Live data from Hacker News

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

hub.packtpub.com

141–150 of 150 posts

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

#141

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.

Calling for genocide is a spicy joke?

How does calling for killing an entire group of people sound funny to you?

Not to mention paying really poor people in the third world to hold up offensive things, I guess exploiting poor people also sounds funny to you.

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

There are actually very few jokes on Voat or Gab.

Also, neo-Nazis are different from actual Nazis.

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

#143
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yes. The example is based on how Chrome dealt with DRM.

As for email, there was a story on Hacker News how maintaining mail server is getting harder and harder, since Gmail filters grow more and more zealous.

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

#144
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes. The example is based on how Chrome dealt with DRM. As for email, there was a story on Hacker News how maintaining mail server is getting harder and harder, since Gmail filters grow more and more zealous.

In the case of DRM, chrome is fulfilling a market desire that firefox had to follow suit with once the companies that adopted it realised their desire could be fulfilled. This is an issue with the companies implementing the DRM, not chrome saying "Yes we can meet that need that no one else is providing for". Also firefox still allows you to disable that feature, so you still have that choice not to allow DRM content.

All of this though is still based on the premise that leveraging their market influence is a bad thing, I just don't see it as an issue. If they use that influence to push a product or service that people don't like, people will not use the product and they'll have lost influence.

In the example of mail servers being "harder to maintain" because of over zealous gmail filters all I have to say is: Tough. People like not getting spam and having over zealous filters is a method of achieving that. If you want to be able to send mail to Google's mail service, you'll have to meet their rules.

I'd actually be very surprised if the filters are intentionally ruling out alternative mail because that would hurt the marketability of gmail.

In fact, that's the crux of it. That's why the legal definition doesnt match the reality of monopoly, because in order to be a monopoly you have to be providing the best on the market and if you're not, a competitor will and you stop being a monopoly.

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

#145
post #30

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…

And you can't debate the other side either without being called a bigot.

Look at the hatred Jordan Peterson gets, who by pretty much all measures is as reasonable a human being as you might expect to meet on average.

There are many online articles these days saying things like "yet another white male point of view" horribly generalizing all white males as the same and that is some how acceptable. It's no different that than me saying all black men listen to hip hop and have big hair. (I'm struggling to generalise but I'm sure the point is clear)

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

#146
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The example is based on how Chrome dealt with DRM. As for email, there was a story on Hacker News how maintaining mail server is getting harder and harder, since Gmail filters grow more and more zealous.

In the case of DRM, chrome is fulfilling a market desire that firefox had to follow suit with once the companies that adopted it realised their desire could be fulfilled. This is an issue with the companies implementing the DRM, not chrome saying "Yes we can meet that need that no one else is providing for". Also firefox still allows you to disable that feature, so you still have that choice not to allow DRM content.…

> In the case of DRM, chrome is fulfilling a market desire

If by market you meant content creators? Then yes, yes it did.

It was a top-down decision made between RIAA, MPAA and some content providers like Netflix. Firefox was sure that Google (not being evil) would stand up to the DRM, and basically, not accept it. With Flash dying, the content providers would have to create their own browser addons and add a stumbling block for DRM. But nope, Google decided DRM was Good™ and blessed the black blob of code residing in every browser. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/mozilla-and-drm

Sure you can disable the option but your unaudited DRM blob is still in Firefox. You'd have to manually extract that piece of code and recompile the browser. And if you think that's a reasonable effort for average consumer, then we have nothing to discuss.

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

#147
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…

It's actually not true, what Eich was talking about, w/r/t data collection, and Gab appreciated the feedback. Using a Google Font is not tracking, and the YouTube/other embeds which are a feature of the extension have been made opt-in. Gab has also pointed out instances of Braves data collection and analytics gathering. Unlike Brave, the Gab team doesn't benefit from betraying user privacy, they don't want it. Of course Gab is focused on providing a service; they're building and shipping, defending free speech. I find the project very interesting: A browser that focuses on free speech, on enabling easy user modification, on refusing to be limited to what the big tech app stores say is okay... It could be a big jumping off point.

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

#148
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's actually not true, what Eich was talking about, w/r/t data collection, and Gab appreciated the feedback. Using a Google Font is not tracking, and the YouTube/other embeds which are a feature of the extension have been made opt-in. Gab has also pointed out instances of Braves data collection and analytics gathering. Unlike Brave, the Gab team doesn't benefit from betraying user privacy, they don't want it. Of cou…

I too find it very interesting.

Thanks to Chromium, we are seeing a diverse range of projects emerging that cater to different groups.

Although the Dissenter extension, while a good idea, is essentially dead, there are basically no lively discussions.

So what's the point of using their product? Most users seem to think of it as a statement.

The idea of including BTC payments is certainly interesting, but it will fail, too, in the sense of Gab Browser not becoming succesful beyond a very small niche group.

Brave has been working for years to create actual incentives for the platform to flourish, it is beyond me how the Gab team thinks they can pull something similar off without any working incentive systems.

And Brave is not censoring anything. It is extremely difficult to build systems that protect user privacy, this has been ongoing for years, but not having user data is the whole point of the Brave project. If they fail with this, they won't be succesful.

The whole point of the Gab Browser is to protect free speech, even though strictly speaking no one has limited their free speech on a browser level, they could get the same free speech with using Chromium+Dissenter extension.

The idea with the Browser is to anticipate possible future censorship by Google, certainly legitimate.

Since they do not care about data, they haven't gone to great length of making sure they don't get any user data. If I remember correctly, every url visited in the Gab browser is sent to Dissenter, that's how the extension works.

The aggressivenes with which the Gab team goes against Brave on Twitter, wile taking all of their hard work without a single 'thank you', is what annoys me the most.

They seem to think free speech means everyone fighting for sensible solutions need to be "on their side", and everyone who isn't with them is against them.

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

#149
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of DRM, chrome is fulfilling a market desire that firefox had to follow suit with once the companies that adopted it realised their desire could be fulfilled. This is an issue with the companies implementing the DRM, not chrome saying "Yes we can meet that need that no one else is providing for". Also firefox still allows you to disable that feature, so you still have that choice not to allow DRM content.…

> In the case of DRM, chrome is fulfilling a market desire If by market you meant content creators? Then yes, yes it did. It was a top-down decision made between RIAA, MPAA and some content providers like Netflix. Firefox was sure that Google (not being evil) would stand up to the DRM, and basically, not accept it. With Flash dying, the content providers would have to create their own browser addons and add a stumbli…

Yes, that's exactly what I mean, they're part of the market whether you like it or not and so they created a market desire for DRM in browsers. DRM isn't inherently evil, it's an attempt to protect the property rights of the producers of downloadable content. Granted sometimes this attempt is disastrously bad (e.g: any attempts at DRM before steam in the realm of video games) but as far as I can tell this browser DRM hasn't caused issues and it hasn't certainly hasn't been intrusive for me.

That's not a reasonable effort for the average consumer but then the average consumer also probably doesn't care about DRM that much, the whole computer is a giant black blob of code to them with no clue what it's actually doing. The average consumer likely just wants to be able to access their content via the internet and the DRM facilitates that by giving the option to companies that would be unwilling to distribute their content without it.

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

#150

Funny how even this article, which kind supports gab, always associates them with terrorism (violence for political goals) while in both cases mentioned the perpetrators used other social media networks more and with more impact. When you get bad reputation, truth doesn't matter. Everyone "knows" they are trash so... vaguely say it's against ToS. Right now they should pull a corporate spin, rebrand and move on. Commu…

These are from https://gab.com/popular right now: https://gab.com/brannon1776/posts/cDQ4dUJNKzIycHRib3ZKSU9lbT... https://gab.com/TheSeven/posts/NUZFZXQrTk9qS0tJVlo5SHZsYnFEZ... https://gab.com/Doomer90/posts/MERObDkzVHlKK2dISDg0OFE2Um9rU... https://gab.com/IKNOWTHETRUTH1488/posts/Q1VhM3h1REJNa05udE93... Is this really what you are wanting to defend? Is this just a "bad reputation" where "truth doesn't matter"?

I wasn't saying that Gab has "good" content. I was just pointing out that press, and regular joes, associate Gab with terrorism because of 2/3 terrorism cases, In those cases the terrorists used other social media sites with a greater impact.

This association with terrorism isn't a fair representation of the truth.

Post reply on HN