61–70 of 83 posts
Mozilla seems to go out of its way to make it harder for right-leaning people to back them with every move they make... I can't help but feel we're in for a bumpy 2021.
Purely anecdotal, but I know a bunch of "right leaning" people who are completely done with the bullshit and share Mozilla's sentiment. You may be speaking for fewer people than you realize.
I really don't recognize the society that we are moving towards. People are welcoming censorship with open arms. Twitter and other social media are the public spaces of the internet. Deplatforming someone there is essentially as if the governments bans the public speech of someone in the "real" world. It truly gives me shivers down my spine...
Uhh, Mozilla should maybe not be posting if this if they want to be The Privacy Company(TM)? I'll be switching my VPN to straight Mullvad instead of to a group that sold it's soul to Google. Same tech, less baggage.
> Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact. > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual* voices over disinformation. > Work with independent researchers t…
The link worries me the most. I mean, apparently the solution is social networks running a private list of "authoritative" news sources and making sure the feed is weighted towards them. The three listed have a clear left-wing bias. The alternative was Breitbart, and some other network I haven't heard of, but was probably included to try and balance it out. So it's really not "transparency" since there's no objective…
The equation is pretty simple from my perspective.
Most of my Facebook time is pointing out to family members that the “news” they are sharing is lies and misinformation, such as “cosplay guy at the Capitol invasion was Antifa” — the evidence was pictures of certain individuals being on an Antifa web site, despite the pictures clearly being part of an article identifying the fascists.
Then there are the articles trying to twist “tracking vaccine recipients” into “surveillance vaccine recipients” and other such nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You originally said this "some great ideas to fix the internet without overt censorship". This statement is false. That was my point. Mozilla explicitily was supporting censorship. So, therefore it is not "without censorship". It seems like you are walking your original statement back though, and instead simply saying that you personally support censorship. So great. Glad that you agree that your original statement w…
Deplatforming isn't censorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."
Anything that "suppresses" or controls speech is censorship, no matter who does it. That's the definition of the word.
Uhh, Mozilla should maybe not be posting if this if they want to be The Privacy Company(TM)? I'll be switching my VPN to straight Mullvad instead of to a group that sold it's soul to Google. Same tech, less baggage.
What is your beef with Mozilla’s statement?
Mozilla seems to go out of its way to make it harder for right-leaning people to back them with every move they make... I can't help but feel we're in for a bumpy 2021.
Purely anecdotal, but I know a bunch of "right leaning" people who are completely done with the bullshit and share Mozilla's sentiment. You may be speaking for fewer people than you realize.
This is probably an unpopular opinion on this forum, but it seems like repealing section 230 would accomplish this just fine. Then large platforms would either have to: 1. Completely relinquish any editorial controls (which means advertising money goes bye-bye). 2. Completely sanitize things. Smaller platforms are at lower scale and can manually moderate (as they often do currently thanks to trolling and spam) Sounds…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The link worries me the most. I mean, apparently the solution is social networks running a private list of "authoritative" news sources and making sure the feed is weighted towards them. The three listed have a clear left-wing bias. The alternative was Breitbart, and some other network I haven't heard of, but was probably included to try and balance it out. So it's really not "transparency" since there's no objective…
I would prefer left-wing biased factual reporting over right-wing biased lies. The equation is pretty simple from my perspective. Most of my Facebook time is pointing out to family members that the “news” they are sharing is lies and misinformation, such as “cosplay guy at the Capitol invasion was Antifa” — the evidence was pictures of certain individuals being on an Antifa web site, despite the pictures clearly bein…
See the problem here?