as your main motivation That's not what I meant. I did not confirm your hypothesis. You misread. What I meant is that the winning candidate will fuck everyone over, including his voters. I don't want a 2028 Democrat to be elected then take out retribution on Republicans. That is terrible and un-American. That's what Donald is doing. I'm saying that Donald voters want to touch the hot stove, and it's time to let them feel the burn. If we're going to cut social services, raise prices further on goods through 6th grade economics, let the billionaire sycophants of Donald destroy the laws that hold their businesses accountable, and institute a pogrom on brown-looking people, then I hope the supporters of the regime are the ones most hurt by their own policies. The fact that RFK Jr. wants to regulate additives in food alongside taking away vaccines is the high point of what a reasonable person can look forward to for the next four years, is sad.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith. there is the problem. regardless of who is right or who is actually arguing in good faith, if you stop assuming good faith from someone then you are yourself no longer listening to what others have to say nor making a constructive contribution. i am adressing this to all participants in an argument. the reality is that all sides are guilty of this and if we want to effect any kind of change this behavior or attitude must stop. start listening to each other and try to actually understand what each others concerns are, and then work together to address them. across the world opposing parties are just fighting each other, blaming any problems on others instead of cooperating to actually solve problems.
      - unethical_ban 2y ago
        I agree, and when I'm in person with someone, particularly someone I know, I will listen to them. Among several Donald voters I know, I talked to one who I've known for more than 20 years. We agree on many things in life, in morals, in politics. But he voted for Donald. I didn't agree with what I perceived to be his flawed reasoning, but I listened, didn't call him names, and I know he doesn't hate certain classes of people. (He's just wrong about some things). It's harder to do that online, when I don't know if someone is even real, or if they have the ability to have a decent discussion. And my patience when typing is thinner than in person, so I don't have time to explain how Donald matches everything everyone should have learned to be wary of in history class.
        em-bee 2y ago
        It's harder to do that online that is unfortunately true. the only way to deal with that though in my opinion is to not engage people like that online. when i get the feeling that this happens i bail out. it's not worth my time.
unethical_ban 2y ago
Everything they list in their "recommended actions" section is spot-on. Calling for algorithm and advertising transparency should not be controversial.
- seanw444 2y ago
  > Calling for algorithm and advertising transparency should not be controversial. It's not. You just picked the least controversial one. > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. I don't care what they define as factual. Give me what I look for, not what I did not look for.
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    "show me evidence confirming my theory that the air is really 50% sulfur and crocodiles inhabit a layer beneath the crust" You would take issue with a note that says "FYI that's not true at all, here are videos explaining that"?
    - seanw444 2y ago
      No, because that's obviously and easily-provably false. Stop strawmanning.

PKop 2y ago

[flagged]

unethical_ban 2y ago
I suspect we have different definitions of "political speech" and "silence" and how that applies to the 1st amendment. Jan 6 was an abomination, and it should not be controversial for a tech company that values democratic values to call for algorithm and advertising transparency.
- PKop 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    >We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith. Due to the inevitable abuse that unfettered viral social media, black-box algorithms and dark money in social media advertising lead to. I 100% believe Elon Musk's PAC should be shamed and possibly punished for simultaneously running "Kamala stands with Israel" in Muslim Michigan while running "Kamala stands with Palestine" in Jewish Philadelphia. Then again, punished? Maybe America should be punished for electing these charlatans. Support cutting taxes for the rich and recycling the bodies of the poor to feed into a new Monsanto product? Fine. But lie about facts, spin up millions of fake accounts to promote lies, and try to hide where the lies are coming from? Nah, fuck that. Social media should stop disinformation. > It's never not going to be "controversial" for a faction to oppose things that are obviously bad for them. If spewing disinformation is all the right has going for them, then I don't care what they think - cut them off. Just like I'm not surprised that CEOs hate unions and taxes.
    - PKop 2y ago
      Here you are wanting a pity party for how democratic politics work (winning over factions with competing interests). That was a genius political move. He illustrated strong understanding of how politics works, are you confused? Tell me then, which side did Kamala stand with? >Support cutting taxes I love low taxes, I hope they are cut extensively. I'll be thrilled if/when this happens. >Maybe America should be punished The winners, not the losers, get to decide who gets punished. But yes, wishing ill on your political enemies is exactly what I pegged as your main motivation, which is why dressing it up in fake moralism doesn't work. >Monsanto The new head of Health and Human Services on Monsanto: https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0?si=vWOF5LXtMIDL71k9 https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0?si=vWOF5LXtMIDL71k9
      - unethical_ban 2y ago
        I don't know what you're talking about in your first sentence. What side is Harris on? I don't know, the side that hates this country and its government less? I'm sorry you're celebrating someone hacking democratic processes with lies and hatred, just because he won. (Shocking how quickly the GOP base decided elections are valid when their side has a win). I support making America more affordable for the working classes. Besides the fact that Donald's policies may raise taxes for the lower class while cutting it for businesses and the rich (Hello, 2017!), his plans would raise prices on all people. Great job. >But yes, wishing ill on your political enemies is exactly what I pegged as your main motivation That's not what I meant. I did not confirm your hypothesis. You misread. What I meant is that the winning candidate will fuck everyone over, including his voters. I don't want a 2028 Democrat to be elected then take out retribution on Republicans. That is terrible and un-American. That's what Donald is doing. I'm saying that Donald voters want to touch the hot stove, and it's time to let them feel the burn. If we're going to cut social services, raise prices further on goods through 6th grade economics, let the billionaire sycophants of Donald destroy the laws that hold their businesses accountable, and institute a pogrom on brown-looking people, then I hope the supporters of the regime are the ones most hurt by their own policies. The fact that RFK Jr. wants to regulate additives in food alongside taking away vaccines is the high point of what a reasonable person can look forward to for the next four years, is sad.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith. there is the problem. regardless of who is right or who is actually arguing in good faith, if you stop assuming good faith from someone then you are yourself no longer listening to what others have to say nor making a constructive contribution. i am adressing this to all participants in an argument. the reality is that all sides are guilty of this and if we want to effect any kind of change this behavior or attitude must stop. start listening to each other and try to actually understand what each others concerns are, and then work together to address them. across the world opposing parties are just fighting each other, blaming any problems on others instead of cooperating to actually solve problems.
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      I agree, and when I'm in person with someone, particularly someone I know, I will listen to them. Among several Donald voters I know, I talked to one who I've known for more than 20 years. We agree on many things in life, in morals, in politics. But he voted for Donald. I didn't agree with what I perceived to be his flawed reasoning, but I listened, didn't call him names, and I know he doesn't hate certain classes of people. (He's just wrong about some things). It's harder to do that online, when I don't know if someone is even real, or if they have the ability to have a decent discussion. And my patience when typing is thinner than in person, so I don't have time to explain how Donald matches everything everyone should have learned to be wary of in history class.
      - em-bee 2y ago
        It's harder to do that online that is unfortunately true. the only way to deal with that though in my opinion is to not engage people like that online. when i get the feeling that this happens i bail out. it's not worth my time.

unethical_ban 2y ago

Everything they list in their "recommended actions" section is spot-on. Calling for algorithm and advertising transparency should not be controversial.

seanw444 2y ago
> Calling for algorithm and advertising transparency should not be controversial. It's not. You just picked the least controversial one. > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. I don't care what they define as factual. Give me what I look for, not what I did not look for.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  "show me evidence confirming my theory that the air is really 50% sulfur and crocodiles inhabit a layer beneath the crust" You would take issue with a note that says "FYI that's not true at all, here are videos explaining that"?
  - seanw444 2y ago
    No, because that's obviously and easily-provably false. Stop strawmanning.