Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery(reclaimthenet.org)
reclaimthenet.org
Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
https://reclaimthenet.org/firefox-rejects-free-speech-bans-free-speech-commenting-plugin-dissenter-from-its-extensions-gallery/
82 comments
This is a lie.
Gab is not a far/alt right specific platform. It's just a place where you can say whatever you want.
Problem is the left calls far right or offensive to anything they disagree with.
Gab is not a far/alt right specific platform. It's just a place where you can say whatever you want.
Problem is the left calls far right or offensive to anything they disagree with.
[deleted]
[flagged]
For the HN Community yes...
Far-left / Socialist is the only "acceptable" way of thinking
anything Libertarian, (which is labeled "far-right" now) should be shut down, out, and banned
Far-left / Socialist is the only "acceptable" way of thinking
anything Libertarian, (which is labeled "far-right" now) should be shut down, out, and banned
> anything Libertarian, (which is labeled "far-right" now)
US Capital-“L” Libertarians tend to be solid-to-far right as well as libertarian, but, no, genuine center- and left-libertarian isn't usually called far-right by anyone.
Also, right-libertarians are a pretty big segment of the HN community, possibly more dominant than anything on the left.
US Capital-“L” Libertarians tend to be solid-to-far right as well as libertarian, but, no, genuine center- and left-libertarian isn't usually called far-right by anyone.
Also, right-libertarians are a pretty big segment of the HN community, possibly more dominant than anything on the left.
Uh, personalities like Joe Rogan and Tim Pool have been called far-right[0], then there are also secular muslims who get called "anti-muslim extremists" by SPLC[1]. So unless you want to claim that these aren't "true scotsmen", there are most certainly people who get called far-right, who are anything but.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-A_aNMe1Wk
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz#SPLC_claim
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-A_aNMe1Wk
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz#SPLC_claim
> anything Libertarian, (which is labeled "far-right" now)
Not just HN. Almost all tech companies are HQ-ed (at least for policy making purposes) in and around San Francisco. And they ALL behave the same way - impose their world view with impunity on the rest of the population, at a scale unheard of in human history. Just ponder for a moment that some overpaid Mozilla censorship committee employee, enjoying his/her/zi $20 soy latte in their $4000/month studio in San Francisco got to shut down an entire community's online presence with a single click, because they found the speech there disagreeable (not illegal)
Not just HN. Almost all tech companies are HQ-ed (at least for policy making purposes) in and around San Francisco. And they ALL behave the same way - impose their world view with impunity on the rest of the population, at a scale unheard of in human history. Just ponder for a moment that some overpaid Mozilla censorship committee employee, enjoying his/her/zi $20 soy latte in their $4000/month studio in San Francisco got to shut down an entire community's online presence with a single click, because they found the speech there disagreeable (not illegal)
It's not the side they are on, right or left, it's the violent and hateful rhetoric they use.
Which is protected by constitutional rights in the country Mozilla’s nexus exists in.
It’s not necessary for a bloated non profit to remove access to an extension for political reasons (versus technical deficiencies).
Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.
It’s not necessary for a bloated non profit to remove access to an extension for political reasons (versus technical deficiencies).
Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.
> Which is protected by constitutional rights in the country Mozilla’s nexus exists in.
Good thing it is not the government telling Mozilla to remove the plugin then, otherwise there might be an actual problem here.
What makes free speech useless is pretending that someone else has a responsibility to promote your message or provide you with access to a printing press. Neither are true. This does not even appear to be the case that Mozilla is preventing anyone from using the plugin, they are just deciding that they aren't going to make any effort to promote it.
I guess it is not too hard to see who the real snowflakes are...
Good thing it is not the government telling Mozilla to remove the plugin then, otherwise there might be an actual problem here.
What makes free speech useless is pretending that someone else has a responsibility to promote your message or provide you with access to a printing press. Neither are true. This does not even appear to be the case that Mozilla is preventing anyone from using the plugin, they are just deciding that they aren't going to make any effort to promote it.
I guess it is not too hard to see who the real snowflakes are...
Militant leftists wanting to outlaw certain speech are no different then the alt right. It’s not as if more reason is necessary for regulating tech. You want to be the new commons, you get the responsibility of the commons along with it. Can’t have it both ways.
Note we heavily regulate private companies in many US industries when we deem it necessary.
Note we heavily regulate private companies in many US industries when we deem it necessary.
>Militant leftists wanting to outlaw certain speech
Uhh, Mozilla didn't outlaw anything. Do you want to force Mozilla to put that extension on their site against their free speech rights? The only thing guaranteed by the first amendment is the federal government cannot prevent you from saying what you want. It says nothing about preventing you from using a 3rd party platform. Feel free to get a literal soapbox and preach your truth wherever you want in the real world, no one is stopping you.
Uhh, Mozilla didn't outlaw anything. Do you want to force Mozilla to put that extension on their site against their free speech rights? The only thing guaranteed by the first amendment is the federal government cannot prevent you from saying what you want. It says nothing about preventing you from using a 3rd party platform. Feel free to get a literal soapbox and preach your truth wherever you want in the real world, no one is stopping you.
It would not be against Mozilla "free speech" rights, it would be against their free association rights.
I want to hold Mozilla up to their public advertisements, and commitments they made to the public at large, these are a contract if you will to the public. Both because of their Tax Exempt status, and a truth in advertising issue.
If mozilla wants to exercise their right to free association as censorship platform, then they need to give up their Tax Exempt status, as well as cease all public advertisement around "Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.", Clearly this is only true to people that share the ideological worldview as Mozilla. AS such this is a false statement.
I want to hold Mozilla up to their public advertisements, and commitments they made to the public at large, these are a contract if you will to the public. Both because of their Tax Exempt status, and a truth in advertising issue.
If mozilla wants to exercise their right to free association as censorship platform, then they need to give up their Tax Exempt status, as well as cease all public advertisement around "Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.", Clearly this is only true to people that share the ideological worldview as Mozilla. AS such this is a false statement.
There is no such thing as a "contract if you will to the public" nor do any "commitments" that Mozilla has made to the "public at large" (whatever those are supposed to be) constitute a contract in any legally binding sense.
>If mozilla wants to exercise their right to free association as censorship platform, then they need to give up their Tax Exempt status, as well as cease all public advertisement around "Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all."
Firefox extensions are not the internet.
>If mozilla wants to exercise their right to free association as censorship platform, then they need to give up their Tax Exempt status, as well as cease all public advertisement around "Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all."
Firefox extensions are not the internet.
You're being unnecessarily literal, it's clear that the parent misspoke and meant social contract[0], not a direct, legal one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Losing tax exempt status and being barred from mentioning a mission statement sound like legal, not social consequences. My impression was that the parent believed Mozilla was breaking some actual law regarding truth in advertising or something by claiming their mission was to "keep the internet open and accessible to all" while also curating plugins.
>Which is protected by constitutional rights in the country Mozilla’s nexus exists in.
Your understanding of the first amendment's protections is fundamentally flawed. The first amendment protects individual freedom of speech from prosecution and silencing by the government. It does not preclude private businesses or individuals from choosing to ban or prevent certain thoughts and opinions from a service which they provide. If Mozilla gets enough complaints about the speech that can be found on Dissenter, they have every legal right to choose not to host that app.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech. Dissenter users are perfectly free to find another home on the internet to voice their opinions.
>It’s not necessary for a bloated non profit to remove access to an extension for political reasons (versus technical deficiencies).
Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons, rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).
I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
>Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.
I go back to my point above. It's one thing to have a political opinion, it's another thing to be a horrible human being to other people just because you disagree with them. I still think that people should be able to say whatever they want, but if Mozilla doesn't want them to do it on their platform, then the rest of the internet is literally wide open for them to go and find another place to say whatever they want.
Your understanding of the first amendment's protections is fundamentally flawed. The first amendment protects individual freedom of speech from prosecution and silencing by the government. It does not preclude private businesses or individuals from choosing to ban or prevent certain thoughts and opinions from a service which they provide. If Mozilla gets enough complaints about the speech that can be found on Dissenter, they have every legal right to choose not to host that app.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech. Dissenter users are perfectly free to find another home on the internet to voice their opinions.
>It’s not necessary for a bloated non profit to remove access to an extension for political reasons (versus technical deficiencies).
Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons, rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).
I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
>Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.
I go back to my point above. It's one thing to have a political opinion, it's another thing to be a horrible human being to other people just because you disagree with them. I still think that people should be able to say whatever they want, but if Mozilla doesn't want them to do it on their platform, then the rest of the internet is literally wide open for them to go and find another place to say whatever they want.
> Which is protected by constitutional rights in the country Mozilla’s nexus exists in.
It is protected against government intervention by the exact provision which protects Mozilla’s right to not feature it.
> Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.
You confuse defending the freedom to speak with actively supporting those speaking it.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to amplify speech.
It is protected against government intervention by the exact provision which protects Mozilla’s right to not feature it.
> Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.
You confuse defending the freedom to speak with actively supporting those speaking it.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to amplify speech.
If Mozilla is a "bloated non profit" then they have no constitutional obligation to defend Gab's free speech. When you act like tech companies have the obligation to promote free speech you're actually giving them more legitimacy than they deserve because you implicitly accepted the idea that if speech isn't being propagated by them then it's impossible for it to spread.
Which I would imagine is a problem if Mozilla receives federal funding.
In a way they do... They are tax exempt which means there is a case to be made as being Tax Exempt comes with Strings
For example we do not allow Churches to comment on politics they have to remain neutral or they lose their tax exemption
The same should apply to Mozilla. They need to be politically neutral, up holding Legal Speech, or they need to shutdown the Mozilla Foundation and become a for profit organization
For example we do not allow Churches to comment on politics they have to remain neutral or they lose their tax exemption
The same should apply to Mozilla. They need to be politically neutral, up holding Legal Speech, or they need to shutdown the Mozilla Foundation and become a for profit organization
This is an avenue I had not considering exploring. I will have to research constraints on non profits and when they can be reported to the IRS for possibly violating those constraints and an evaluation can occur to consider revoking their 503c status.
Nah, some side’s violent or hateful rhetorics are accepted fully.
This is censorship, pure and simple. Gab, and Dissenter itself for that matter, are apolitical entitles whose stated goal is to allow any speech so long as it doesn't violate law. Say whatever you want, regardless of your political leanings. Admirable.
Mozilla has made their stance on such a goal clear. I don't believe for a hot second that this wasn't a politically-motivated decision, and it really puts the lie to their claims of protecting "a free and open web".
"Free and open" is diametrically opposed to blocking an addon whose sole purpose is to allow access to a third party web service.
Mozilla has made their stance on such a goal clear. I don't believe for a hot second that this wasn't a politically-motivated decision, and it really puts the lie to their claims of protecting "a free and open web".
"Free and open" is diametrically opposed to blocking an addon whose sole purpose is to allow access to a third party web service.
What's the status of third party, unauthorized firefox extensions these days, didn't they ban them or make them a pain in the arse to use several years ago?
They might not have to host it, but if they make it hard/impossible for others to host and use it then they're certainly violating the first of the four freedoms of free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
They might not have to host it, but if they make it hard/impossible for others to host and use it then they're certainly violating the first of the four freedoms of free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
It's stuff like this that makes it a far cry to call Mozilla "open" and "free"
Dissenters is a commercial platform, Mozilla are simply under no obligation to promote it or give it a spotlight under addons.mozilla.org. Unless you can point to a similar addon from some alt-left site that they have approved, there's no reason to suspect that this was a political decision.
Firefox requires that extension files be signed by Mozilla if you want to install a .xpi file from a website. They don't have to be given a spotlight, but this effectively makes it impossible for anyone who doesn't know how to manually compile and install the extension to even use it.
No compilation necessary. You just download the addon source, flip on the "debug plugins" option, and point it at the manifest file.
Still a pain in the ass.
Still a pain in the ass.
Mozilla continues to offer Dissenter the ability to sign their add-on and distribute it themselves. Look at the takedown notice, where they recommend this approach.
yes yes - this was completely apolitical. The conservative bent of the community banned was completely incidental, just like ALL other bans of conservative thought by San Francisco based companies. Firefox is just being an neutral arbiter - nothing to see here folks, go home and celebrate true freedom: the freedom of SV companies to systemically censor conservative speech with impunity
Please, tell me again why Firefox is not evil and respect their users.
Because Mozilla (unlike most other web browser publishers) publishes free software -- software users are allowed to run, inspect, modify, and share at any time for any reason. This is known as respecting a user's software freedom. Programs that don't respect a user's software freedom are called non-free or proprietary.
That's the saving grace of Firefox. That's what makes Firefox better than any of the other currently widely-used browsers. A program's technical problems can be fixed, a program's speed can be improved (Mozilla recently proved this in the most recent versions of Firefox), but software freedom cannot be added to a proprietary program.
Therefore if you don't like how Mozilla treats add-on programmers or Firefox users, you have the software freedom needed to make a free derivative of Firefox which behaves in a better way (where "better" is up to you to define, it's purposefully vague). Perhaps you want your Firefox derivative to let its users easily install whatever add-on they like that will persist across restarts, or get add-on updates without hassles by checking multiple sources for updates, or installing add-ons signed with unfamiliar keys after getting a user's approval. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas you could come up with to implement.
But with software freedom the limits of what you can implement are limits you impose on yourself.
This doesn't make Mozilla or Firefox evil and distributing free software is respectful of the users. Don't confuse unrewarded labor (complaining that Mozilla doesn't make Firefox do what you want) with respect for the users.
The Dissent add-on, similarly, is really just another single point of censorship forum. We can't evaluate whether it is better at respecting user's free speech until they are challenged in a serious way (such as the implicit threats to big social media firms when they are given vague inactionable requests to 'do better' when their CEOs are brought before Congressional hearings and told to respond favorably to Russiagate lies). Already on this forum we see some posters confusing freedom of speech with reading something that echoes their views. One post, for instance, claimed "[Dissent's] audience is primarily folk on the far/alt-right". As George Orwell said, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear". Or as Noam Chomsky reminds us, "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.".
So both Firefox's add-on repo and Dissent's forum are singletons that don't liberate users so much as they establish their respective admins as censors. Perhaps you could come up with a way to let users more easily distribute comments from their own comment database so that all comment threads on a website come from multiple servers, and no censor power exists because no single user has admin control over all of the comment servers. Dissent is also free software (licensed under Apache License 2.0) so even if you believe Gab or Dissent aren't to be trusted, you could choose to improve Dissent to make it decentralized.
That's the saving grace of Firefox. That's what makes Firefox better than any of the other currently widely-used browsers. A program's technical problems can be fixed, a program's speed can be improved (Mozilla recently proved this in the most recent versions of Firefox), but software freedom cannot be added to a proprietary program.
Therefore if you don't like how Mozilla treats add-on programmers or Firefox users, you have the software freedom needed to make a free derivative of Firefox which behaves in a better way (where "better" is up to you to define, it's purposefully vague). Perhaps you want your Firefox derivative to let its users easily install whatever add-on they like that will persist across restarts, or get add-on updates without hassles by checking multiple sources for updates, or installing add-ons signed with unfamiliar keys after getting a user's approval. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas you could come up with to implement.
But with software freedom the limits of what you can implement are limits you impose on yourself.
This doesn't make Mozilla or Firefox evil and distributing free software is respectful of the users. Don't confuse unrewarded labor (complaining that Mozilla doesn't make Firefox do what you want) with respect for the users.
The Dissent add-on, similarly, is really just another single point of censorship forum. We can't evaluate whether it is better at respecting user's free speech until they are challenged in a serious way (such as the implicit threats to big social media firms when they are given vague inactionable requests to 'do better' when their CEOs are brought before Congressional hearings and told to respond favorably to Russiagate lies). Already on this forum we see some posters confusing freedom of speech with reading something that echoes their views. One post, for instance, claimed "[Dissent's] audience is primarily folk on the far/alt-right". As George Orwell said, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear". Or as Noam Chomsky reminds us, "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.".
So both Firefox's add-on repo and Dissent's forum are singletons that don't liberate users so much as they establish their respective admins as censors. Perhaps you could come up with a way to let users more easily distribute comments from their own comment database so that all comment threads on a website come from multiple servers, and no censor power exists because no single user has admin control over all of the comment servers. Dissent is also free software (licensed under Apache License 2.0) so even if you believe Gab or Dissent aren't to be trusted, you could choose to improve Dissent to make it decentralized.
Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. Such groups are known for fostering hostile environments online towards people of various religions, races, cultural/political views, etc.. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination for Mozilla to claim that users of the app were using it for such purposes. As such, it would be apropos for Mozilla to remove an app that provides a platform for individuals to disrespect others.
Were Mozilla to keep it up, they would not be "respect[ing] their users".
Were Mozilla to keep it up, they would not be "respect[ing] their users".
Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform.
So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.
So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.
Does the removal of the extension from the extension gallery prevent people from using the extension or just limit its exposure? If the latter then there is not censorship but simply Mozilla deciding the cost is not worth the bother. No one has any particular right to be promoted by Mozilla.
So if Verizon would block certain websites for its customers it will not be censorship? Well, it will be. You seem to believe that censorship implies denying legal rights, and only is real when it's total. But censorship can be perfectly legal, and it's never total (albeit it requires either efforts, or money, you can reach forbidden websites in China). I'm not arguing about legality of Mozilla's decision at all. Nevertheless, it is censorship, and as long as it's motivated by ideological differences it's ideological censorship. And as Mozilla pretends to be just browser (not some party's browser) it looks weird, and no exactly smart. My question is why anybody who's not fanatically partisan would support it? Does it mean one feels a lot of pain using Mozilla just because political adversaries use it too? Consequently, do we need a separate fork of every browser for every faction nowadays (apparently, with separate sets of ideologically proven extensions)?
Mozilla are directly violating their own manifesto, where they claim "We are committed to an internet that promotes civil discourse"[0]. Have you even read the article?
When they were asked to clarify what exactly was violating their ToS, they replied with the most standard bureaucratic non-answer, the kind you might receive from an auto-response email service, full of corporate-speak.
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
EDIT: According to this[1], Mozilla supposedly cares enough about this free speech, free platform issue to donate $100,000 to "a coordination platform used by activists across the political spectrum, to improve the security of their email service". Do you still believe it's a stretch to hold them to a much higher standard than a for-profit corporation? Note the "activists across the political spectrum" part in their own words.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half...
When they were asked to clarify what exactly was violating their ToS, they replied with the most standard bureaucratic non-answer, the kind you might receive from an auto-response email service, full of corporate-speak.
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
EDIT: According to this[1], Mozilla supposedly cares enough about this free speech, free platform issue to donate $100,000 to "a coordination platform used by activists across the political spectrum, to improve the security of their email service". Do you still believe it's a stretch to hold them to a much higher standard than a for-profit corporation? Note the "activists across the political spectrum" part in their own words.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half...
As far as i can see from the article, Mozilla is still agreeing to sign the addon, just not to list it in the AMO site.
The article lists an 8 step process and claims users would have to follow that on each restart of Firefox to enable the addon. I’m not sure if that’s true, as the guidelines I can see on other websites seem to suggest self hosting addons shouldn’t have that problem.
The article lists an 8 step process and claims users would have to follow that on each restart of Firefox to enable the addon. I’m not sure if that’s true, as the guidelines I can see on other websites seem to suggest self hosting addons shouldn’t have that problem.
If Mozilla won't sign it, you have to install it manually. [0]
[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...
[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...
Here's what I posted in another response in this thread just now:
>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).
>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).
>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol
If it's about politically incorrect speech - it's absolutely ideological.
If it's about obscene language - it's still not Mozilla's business to police someone's lexicon, and Mozilla doesn't do it generally, which means something ideological happens here.
Btw, it's interesting that you yourself agree that the whole thing is political by this stereotyping statement but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. And at the same time you disagree.
Try to check your biases: every time Trump tweets, Twitter explodes with left activists using motherfcker, fck, and a lot of derogatory expressions addressed to him, and right-leaning voters which has zero value for any civil discourse. So ask yourself: would you say "we both know it's commonplace on the left to use disparaging, and obscene exoressions"? And would you be fine with Twitter punished for this? (It enables them, gives the platform).
Finally, you are calling dissenter.com alt-right which is not true unless they operate alt-right censorship there. It shows some bias too.
If it's about politically incorrect speech - it's absolutely ideological.
If it's about obscene language - it's still not Mozilla's business to police someone's lexicon, and Mozilla doesn't do it generally, which means something ideological happens here.
Btw, it's interesting that you yourself agree that the whole thing is political by this stereotyping statement but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. And at the same time you disagree.
Try to check your biases: every time Trump tweets, Twitter explodes with left activists using motherfcker, fck, and a lot of derogatory expressions addressed to him, and right-leaning voters which has zero value for any civil discourse. So ask yourself: would you say "we both know it's commonplace on the left to use disparaging, and obscene exoressions"? And would you be fine with Twitter punished for this? (It enables them, gives the platform).
Finally, you are calling dissenter.com alt-right which is not true unless they operate alt-right censorship there. It shows some bias too.
>>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform.
Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.
Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.
>Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.
...and we're to conclude that, because Mozilla has "hegemony", and are denying a political agenda, they must actually have a political agenda they're not admitting to?
I mean, hegemony could just as well mean never having to deny you have an agenda, because what can anyone do? The US certainly doesn't hide its agenda regarding its military or nuclear hegemony.
...and we're to conclude that, because Mozilla has "hegemony", and are denying a political agenda, they must actually have a political agenda they're not admitting to?
I mean, hegemony could just as well mean never having to deny you have an agenda, because what can anyone do? The US certainly doesn't hide its agenda regarding its military or nuclear hegemony.
> It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
Probably a good idea to provide evidence on a case-by-case basis first, otherwise how is this position different from right-wingers that want to play the numbers game too, and preemptively claim that since blacks commit a disproportionately large amount of crimes per capita, any black person should be kept away?
Probably a good idea to provide evidence on a case-by-case basis first, otherwise how is this position different from right-wingers that want to play the numbers game too, and preemptively claim that since blacks commit a disproportionately large amount of crimes per capita, any black person should be kept away?
Dissenter was created by a person or group of people who have thoughts and opinions that deserve to be protected.
They're free to voice those thoughts wherever they can, just as Mozilla is free to opt not to host their app if they find said thoughts and opinions to be offensive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of said speech. If Mozilla received enough complaints about the speech being promoted via the app, then it is within their right to choose not to host it.
How is that such a hard concept for so many people in this thread to understand?
How is that such a hard concept for so many people in this thread to understand?
Lucky for you your opinions are mainstream.
True freedom of speech ultimately comes from a society's culture and morality not a law. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean much if the powerful can harass and intimidate its opponents into silence while still remaining in the technical letter of the law. Just like you'd probably wouldn't like it if women were denied employment opportunities because only 'men were created equal' How is this such a hard concept for liberals, the supposed founders of the 'Free Speech Movement' to understand?
Here's what I posted elsewhere in this thread - twice now - and is what so many people seem to be missing. It's not the subjects they're discussing, it's likely the manner in which their users are discussing them.
>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).
>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
This is the point: Discuss whatever you want, that's OK. Just don't be surprised if you get banned for being an asshole while discussing it.
>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).
>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
This is the point: Discuss whatever you want, that's OK. Just don't be surprised if you get banned for being an asshole while discussing it.
>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it]
So basically you're saying you'd be okay if there's one place you could speak freely and be heard (the internet) owned by one guy (the tech monopolies) and he could shut it down for everybody if one person said a bad word on it?
Btw Dissenter does preemptively censors bad language, and they reached out to Mozilla who failed to provide them with specific examples. The same Mozilla shining champion of civility which funds Antifa, the group that does such nonvitriolic things like beat people with bike locks.
>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
>they have every legal right to choose not to host that app.
Serious question for you, how do you feel about net neutrality and bakers and photographers having to work for SSM weddings?
So basically you're saying you'd be okay if there's one place you could speak freely and be heard (the internet) owned by one guy (the tech monopolies) and he could shut it down for everybody if one person said a bad word on it?
Btw Dissenter does preemptively censors bad language, and they reached out to Mozilla who failed to provide them with specific examples. The same Mozilla shining champion of civility which funds Antifa, the group that does such nonvitriolic things like beat people with bike locks.
>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.
>they have every legal right to choose not to host that app.
Serious question for you, how do you feel about net neutrality and bakers and photographers having to work for SSM weddings?
> Btw Dissenter does preemptively censors bad language
So wait, Dissenter doesn't support free speech?
So wait, Dissenter doesn't support free speech?
The complaints were unsubstantiated with no examples of offensive behavior provided and might as well have been a smear campaign by people brigading by sending abuse reports en masse.
And unlike a private, for-profit company though,(for which your argument that they are within their rights to provide platform/deplatform whomever they want, would indeed hold) Mozilla attempts to claim the moral high ground in their manifesto[0], citing their commitment to "an internet that promotes civil discourse, human dignity, and individual expression."
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
EDIT: clarified the first paragraph slightly.
And unlike a private, for-profit company though,(for which your argument that they are within their rights to provide platform/deplatform whomever they want, would indeed hold) Mozilla attempts to claim the moral high ground in their manifesto[0], citing their commitment to "an internet that promotes civil discourse, human dignity, and individual expression."
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
EDIT: clarified the first paragraph slightly.
There is no sign at Gab saying 'no commies allowed' At its core, Gab itself is apolitical or at least far more so than its rivals. The left are welcome to use it as much as the right. The main difference is that Gab allows more freedom in many respects, which apparently is a rightwing thing to some people.
It might position itself as apolitical, but in practice it is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
The only thing Gab/Dissenter itself does is have less speech restrictions than their competitors. Are you saying thats political?
[deleted]
So if dissenter was created by Antifa it would be ok?
Playbook of valley companies in 2019:
- Systemically ban and censor conservative speech. Never-mind that 50% of the country and about 70% of the world adheres to the EXACT same, fairly reasonable opinions.
- Launch a massive PR campaign (opening salvo of which is accusations of Nazi adherence) against those crying foul, or pointing out the clear ultra-left bias in censorship and actions
- Claim that private companies hold no MORAL responsibility to uphold constitutionally guaranteed free speech laws
- Claim that the internet be treated as a utility, with free access to everyone, but ignore the fact that massive monopolies controlling the REAL utilitarian aspects of the internet (search, email, payments, hosting, cloud, etc. ) are all in cahoots to kill conservative speech, with cognitive dissonance of how they've combined to de-platform entire philosophies from the internet that they control
- Behave with absolute impunity with political agendas, and claim to be neutral
- Systemically ban and censor conservative speech. Never-mind that 50% of the country and about 70% of the world adheres to the EXACT same, fairly reasonable opinions.
- Launch a massive PR campaign (opening salvo of which is accusations of Nazi adherence) against those crying foul, or pointing out the clear ultra-left bias in censorship and actions
- Claim that private companies hold no MORAL responsibility to uphold constitutionally guaranteed free speech laws
- Claim that the internet be treated as a utility, with free access to everyone, but ignore the fact that massive monopolies controlling the REAL utilitarian aspects of the internet (search, email, payments, hosting, cloud, etc. ) are all in cahoots to kill conservative speech, with cognitive dissonance of how they've combined to de-platform entire philosophies from the internet that they control
- Behave with absolute impunity with political agendas, and claim to be neutral
I don't think these folks understand the first amendment if they think it's relevant here...
It's almost like they want to fail.
If you have to create a special message board that is the only place where you can say what you want to, perhaps you should think about what you are saying.
This is so obviously not an issue of "free speech." Free speech means the government cannot prosecute you for what you say. Any company can tell you to fuck off for any reason though, and that's the free market all the "free speech" advocates love so much.
This is so obviously not an issue of "free speech." Free speech means the government cannot prosecute you for what you say. Any company can tell you to fuck off for any reason though, and that's the free market all the "free speech" advocates love so much.
> Free speech means the government cannot prosecute you for what you say.
No, that's the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Free speech is a broader concept, and the 1st amendment defends it only from government interference.
No, that's the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Free speech is a broader concept, and the 1st amendment defends it only from government interference.
Thank you. So many people seem to assume the US constitution is the be all and end all answer about freedom of speech (or anything else included in it) whereas it's only one interpretation used by the government/legal system in a certain part of the world.
Censorship not necessarily equal government censorship, and its ludicrous that people seem to assume it does.
Censorship not necessarily equal government censorship, and its ludicrous that people seem to assume it does.
> If you have to create a special message board that is the only place where you can say what you want to, perhaps you should think about what you are saying.
That only shows that reception to what is being said is overwhelmingly negative. Society has an unfortunate long history of doing that for arbitrary and stupid things. There are legitimate reasons for using something like this.
Granted with the "alt-right" it is a clear case of "They laughed at Einstein but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".
I can't help but think it is a shame that an overlay messageboard concept like that wound up being used in a double rot13 cryptofascist dumpster fire. Although it would probably always tend toward toxicity given its usefulness for hatedoms of any sort.
I'm imagining a useful fact checker one slapped over news websites and even maintaining "score" of accuracy per author, site, and topic.
That only shows that reception to what is being said is overwhelmingly negative. Society has an unfortunate long history of doing that for arbitrary and stupid things. There are legitimate reasons for using something like this.
Granted with the "alt-right" it is a clear case of "They laughed at Einstein but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".
I can't help but think it is a shame that an overlay messageboard concept like that wound up being used in a double rot13 cryptofascist dumpster fire. Although it would probably always tend toward toxicity given its usefulness for hatedoms of any sort.
I'm imagining a useful fact checker one slapped over news websites and even maintaining "score" of accuracy per author, site, and topic.
> They laughed at Einstein but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown
Off topic, but I don't think they laughed at Einstein. Special and general relativity were well received by the scientific community, weren't they?
Off topic, but I don't think they laughed at Einstein. Special and general relativity were well received by the scientific community, weren't they?
Sort of - he got it published easily enough and the revered Max Planck praised it highly within a year and lectured on it but he certainly faced resistance. He had some allies who were themselves great mathematicians and physicists but he didn't exactly get the red carpet rolled out for him. It took four years after publication to get an associate professor position sufficient to resign from the patent office.
Did you see these messages for yourself, personally? Or did you just go on "media reporting"
Do you know, personally, if these messages where the "majority" of the content or do you believe if even a single one of these "rot13 cryptofascist dumpster fire" messages where posted anywhere on the network that is justification for a complete ban?
Do believe companies like Mozilla should be uphold legal speech as it pertains to US Laws (as mozilla is a US Company) or should they impose greater censorship over everything that flows through their web browser, picking and choosing what is "acceptable"
Do you know, personally, if these messages where the "majority" of the content or do you believe if even a single one of these "rot13 cryptofascist dumpster fire" messages where posted anywhere on the network that is justification for a complete ban?
Do believe companies like Mozilla should be uphold legal speech as it pertains to US Laws (as mozilla is a US Company) or should they impose greater censorship over everything that flows through their web browser, picking and choosing what is "acceptable"
>>" Free speech means the government cannot prosecute you for what you say.
Incorrect, very very very incorrect
I am alarmed by the fact that people believe the only censorship by government is a problem or what "free speech" means.
A society can be completely devoid of free speech while not having any government censorship at all. We are seeing the manifestation of such a society today.
Government censorship is only one kind, and only 1 threat to free speech, but it is far far far from the only threat.
> Any company can tell you to fuck off for any reason though,
Yes, yes they can. But if they do they should not be able to advertise, collect money, and promote being "for everyone" or "adovating for the free and open web" or other such statements. That is and should be considered fraud if they do such things.
If Mozilla wants to be a censorship platform, they need to own it in their marketing, mission statement, and public advocacy
> the free market all the "free speech" advocates love so much.
It is always amusing with Authoritarian and socialist promote the "free market" when it comes to censorship when in reality they have not idea what they are talking about
Incorrect, very very very incorrect
I am alarmed by the fact that people believe the only censorship by government is a problem or what "free speech" means.
A society can be completely devoid of free speech while not having any government censorship at all. We are seeing the manifestation of such a society today.
Government censorship is only one kind, and only 1 threat to free speech, but it is far far far from the only threat.
> Any company can tell you to fuck off for any reason though,
Yes, yes they can. But if they do they should not be able to advertise, collect money, and promote being "for everyone" or "adovating for the free and open web" or other such statements. That is and should be considered fraud if they do such things.
If Mozilla wants to be a censorship platform, they need to own it in their marketing, mission statement, and public advocacy
> the free market all the "free speech" advocates love so much.
It is always amusing with Authoritarian and socialist promote the "free market" when it comes to censorship when in reality they have not idea what they are talking about
[deleted]
Given the rhetoric that is often found in comments from those groups, it's not too hard to imagine that the complaints Mozilla cited as the reasons for removal are legitimate.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#Dissenter