Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#31

Post by jjulius »

cheez wrote: post #28
jjulius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. Such groups are known for fostering hostile environments online towards people of various religions, races, cultural/political views, etc.. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination for Mozilla to claim that users of the app were using it for such purposes. As such, it would be apropos for Mozilla to remove an app that provides a platform for…

Dissenter was created by a person or group of people who have thoughts and opinions that deserve to be protected.

They're free to voice those thoughts wherever they can, just as Mozilla is free to opt not to host their app if they find said thoughts and opinions to be offensive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of said speech. If Mozilla received enough complaints about the speech being promoted via the app, then it is within their right to choose not to host it.

How is that such a hard concept for so many people in this thread to understand?

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#32

Post by jjulius »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21
chris_mc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the side they are on, right or left, it's the violent and hateful rhetoric they use.

Which is protected by constitutional rights in the country Mozilla’s nexus exists in. It’s not necessary for a bloated non profit to remove access to an extension for political reasons (versus technical deficiencies). Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.

>Which is protected by constitutional rights in the country Mozilla’s nexus exists in.

Your understanding of the first amendment's protections is fundamentally flawed. The first amendment protects individual freedom of speech from prosecution and silencing by the government. It does not preclude private businesses or individuals from choosing to ban or prevent certain thoughts and opinions from a service which they provide. If Mozilla gets enough complaints about the speech that can be found on Dissenter, they have every legal right to choose not to host that app.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech. Dissenter users are perfectly free to find another home on the internet to voice their opinions.

>It’s not necessary for a bloated non profit to remove access to an extension for political reasons (versus technical deficiencies).

Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons, rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).

I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.

>Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.

I go back to my point above. It's one thing to have a political opinion, it's another thing to be a horrible human being to other people just because you disagree with them. I still think that people should be able to say whatever they want, but if Mozilla doesn't want them to do it on their platform, then the rest of the internet is literally wide open for them to go and find another place to say whatever they want.

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#33

Post by freshm087 »

evgen wrote: post #29
freshm087 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.

Does the removal of the extension from the extension gallery prevent people from using the extension or just limit its exposure? If the latter then there is not censorship but simply Mozilla deciding the cost is not worth the bother. No one has any particular right to be promoted by Mozilla.

So if Verizon would block certain websites for its customers it will not be censorship? Well, it will be. You seem to believe that censorship implies denying legal rights, and only is real when it's total. But censorship can be perfectly legal, and it's never total (albeit it requires either efforts, or money, you can reach forbidden websites in China). I'm not arguing about legality of Mozilla's decision at all. Nevertheless, it is censorship, and as long as it's motivated by ideological differences it's ideological censorship. And as Mozilla pretends to be just browser (not some party's browser) it looks weird, and no exactly smart. My question is why anybody who's not fanatically partisan would support it? Does it mean one feels a lot of pain using Mozilla just because political adversaries use it too? Consequently, do we need a separate fork of every browser for every faction nowadays (apparently, with separate sets of ideologically proven extensions)?

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#34

Post by jjulius »

freshm087 wrote: post #24
jjulius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. Such groups are known for fostering hostile environments online towards people of various religions, races, cultural/political views, etc.. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination for Mozilla to claim that users of the app were using it for such purposes. As such, it would be apropos for Mozilla to remove an app that provides a platform for…

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.

Here's what I posted in another response in this thread just now:

>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).

>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#35

Post by trw999 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21
chris_mc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the side they are on, right or left, it's the violent and hateful rhetoric they use.

Which is protected by constitutional rights in the country Mozilla’s nexus exists in. It’s not necessary for a bloated non profit to remove access to an extension for political reasons (versus technical deficiencies). Free speech is useless if you’re not willing to defend that which you find most disagreeable.

If Mozilla is a "bloated non profit" then they have no constitutional obligation to defend Gab's free speech. When you act like tech companies have the obligation to promote free speech you're actually giving them more legitimacy than they deserve because you implicitly accepted the idea that if speech isn't being propagated by them then it's impossible for it to spread.

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#36

Post by cybersnowflake »

jjulius wrote: post #31
cheez wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dissenter was created by a person or group of people who have thoughts and opinions that deserve to be protected.

They're free to voice those thoughts wherever they can, just as Mozilla is free to opt not to host their app if they find said thoughts and opinions to be offensive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of said speech. If Mozilla received enough complaints about the speech being promoted via the app, then it is within their right to choose not to host it. How is that such a hard concept for so man…

True freedom of speech ultimately comes from a society's culture and morality not a law. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean much if the powerful can harass and intimidate its opponents into silence while still remaining in the technical letter of the law. Just like you'd probably wouldn't like it if women were denied employment opportunities because only 'men were created equal' How is this such a hard concept for liberals, the supposed founders of the 'Free Speech Movement' to understand?

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#37

Post by cybersnowflake »

jjulius wrote: post #9
luhego wrote: post #3

Please, tell me again why Firefox is not evil and respect their users.

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. Such groups are known for fostering hostile environments online towards people of various religions, races, cultural/political views, etc.. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination for Mozilla to claim that users of the app were using it for such purposes. As such, it would be apropos for Mozilla to remove an app that provides a platform for…

There is no sign at Gab saying 'no commies allowed' At its core, Gab itself is apolitical or at least far more so than its rivals. The left are welcome to use it as much as the right. The main difference is that Gab allows more freedom in many respects, which apparently is a rightwing thing to some people.

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#38

Post by [deleted] »

cybersnowflake wrote: post #37
jjulius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. Such groups are known for fostering hostile environments online towards people of various religions, races, cultural/political views, etc.. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination for Mozilla to claim that users of the app were using it for such purposes. As such, it would be apropos for Mozilla to remove an app that provides a platform for…

There is no sign at Gab saying 'no commies allowed' At its core, Gab itself is apolitical or at least far more so than its rivals. The left are welcome to use it as much as the right. The main difference is that Gab allows more freedom in many respects, which apparently is a rightwing thing to some people.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#39

Post by jjulius »

cybersnowflake wrote: post #36
jjulius wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're free to voice those thoughts wherever they can, just as Mozilla is free to opt not to host their app if they find said thoughts and opinions to be offensive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of said speech. If Mozilla received enough complaints about the speech being promoted via the app, then it is within their right to choose not to host it. How is that such a hard concept for so man…

True freedom of speech ultimately comes from a society's culture and morality not a law. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean much if the powerful can harass and intimidate its opponents into silence while still remaining in the technical letter of the law. Just like you'd probably wouldn't like it if women were denied employment opportunities because only 'men were created equal' How is this such a hard concept for libera…

Here's what I posted elsewhere in this thread - twice now - and is what so many people seem to be missing. It's not the subjects they're discussing, it's likely the manner in which their users are discussing them.

>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).

>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.

This is the point: Discuss whatever you want, that's OK. Just don't be surprised if you get banned for being an asshole while discussing it.

Re: Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery

#40

Post by javagram »

evgen wrote: post #29
freshm087 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.

Does the removal of the extension from the extension gallery prevent people from using the extension or just limit its exposure? If the latter then there is not censorship but simply Mozilla deciding the cost is not worth the bother. No one has any particular right to be promoted by Mozilla.

As far as i can see from the article, Mozilla is still agreeing to sign the addon, just not to list it in the AMO site.

The article lists an 8 step process and claims users would have to follow that on each restart of Firefox to enable the addon. I’m not sure if that’s true, as the guidelines I can see on other websites seem to suggest self hosting addons shouldn’t have that problem.

Post reply on HN