Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like "yhoneycomb" is the exact kind of ID Hitler would choose.
i enjoyed this exchange lol
Not as much as I did, LOL.
Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
71–80 of 83 posts
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
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 miss…
You're being unnecessarily literal, it's clear that the parent misspoke and meant social contract[0], not a direct, legal one.
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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...
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 man…
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.
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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
> 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.
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 immigran…
> 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?
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#78I didn't know much about Dissenter until I Googled it just now, and it looks like its audience is primarily folk on the far/alt-right. Hell, it was created by Gab[1]. 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
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.
[deleted]
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#79If 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.
[deleted]
Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 miss…
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
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.