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

131–140 of 150 posts

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

#131

Post by Ygg2 »

ShrinkingWild wrote: post #121
Ygg2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 exp…

> 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.

Because it's leveraging huge existing monopolistic power. I'm not a lawyer, but it's the abuse of power that's the problem.

What's the problem with that? Simple, let's say you dislike . Now Google wants , but knows some or even most consumers don't like it. All Google needs to do is implement . Disliking , you switch to Firefox.

Google now has and sites start using it. Suddenly, sites that require don't work in Firefox. Firefox loses market share because it doesn't support , Firefox now implements .

Disliking Firefox, you change to IceFox++, which dies after it's lone maintainer dies in a sky diving accident.

Enjoy your options.

> There are lots of email services that aren't Google

Sure, and if you don't have a Gmail address and send it to a Gmail address, good luck getting past the Gmail filter. Why not join Gmail, for the supreme mail experience? Sure you can use FastMail but your friends all use Gmail.

Why worry whether your mail will get a pass from Google. Just join it. It's the optimal choice. In fact, it will soon be your only choice.

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

#132

Post by faissaloo »

Grue3 wrote: post #30
madeofpalk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this…

>To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound.

Not at all, people are simply not logical as much as we like to pretend we are.

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

#133

Post by dagw »

DuskStar wrote: post #118
dagw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not at all what I was trying to say (and reading what I wrote I can see how it could be misunderstood). The far left has obviously in very many places and at very many times been absolutely horrific.

My point was that claiming that there is an equivalence between the two in general (and specifically today in the US for example) is I believe false. Basically talking about the "far left" and "far right" in the abstract is meaningless as terms meaning nothing in and of themselves. You have to talk about it in a particular time and a particular place for it to have any meaning.

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

#135

Post by ShrinkingWild »

Ygg2 wrote: post #131
ShrinkingWild wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exp…

> 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. Because it's leveraging huge existing monopolistic power. I'm not a lawyer, but it's the abuse of power that's the problem. What's the problem with that? Simple, let's say you dislike . Now Google wants , but knows some or even most consumers don't like it.…

Can you name an actual example of this happening or are you stuck with hypotheticals? Because my version can go very different to yours and with no concrete examples that your hypothetical is based off there's no moving forward except in our imaginations.

E.g. Chrome implements x and prevents things from working as they should, chrome starts hemorrhaging users because people really hate x, chrome reverses the change or loses its market share.

If people don't like it enough, people stop using it. If people are willing to out up with it, it's obviously worth the inconvenience to them. So even if it goes your way, I still think that's fine, because the people who don't like it enough to stop using it will create a market for browsers without x.

As for your email problem, I've never had a problem receiving mail from non gmail addresses and if I did, I would switch mail provider. As would a lot of people.

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

#136

Post by LyndsySimon »

repolfx wrote: post #124
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…

This is a very good point, and one that I hadn't considered. From TFA:

> When asked for more clarity on which policies Dissenter did not comply with, Mozilla said that they received abuse reports for this extension. It further added that the platform is being used for promoting violence, hate speech, and discrimination, but they failed to show any examples to add any credibility to their claims.

If that's the case, who's to say that Firefox itself hasn't been used for these purposes?

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

#137

Post by viseztrance »

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.

Not many people have an argument be it in real life or online, where one changes the other's opinion 180 degrees. But at the very least your words plant the seeds of doubt. I think it's normal that changing a point of view that you've held for many years to take time.

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

#138

Post by CompanionCuuube »

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.

>The law does not define morals, or ethics.

Yes, the law codifies a unified set of rules and definitions. Morals and ethics do not have that quality.

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

#139

Post by hsod »

"free speech" has become a wedge issue, a cudgel used by crypto-fascists to induce well-meaning centrists to actively fight for their cause. All you need is the thinnest veneer of respectability covering your bigotry and a stampede of individuals who nominally hate what you stand for will fight relentlessly for your interests.

In the world of the free speech absolutist, we are all obligated to sit politely on the sidelines listening to white nationalists recruit and further their cause, cheered by the health of the marketplace of ideas.

Thin gruel.

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

#140

Post by afiori »

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.

That is because of survivors bias, there will always be hate online, that does not mean it will be the same people.
Post reply on HN