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

121–130 of 150 posts

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

#121

Post by ShrinkingWild »

Ygg2 wrote: post #115
ShrinkingWild wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 servic…

I mis-worded my comment there so this misunderstanding is my fault. I meant the definition you provided is used to leverage government regulation and in fact your Quora link is exactly what I meant. It's used as a legal definition because otherwise they wouldn't be able to use the monopoly excuse for regulation. Either way this is only semantics and not particularly productive.

I'm yet to get anything substantial explaining why Google shouldn't be allowed to push chrome on their web search page or only allow YouTube from inside chrome. These services are their property, so they have the right to do whatever they like with them.

There are lots of email services that aren't Google, Apple are directly competing with android for phone OS and there are definitely other video hosts. Just because they're not popular doesnt mean they aren't competing. It just means Google is winning. Even in search there's competition, it just isn't as good as Google is.

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

#122

Post by beezischillin »

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?

Well, I don't use Twitter either.

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

#123

Post by repolfx »

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #59
busymom0 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree. There is a difference between publisher and platform. If Gab was publishing illegal stuff themselves, then it would be different. Gab actively takes down speech which is illegal (action to violence type). But simple hate speech (even if it's offensive and rude) is still free speech and legally covered by the first amendment in the US. Same way Google isn't held liable for hosting illegal pirated con…

The law does not define morals, or ethics. They invite the worst kind of hatemongers to their site. That makes them as bad in my books. If all you care about is whether they are following the letter of the law or not, that is a very naïve and childish view.

But you can argue Twitter does the same. I see hate speech against my race and gender all the time. For evidence, just look at what happens when people post "it's ok to be white". Notch did it recently: massive meltdown. Very obviously these platforms are full of people who don't think it's OK to be white, which is pure racist hatred. Where are the bans? Why does saying such an innocuous thing trigger such hatred with no response from these supposedly hate-fighting platforms?

What about all the hate towards Trump when he says good morning, have a nice day? Nothing happens.

Of course, we know why. It's because the people who run them are fine with the right kind of hate, if they believe it to be justified by history.

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

#124

Post by repolfx »

belorn wrote: post #64

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…

The real question in my mind is when do browser makers start directly blocking websites they believe to be bad? After all both Chrome and Firefox are made by people with very strong political views. So far they've not abused SafeBrowsing to exercise political control over the internet, but the companies producing them are willing to block or politically rerank extensions, web links, domain names they host, news they summarise and so on.

How long do we have before browsing to gab.ai triggers a "This page has been blocked for your safety" page because a bunch of activists said the content made them feel unsafe?

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

#125

Post by kaolti »

forgottenpass wrote: post #110
belltaco wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

How weird is it that this needs pointing out.

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

#126

Post by repolfx »

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #12
jamsch wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them by any means necessary.

Same "mental gymnastics" that were used to go to war against nazis in WW2, yes. Was that wrong?

The USA didn't go to war against the Nazis until they had gone well beyond even the most terrible actions, let alone speech. Almost all of Europe had already been conquered, the last holdout in the UK was getting pounded daily and the US still didn't join until attacked directly.

The core difference between then and now is that America of the mid 20th century didn't believe ideas were inherently dangerous - even the communist threat led to at worst the McCarthy hearings which are universally regarded now as a stain on America's history. What we see today is lots of Valley Ivy League graduate types who are convinced that reading a few tweets of the wrong kind wipes people's brains and literally turns them into the third Reich, in ways that nobody can stop or control. But there's no evidence for this viewpoint, and arguably it just led to the largest and craziest conspiracy theory in American history (the idea that Trump is a Russian spy).

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

#127

Post by dkns »

ShrinkingWild wrote: post #95
WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same "mental gymnastics" that were used to go to war against nazis in WW2, yes. Was that wrong?

I think the main difference here is that the nazi's were actually doing bad things as well as saying bad things. In this case, bar the rare exception by individuals, these are people who are vocal that they think they're superior based on a superficial biological trait and nothing more.

Nazis started with just saying bad things as well.

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

#128

Post by dTal »

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?

Rome wasn't built in a day. It might be a wretched hive of scum and villany now, but as it gets picked up by more and more people, some of those people won't be quite as extreme as the average. Unless there was someone deliberately banning users who weren't extreme enough, over time the community would inevitably become more moderate (or more likely, shrink and die).

It's practically an axiom - in any community without iron-fisted moderation and gatekeeping, the original hard core will end up complaining about how great it used to be before all the normies invaded.

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

#129

Post by teekert »

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.

I think this is one of those points where introverted people differ a lot from extraverted people.

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

#130

Post by ShrinkingWild »

dkns wrote: post #127
ShrinkingWild wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main difference here is that the nazi's were actually doing bad things as well as saying bad things. In this case, bar the rare exception by individuals, these are people who are vocal that they think they're superior based on a superficial biological trait and nothing more.

Nazis started with just saying bad things as well.

Nazis also drank water and some probably even had pets.

A lot of things started because people have said bad things, a lot of things also haven't started even though some people said bad things. The problem is something has to start and in order for that to happen, action has to be taken.

Taking action based on the fact that some bad people one time said the same things is a bad idea, you're initiating the actions and inevitably they'll respond with more than just the words they started with.

Post reply on HN