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

#111

Post by user17843 » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

gfosco wrote: post #23

Gab is now releasing their own browser, based on Brave, without the BAT token, and with the Dissenter extension built in. https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser People seem to like it: https://twitter.com/james_a_quinn/status/1125496383883042816

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.

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

#112

Post by DuskStar » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #20

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…

> 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.

> 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.

When debating online, there's really two groups you need to keep in mind - the person/people you're debating, and the people reading the debate. Reading without interacting is generally accepted to be far more common than actually interacting, so that's probably the largest group. So even if you can't convince the person you're debating, you might be able to convince those who are just reading and don't have a strong attachment to either side.

Or you can give up, attempt to ban the badthink, and admit that your ideas do not have merit. Because that's what a lot of the watchers will interpret that refusal to engage as.

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

#113

Post by user17843 » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #21

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?).

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'. .

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

#114

Post by DuskStar » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #53

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?

I am calling nazis nazis. Gab has a very large population of actual nazis. It also is the home of people who go shoot up large crowds of people for having the wrong religion. I feel pretty confident in calling these people bad names.

I feel rather confident in saying that Gab does NOT have a very large population of actual nazis when using sane definitions for 'very large' and 'nazis'. Let's say... 10k and unironic 'Sieg Heil!'.

Or, really, anywhere close to that.

But if you use the media/leftist definition of 'nazi', which seems to be 'anyone to have ever made a politically incorrect joke or to have associated with the same', then OF COURSE you'll find a very large population of nazis. But you'll find that anywhere.

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

#115

Post by Ygg2 » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

ShrinkingWild wrote: post #105

Ygg2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 beca…

> 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.

By strict economic definition yes, but not in terms of legality. Sometimes it's enough for a company to have 35% of the market, for it to consider to be in a monopolistic position or to wield monopolistic power.

Also, Google has definitive monopolies when it comes to services such as video hosting, phone OS, email and even commodities such as a browser. A monopoly doesn't need to provide a service or a commodity at high price for it to be considered as abusing its position.

> This is the definition used by regulators so they can leverage government regulation against companies, pretty much because monopolies don't exist.

It is not. If that was the case, Microsoft couldn't be sued for anti-trust because it didn't own 100% of either desktop or web browser.

While Quora isn't a perfect source, I'd consider it more authoritative than your opinion. https://www.quora.com/When-do-you-consider-a-company-a-monop...

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

#116

Post by Ygg2 » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #102

Ygg2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. W…

> 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)

Are you saying in practice Chrome has competition? Safari doesn't count by your definition since it's essentially an isolated adjacent market (with is also shrinking due to Android expansion).

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

#117

Post by DuskStar » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #88

dagw wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but you're going to have to define your terms more narrowly if you want your argument to hold. Which countries, who's "we", are we talking state actors or individuals, how to Maoist rebel groups in Asia and South America feature into your calculus etc.

We are talking about what is relevant in the here and now. We are talking about murders that are happening now.

Ok, so there's no far-right murders happening NOW. Because NOW is an instant, a single point in time.

Which means you need a time range to care about.

And 'relevant'?

Is a murder in Sri Lanka relevant? New Zealand? Venezuela? Just the US? You seem to be being as obtuse as possible.

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

#118

Post by DuskStar » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #79

xfitm3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far left is no better than far right - nobody is even listening to each other anymore.

Far left is no better than far right Perhaps true in aggregate across all countries and history. Absolutely not true in any given local situation.

You're kidding, right? There's no situation in which the far right is better than the far left? Even when the far left launches a terrorist attack?

It sounds like you're defining 'far right' to be worse than 'far left', and then presenting that relationship as your conclusion.

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

#119

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, May 07, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #116

dragonwriter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. W…

> 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) Are you saying in practice Chrome has competition? Safari doesn't count by your definition since it's essentially an isolated adjacent market (with…

> Are you saying in practice Chrome has competition?

Well, pricing power is a hard test, even in principal, to apply in a category of free products, but it does appear on first blush that feature changes between Chrome and it's competitors do induce movements of users between them, in both directions, so it does appear that there is competition in both directions even if Chrome over time is generally, on balance, winning. Actual competition analysis, though, would take lots of work.

What I was saying upthread, however, was not anything about UI a conclusion on whether Chrome has competition, but just a correction to the inaccurate definition of monopoly that was proposed.

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

#120

Post by DuskStar » Tue, May 07, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #67

Ygg2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you start summoning demons, you don't always get to choose who the demon decides to eat... Oh, you might get to point it in the direction of your enemies to begin with, sure. But eventually it'll start eating people you like, and by that point it'll have grown far too large to control.