Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension • Hacker News Board

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#61

Post by Funes- » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:39 AM UTC

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #41

xfitm3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I don’t agree with any of that - but I’ll defend someone else’s right to be wrong.

That is easy to do when you are not threatened by these people. But they literally kill people . And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts?

>But they literally kill people. And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts?

Who are "they"? Who is literally killing people? Those are very serious accusations to just be thrown around within such a broad, imprecise, and vague message. Moreover, who are you to decide for the rest of us what kind of speech is deemed dangerous or otherwise? I don't think any collective's arbitrary criteria should automatically apply to limit free speech, if there should be a limit, that is.

These are immensely important issues that have to be decided through very careful deliberation, not just a vague sentiment or subjective impression held by a group of people, as it dictates the manner in which we communicate and express ourselves with one another, and that shouldn't be up for grabs.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#62

Post by WAHa_06x36 » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:39 AM UTC

popzq wrote: post #49

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect people to maybe not make such a huge effort to protect and defend this utter garbage.

That's cool, not everybody has to like free speech; defending free speech or not is purely a political opinion, like many other issues.

See, I'd be more impressed by the "we're just defending free speech" argument that comes up so often if it was ever for anything other than racism, sexism and hate.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#63

Post by untog » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:40 AM UTC

kshatrea wrote: post #55

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The far left is not killing people . The far right is, in significant numbers. Do you see a difference now?

If you consider communism as far left, then yes the far left has absolutely killed millions. If you do not consider communism far left, I don't know what to tell you.

Expanding your criteria to encompass all of history isn't really all that helpful. Today, in the actual situation we are experiencing as opposed to political movements that have been dead for decades, the far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#64

Post by belorn » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

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.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#65

Post by WAHa_06x36 » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

Funes- wrote: post #61

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is easy to do when you are not threatened by these people. But they literally kill people . And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts?

>But they literally kill people. And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts? Who are "they"? Who is literally killing people? Those are very serious accusations to just be thrown around within such a broad, imprecise, and vague message. Moreover, who are you to decide for the rest of us what kind of speech is deemed dangerous or otherwise…

You are aware that most of recent mass murderers have been from the far right, many even posting on gab?

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#66

Post by dagw » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

kshatrea wrote: post #55

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The far left is not killing people . The far right is, in significant numbers. Do you see a difference now?

If you consider communism as far left, then yes the far left has absolutely killed millions. If you do not consider communism far left, I don't know what to tell you.

I suspect he's talking about individuals and activist groups in the US and Europe, rather than governments, state actors, and more formal armed militias and rebel groups.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#67

Post by WAHa_06x36 » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:42 AM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #38

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "tools" do you need to "create" to "ban certain types of speech"? What does that even mean? You don't need tools to kick nazis off your platform. And who cares what homophobes do on their platforms? Don't use them.

Laws and practices that help you exclude certain opinions. Like for example in this case the Mozilla Acceptable Use Policy. Change a few words, add some statements, and it can be used against Antifa. Homophobes were just an example, you can substitute with Nazis or others.

Then don't change it.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#68

Post by zimbatm » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:44 AM UTC

10 years ago we had something similar already.

"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.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#69

Post by busymom0 » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:44 AM UTC

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #57

busymom0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that internet comments section is exactly what's needed actually. Simply banning them away is basically hiding it under the rug. But that's not going to do anything productive. Banning them will now re-enforce their beliefs and now they will just go to another platform which will be an echo chamber of even more similar "hate" views. This brings up 2 problems - 1. Now we don't even know what they are tal…

You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms. There will always be hardcore hateful people who hide deep in the pockets of the internet. The point is to not normalise them, not let them spread their hatred in public, and not to make people think that sort of attitude is ok. They are exposed to counterpoints constantly,…

> They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them.

This is not correct. This very post's topic implies they aren't exposed to counterpoints. Banning them from every platform possible doesn't allow them to be exposed to counterpoints.

Allowing hateful people doesn't mean we are normalizing it.

Also the definition of "hate speech" is extremely vague now a days.

> You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms.

So you are saying that not allowing these people on open platforms where they are exposed to counterpoints (let's say 5% bad + 95% good) so that they all jump to another platform (8chan for example) where they are exposed to an even higher saturation of bad (100% bad) is good? That's basically exposing them to an even worse environment now. That's exactly what's making this situation even worse. Every mass shooting etc was planned on those worse platforms (4chan, 8chan) etc.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#70

Post by jamsch » Tue, May 07, 2019, 9:44 AM UTC

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #26

dTal wrote: post #13

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 da…

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?

Don't you think that despite being uncomfortable with people that have opinions that you perceive as immoral, that banning them will only heighten their cause and become more radical?

It just seems evident to me that unpersoning them will force them in to a place that reinforces their own ideological biases which would make them more radical, and with being a social outcast, they'd have nothing to lose.