Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

hub.packtpub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 150 posts

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

#101

Post by Ygg2 »

ShrinkingWild wrote: post #98
Ygg2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google used its influence via Web Search to expand into the field of Web Browsers. So Google used it's Web presence to recommend Chrome. Additionally, Google used it's Web Services (e.g. Google Mail, Google Docs, YouTube) to nudge users in the direction of Chrome. If YouTube works best with Chrome, people will flock to it. Finally, Chrome might be the popular choice, but the most popular choice can be quite heinous i…

Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? The influence gained from their prowess in web search was legitimate, I don't see a problem with them leveraging that. If chrome was garbage it wouldn't have helped. And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser. There's no problem there either, they can stop you using them in other browsers completely if…

> Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? > And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser.

So, you're saying that you think what Internet Explorer is a great browser? Because everything Google did, Microsoft did (modulo monopoly lawsuit) back in its day.

Back in its day, IE was the freshest kid on the block. Now the history repeats itself with Chrome. And I won't be surprised if in ten-twenty years Chrome will be treated like IE today.

> You're free not to use chrome or any of Google's services, there are other options, so Google is not a monopoly.

This doesn't make a monopoly. A monopoly doesn't need to own 100% of the market. What defines a monopoly is omnipresence and leveraging existing market imbalances to expand into other markets.

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

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

Ygg2 wrote: post #101
ShrinkingWild wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? The influence gained from their prowess in web search was legitimate, I don't see a problem with them leveraging that. If chrome was garbage it wouldn't have helped. And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser. There's no problem there either, they can stop you using them in other browsers completely if…

> Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? > And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser. So, you're saying that you think what Internet Explorer is a great browser? Because everything Google did, Microsoft did (modulo monopoly lawsuit) back in its day. Back in its day, IE was the freshest kid on the block. Now the history repeats itself with C…

> So, you're saying that you think what Internet Explorer is a great browser? Because everything Google did, Microsoft did (modulo monopoly lawsuit) back in its day.

But not vice versa, which is among the reasons the analogy is flawed.

> a monopoly doesn't need to own 100% of the market. What defines a monopoly is omnipresence and leveraging existing market imbalances to expand into other markets.

No, that's wrong. What defines a monopoly is absence of competition in practice (the common test for which is pricing power, which demonstrates whether the market sees “competitors” in a named market segment as actual competitors or players in isolated adjacent markets), not mere omnipresence. The leveraging you refer to is abuse of monopoly if a monopoly exists, not part of the what defines a monopoly.

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

#103

Post by madeofpalk »

starfox64_ wrote: post #52
madeofpalk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you can. You can load unpacked extensions in Chrome - I do it all the time when developing extensions.

They don't stay enabled though I think, you need to turn them back on after every restart.

That’s Safari. I have unpacked extensions loaded up in chrome all the time because I can’t figure out how to push an update to an extension I made

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

#104

Post by dagw »

belorn wrote: post #78
dagw wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far from it. I believe that values and politics are very important and specifically because of that we have to get away from overvaluing the traditional debate format which does nothing to effectively highlight either.

So the obvious question is then, how do we change the debate format so that we can discuss hate speech away. I don't think banning is a working debate format.

I wish the answer was as obvious as the question. Honest answer is that I don't know what will work.

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

#105

Post by ShrinkingWild »

Ygg2 wrote: post #101
ShrinkingWild wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? The influence gained from their prowess in web search was legitimate, I don't see a problem with them leveraging that. If chrome was garbage it wouldn't have helped. And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser. There's no problem there either, they can stop you using them in other browsers completely if…

> Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? > And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser. So, you're saying that you think what Internet Explorer is a great browser? Because everything Google did, Microsoft did (modulo monopoly lawsuit) back in its day. Back in its day, IE was the freshest kid on the block. Now the history repeats itself with C…

Back in its day, yeah. Then Microsoft got sued for providing it free with their OS instead of people having to wait for a long download or buying a browser. Internet explorer didn't keep up, so now it's not as good as it could be. Things change over time and that doesnt change the monopoly issues.

This is the definition used by regulators so they can leverage government regulation against companies, pretty much because monopolies don't exist. The actual definition of a monopoly is a company that has exclusive control over a supply of a commodity or service, which Google doesn't have.

Leveraging your existing, earned, market power isn't bad and wont work if the product it's being leveraged for isn't fit for purpose. Google's omniprescense has been gained by providing a service that everyone likes and wants to use. I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

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

#106

Post by WAHa_06x36 »

Funes- wrote: post #85
maeln wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can surely debate hate away, it is extremely costing for your mental health. My own experience is that, when doing it face to face it's more easy, you can really get through someone. People are less "protected" and have more emotional connection. But on the Internet ? I stopped trying. Every time it's the same thing: People prefer to be 'trolls' and just throw insults and bullshit all day. Unless the person is…

I don't think debating is ever a good means to change anyone's point of view on any given subject. Introspection, deliberation, and personal experience, on the other hand, are good means to that end. Teaching by example is, to my mind, the best way someone can guide others to those personal endeavors, which are the only ones that can grant deep and lasting changes in our world views and beliefs.

And teaching by example also involves setting very clear limits on what is acceptable and what is not.

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

#108

Post by belltaco »

kaolti wrote: post #40
WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even a little. If you actually have an argument, do make it.

Fair enough. Do you not see the problem with a monopoly deciding what is and isn't okay to say? You're comparing people who comment on websites to nazis? Did you not get the memo about the media calling everyone they don't like a nazi - including Pewdiepie? Do you really think these companies have YOUR best interest at heart instead of just siding with the political views of their shareholders?

>including Pewdiepie

Didn't he pay third worlders money to hold up signs saying "death to all jews" ? Isn't that what the Nazis tried to do, somewhat successfully? The media is supposed to like him for things like that or what?

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

#109

Post by forgottenpass »

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #62
popzq wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Upholding principles only count when it's uncomfortable. Otherwise they're not principles.

Of course the things getting pushed away are unpalatable, that's why they're targeted.

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

#110

Post by forgottenpass »

belltaco wrote: post #108
kaolti wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. Do you not see the problem with a monopoly deciding what is and isn't okay to say? You're comparing people who comment on websites to nazis? Did you not get the memo about the media calling everyone they don't like a nazi - including Pewdiepie? Do you really think these companies have YOUR best interest at heart instead of just siding with the political views of their shareholders?

>including Pewdiepie Didn't he pay third worlders money to hold up signs saying "death to all jews" ? Isn't that what the Nazis tried to do, somewhat successfully? The media is supposed to like him for things like that or what?

>Isn't that what the Nazis tried to do, somewhat successfully?

No. The Nazis did not post spicy jokes about genocide to the internet. They committed genocide. Slight difference.

Post reply on HN