WingNews

_dh54|5 years ago

The funny part is that this is the bio in Mozilla’s twitter:

“We work to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to all.”

I guess by “all” they mean only people with political opinions they support.

You accused them of using an oversimplification with a selective definition, and then immediately performed that exact fallacy ("people with political opinions they support").

Kbelicius|5 years ago

> I guess by “all” they mean only people with political opinions they support.

You are just misinterpreting what that quote says. They think that the internet should remain a public resource that is open and accessible to all. They don't think that everything on the internet should be a public resource that is open and accessible to all as you are implying.

Do you really think that everything on the internet should be a public resource and accessible to all, even your email, bank accounts, etc?

jhardy54|5 years ago

In case you're unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Unfortunately part of making things "open and accessible to all" means revoking access to people who would weaponize the internet to contradict those goals.

A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

autocorr|5 years ago

Taken out of context that quote would imply "we need even more serious censorship", but admits that deplatforming a certain world leader is a not a real solution and that these actions that should 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. [link to post on changing Facebook's timeline algorithm]

> 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.

The first two are no-brainers. The third is alright, but I doubt re-weighting Facebook's timeline algorithm is going to put the genie back in the bottle. The fourth is useful but pretty generic at "do research on things".

undefined1|5 years ago

"We need more than deplatforming" is the literal headline, and they support it in the post:

"Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms. Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken"

Note: More than. Additional. Also.

ajsnigrutin|5 years ago

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. [link to post on changing Facebook's timeline algorithm]

This is great, silencing disinformation... or maybe not.

On one march friday, facebook would silence the "conspiracy theorists" claiming you should wear a mask, because our 'experts' (and american too, and WHO and many others) said, that wearing a mask for covid is useless.

Then, on the next day, our government mandated masks and gloves in every indoor location (stores,...), and facebook would silence the people claiming masks are useless.

mikevm|5 years ago

There is nothing "alright" about the third. It's basically an attempt to discredit non-mainstream journalists.

kortilla|5 years ago

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation

It’s horrifying that they think this is even possible. Some of the worst political divides are over which set of facts to emphasize (children in cages vs children separated from traffickers) or are speculation on ongoing events (Russian pee tape, Trump is a Russian asset, Russia stole the election, etc).

“Amplify factual voices” just sounds like more echo chamber bullshit where you follow your politically aligned fact sources like Twitter.

SulfurHexaFluri|5 years ago

I wonder why Mozilla even bothers with these kinds of posts. I doubt a single person in the world cares about getting political opinions from their web browser so these kinds of posts just dirty their image.

LegitShady|5 years ago

It's even worse than that - it makes me less able to trust Mozilla because Mozilla wants to make sure they can help me decide what is true or not. That is definitely not Mozilla's job nor do they have that ability. It just tells me they're looking to help control the internet for corporations.

GoblinSlayer|5 years ago

Sponsor's opinion is what actually matters.

aarpmcgee|5 years ago

My sense is that this blog post is objectionable to you but I can't quite figure out why.

jjordan|5 years ago

It's a statement in support of suppressing speech, and it's needlessly political. Mozilla leadership has mostly rested on their laurels (read: Google money) while Firefox consistently slid in market share. I've been a loyal FF user for 17 years, and this was the final straw. In the process of switching to Brave.

Dirlewanger|5 years ago

The Mozilla of 2004 is not the Mozilla of today. With unnecessary proselytizing/virtual signalling, implementing features antithetical to their values (Pocket integration, switching to WebExtensions), pursuing wasteful and fruitless endeavors (FirefoxOS), the company has completely strayed from its main focus: building a solid, open, and free browser. I'm still with them, but I'd be lying if I don't strongly consider moving to Brave every time they come out with actual innovative and exciting features like this.

Aa9C4xPz43Gg7k6|5 years ago

Wonderful, as if I need my browser to censor more stuff.

jraph|5 years ago

Good, it won't.

eclat|5 years ago

Wow. Did not expect that from Mozilla of all places. Really disappointed as I've been a die hard Firefox user for as long as I can remember in large part because of the commitment to a free, open internet and fundamental Liberal values like free speech.

nvr219|5 years ago

What's that supposed to mean or have to do with this topic at all

dx87|5 years ago

It means that Brave is implementing protocols that help circumvent censorship, while the CEO of Mozilla is saying that current censorship doesn't go far enough.

dartharva|5 years ago

Well, Brave leadership isn't that subtle either. Here's Brendan getting salty over Gab's attempted fork of Brave: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1118705815127347200.

I guess we should simply ignore these political endorsements and only take the functional utility into account when choosing browsers.

BrendanEich|5 years ago

Gab has not updated Dissenter in 10 months (Windows and Linux) or more than 13 months (macOS). Without backporting or merging up to current Brave, this leaves its users horribly vulnerable to unpatched but disclosed Chromium security bugs, including full remote code execution vulns. Don't use Dissenter. My "salty" tweet was prophetic.

(no title)

discuss