This just seems short-sighted more than anything. It doesn't sound like there's anything technically wrong with the extension (indeed I have often wanted just such an extension), it's merely that the "wrong sort" of people use it. Well, banning it will keep the "wrong sort" of people using it. If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it. Instead, by "suppressing" it, they have basically gone out of their way to create a breeding ground.
> If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it
Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
Why exactly would people want to share a space with racists, antisemites, and every kind of vile hatred? Why would you not go to place that does not accept that kind of utter garbage instead?
With safe harbour laws the concept of editorial control comes up as a legal test that courts use to determine intermediary liability. By going this route Mozilla is now declaring that not only are they taking responsibility of what extensions they publish, but also how those extensions in turn are used by users. One level deeper of indirections.
So any site which has an EULA that forbids adblockers can use this case as a example of Mozilla exercising editorial control of extension use by users. If Mozilla is willing to exercise editorial control over users behavior for the dissenter extension, then the same apply for any other extension.
Looking in my list of extensions I can identify several which could be potential abused. I would be very sad to see the kind of restrictions that would happen if Mozilla would be forced to be liable for it.
The real question in my mind is when do browser makers start directly blocking websites they believe to be bad? After all both Chrome and Firefox are made by people with very strong political views. So far they've not abused SafeBrowsing to exercise political control over the internet, but the companies producing them are willing to block or politically rerank extensions, web links, domain names they host, news they summarise and so on.
How long do we have before browsing to gab.ai triggers a "This page has been blocked for your safety" page because a bunch of activists said the content made them feel unsafe?
While Brave is building from the core to the periphery, i.e. creating something based on solid fundamentals, Gab is taking Brave and polishing it a bit to their liking.
Due to this I suspect that the Gab browser will only get a following in a certain sphere, i.e. ideologigcal Gab followers. Otherwise you can simply use Brave or Chrome.
There was criticism by Eich et al. who noted that Gab is sending all kinds of data back home.
Gab seems to be focused on providing a service to their followers, without having the actual technical expertise to create something solid based on true privacy.
(I.e. it doesn't matter when we collect the data because we are actually on the right side of the fence)
Nevertheless I am excited to see where all of this is going and I welcome any additional browser, which is good for creating a competitive market.
The fact that Gab can, without much knowledge, "create" a browser interface within days shows how great Chromium is for the advancement of the open web.
The only thing that needs to be solved is the governance of chromium with it becoming the de facto standard on the web.
Everyone's in favour of the free market until it does something they disagree with. Anyone can start a new browser. Gab could fork Chromium or Firefox, even.
Or they could probably just make a bookmarklet.
But that wouldn't get any attention and hate groups like Gab thrive on controversies like this. HN is doing them a favour here. They're not doing anything new or original (remember the Genius annotator, anyone?).
Disagreement with a particular provider or producers actions within the free market is not equal to disagreement with the free market in general. AFAIK Gab isn't calling for regulation of the market to prevent this, so there's no contradiction here.
In fact gab is participating in the free market exactly how you'd expect a believer in the free market to act, they're creating their own browser: https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser
HN is not doing them a favor, except when you think that HN reader are actually incapable of thinking themselves, and need to be protected from knowledge.
I refute this picture of humans.
Silencing developments with ignoring them would actually do Gab a favor, whatever that means exactly. The term "hate group" is not clearly defined, anyway, and a propaganda-term in itself, and a tool of so-called 'hate'.
.
In other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them by any means necessary.
It makes perfect sense. If you create tools to ban certain types of speech, say intolerance of homophobia, what happens when a homophobe acquires those tools?
Because any tool will be eventually misused and abused.
"Why the lucky stiff" from the ruby community wrote MouseHole, a local web proxy that could be used to inject a commenting overlay to the web. Only the participants would see it.
It was a lot of fun being able to comment on that overlay of the Internet.
Funny how even this article, which kind supports gab, always associates them with terrorism (violence for political goals) while in both cases mentioned the perpetrators used other social media networks more and with more impact.
When you get bad reputation, truth doesn't matter. Everyone "knows" they are trash so... vaguely say it's against ToS.
Right now they should pull a corporate spin, rebrand and move on. CommunityChat™ - a comment section for tribe and vibe; Share you goals, feelings and achievements with a global community of mind-liked users.
This is a bizarre blog post to have on the Packt website. Can anybody write these? Packt already had a bit of a low-quality book-mill smell to it, and now they're beating the "why can't the nazis catch a break" drum. Do not want.
"free speech" has become a wedge issue, a cudgel used by crypto-fascists to induce well-meaning centrists to actively fight for their cause. All you need is the thinnest veneer of respectability covering your bigotry and a stampede of individuals who nominally hate what you stand for will fight relentlessly for your interests.
In the world of the free speech absolutist, we are all obligated to sit politely on the sidelines listening to white nationalists recruit and further their cause, cheered by the health of the marketplace of ideas.
Both browsers offer sideloaded extensions as well as open source cores that can be set to use their own stores.
While troubling that they have such ability, they make their terms of use clear and do offer motivated users the ability to chose alternative plugin sources.
Neither browser allows sideloaded extensions in its standard build:
Chrome:
> As of Chrome 33, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Windows (see Protecting Windows users from malicious extensions). As of Chrome 44, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Mac (see Continuing to protect Chrome users from malicious extensions).
[+] [-] dTal|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madeofpalk|6 years ago|reply
Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
[+] [-] WAHa_06x36|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belorn|6 years ago|reply
So any site which has an EULA that forbids adblockers can use this case as a example of Mozilla exercising editorial control of extension use by users. If Mozilla is willing to exercise editorial control over users behavior for the dissenter extension, then the same apply for any other extension.
Looking in my list of extensions I can identify several which could be potential abused. I would be very sad to see the kind of restrictions that would happen if Mozilla would be forced to be liable for it.
[+] [-] repolfx|6 years ago|reply
How long do we have before browsing to gab.ai triggers a "This page has been blocked for your safety" page because a bunch of activists said the content made them feel unsafe?
[+] [-] sintaxi|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
[+] [-] gfosco|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user17843|6 years ago|reply
Due to this I suspect that the Gab browser will only get a following in a certain sphere, i.e. ideologigcal Gab followers. Otherwise you can simply use Brave or Chrome.
There was criticism by Eich et al. who noted that Gab is sending all kinds of data back home.
Gab seems to be focused on providing a service to their followers, without having the actual technical expertise to create something solid based on true privacy.
(I.e. it doesn't matter when we collect the data because we are actually on the right side of the fence)
Nevertheless I am excited to see where all of this is going and I welcome any additional browser, which is good for creating a competitive market.
The fact that Gab can, without much knowledge, "create" a browser interface within days shows how great Chromium is for the advancement of the open web.
The only thing that needs to be solved is the governance of chromium with it becoming the de facto standard on the web.
[+] [-] untog|6 years ago|reply
Or they could probably just make a bookmarklet.
But that wouldn't get any attention and hate groups like Gab thrive on controversies like this. HN is doing them a favour here. They're not doing anything new or original (remember the Genius annotator, anyone?).
[+] [-] ShrinkingWild|6 years ago|reply
In fact gab is participating in the free market exactly how you'd expect a believer in the free market to act, they're creating their own browser: https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser
[+] [-] user17843|6 years ago|reply
I refute this picture of humans.
Silencing developments with ignoring them would actually do Gab a favor, whatever that means exactly. The term "hate group" is not clearly defined, anyway, and a propaganda-term in itself, and a tool of so-called 'hate'. .
[+] [-] okket|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamsch|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ygg2|6 years ago|reply
Because any tool will be eventually misused and abused.
[+] [-] zimbatm|6 years ago|reply
"Why the lucky stiff" from the ruby community wrote MouseHole, a local web proxy that could be used to inject a commenting overlay to the web. Only the participants would see it.
It was a lot of fun being able to comment on that overlay of the Internet.
[+] [-] tumetab1|6 years ago|reply
When you get bad reputation, truth doesn't matter. Everyone "knows" they are trash so... vaguely say it's against ToS.
Right now they should pull a corporate spin, rebrand and move on. CommunityChat™ - a comment section for tribe and vibe; Share you goals, feelings and achievements with a global community of mind-liked users.
[+] [-] WAHa_06x36|6 years ago|reply
https://gab.com/brannon1776/posts/cDQ4dUJNKzIycHRib3ZKSU9lbT...
https://gab.com/TheSeven/posts/NUZFZXQrTk9qS0tJVlo5SHZsYnFEZ...
https://gab.com/Doomer90/posts/MERObDkzVHlKK2dISDg0OFE2Um9rU...
https://gab.com/IKNOWTHETRUTH1488/posts/Q1VhM3h1REJNa05udE93...
Is this really what you are wanting to defend? Is this just a "bad reputation" where "truth doesn't matter"?
[+] [-] beardicus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristianc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WAHa_06x36|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xfitm3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teddyh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuxt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] seymourbuttes|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hsod|6 years ago|reply
In the world of the free speech absolutist, we are all obligated to sit politely on the sidelines listening to white nationalists recruit and further their cause, cheered by the health of the marketplace of ideas.
Thin gruel.
[+] [-] teekert|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WAHa_06x36|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hankhill|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kaolti|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefan_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kljdsjiodjaof|6 years ago|reply
While troubling that they have such ability, they make their terms of use clear and do offer motivated users the ability to chose alternative plugin sources.
[+] [-] comex|6 years ago|reply
Chrome:
> As of Chrome 33, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Windows (see Protecting Windows users from malicious extensions). As of Chrome 44, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Mac (see Continuing to protect Chrome users from malicious extensions).
https://developer.chrome.com/apps/external_extensions
Firefox:
> What are my options if I want to install unsigned extensions in Firefox?
> The Nightly and Developer Edition versions of Firefox have a preference to disable signature enforcement.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing