14
Comments
  • 2
    I like 3 of the 4 proposals.
  • 0
    @N00bPancakes which one do you not like?
  • 1
    What is wrong with that?
  • 1
    Maybe Mozilla should change their 10 principles
    https://mozilla.org/en-US/about/...
  • 9
    @N00bPancakes The first 2 bold points are fine, the rest of the article is complete bs.

    Mozilla has no business at all in "amplifying factual voices" or selecting content for the user and hidinc other content.
    They have always stood for a fref and open internet, but what they do here is against their own principles and userbase.

    The only serious users of Mozilla products are people who care about open source software and privacy.
  • 1
    @PonySlaystation

    I don't think Mozilla is calling for Mozilla to do the thing, they're calling on others.

    If they choose to do so or not on their private platforms is their call.

    I recognize the issues of how much communication occurs on private platforms, but I also don't like the idea that anyone can tell them what they can or can't host / or make that call on their own platforms.

    I don't think there is a magical solution to any of this, and my experience on the internet indicates any 'censorship free' platform becomes de-facto garbage / censored even if it isn't by the hand of the platform...
  • 8
    It's remarkable how these actors come up with all sorts of censorship ideas now while that hadn't crossed their minds last summer when the violence exploded.

    #defundmozilla
  • 2
    All of this is bullshit.
    Who wrote that ? 12years old kid who don’t know how economy works ?
  • 3
    I don't see any issue even with the third point. My understanding is that for example on the topic of vaccines, a video by a medical institution citing peer reviewed research paper is more factual than say a podcast by a youtube influencer. Here it would be negligent to treat them equally, and hence they should be 'amplifying the factual voice'.

    The larger issue in my mind is who gets to decide what the correct facts are, as currently there seems to be no consensus
  • 0
  • 1
  • 1
    Love to see what DT thinks about Amazon, Google and Apple all banning Parler
  • 5
    It's all fun and games until they de-platform you/your business.
  • 0
    I mean the point is basically that a lack of moderation in online spaces, rather than any particular scapegoat, has lead to an act of real world terrorism. That seems agreeable to me.
  • 6
    @ThisIsOra Real world terrorism has and will continue to happen without online spaces
  • 0
    God, what has the world come to
  • 5
    @PonySlaystation Mozilla is not saying anything like that. They ask for a method to counteract disinformation. So if a populist screams covid-19 is a farce and we should ignore all government rules a verified factual health institution message should be amplified to counteract the fake news.
    Mozilla takes no part in actually doing it just stating that the means should be in place.
  • 3
    @hjk101 6 people around the world control what you see in the MSM. I am a big boy. I can decide for myself what is shit and what is not. I have been to see that the MSM has been a pack of lies for a very long time. I have always looked for information around the edges. BTW, most MSM is controlled by communist China. Follow the money.
  • 0
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop What did you expect from someone who have co-written shit like this.

    https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2020/...

    I am just glad people are finally realizing how much of a shit company mozilla really is. When it comes to big tech companies, its only matter of time til they turn shit. Either due to being bought by some other shit company / investors, or change in the leadership/management.

    Also companies like google etc, its far from the leadership/the board of the directors that is the only rotten thing about that company. Most of their engineers does have a god complex and thinks they are part of a greater good, which also make themselves justify to using their position to harass / make the world a worst place, for people not belive in the same values as the company (and sometimes down to the individual engineer, manager etc).
  • 2
    @Demolishun I'm not even on it. We Can make those decisions and we are not the target demographic. But even here I've seen successful Isis recruitment trough social media.
    Having said that I still don't think that blaming the medium is the answer or even relevant. I do think that we can use the force on the weak minded. Don't know if should join that dark side though.
  • 2
    @Frederick Oh, I'm supporting Mozilla to reach more diversity within their user base - by using Vivaldi. ^^ Though not for that reason.
  • 5
    @hjk101 > "Having said that I still don't think that blaming the medium is the answer or even relevant"

    Yea, its like blaming the gun for gun violence. People do it because it's easy and it (media, guns, airbags, whatever medium) can't defend itself. Start going after root causes (mental illness, lack of education, poverty, etc) then people get upset and push back.

    Just like the Simpsons episode where the teacher asks ..

    Teacher:"What was the cause of the civil war?"

    Lisa: "There were a number of economical and civil issues that led to the civil war. For example, in 1793 .."

    Teacher: "Just say slavery."

    Lisa: "<sigh> OK, slavery."
  • 3
    @Demolishun

    The type of language you use is a pretty strong signal that you are in fact not a big boy, and can't really decide for yourself yet what bullshit is.

    The "MSM" doesn't exist, and it's certainly not owned by "just 6 people". Yeah, sure, if you count JUST American news to equal "MSM", you get a pretty twisted picture.

    But the idea that it's all the MSM's fault, that is some bullshit false dichotomy that keeps being repeated by Alternative Media, so they can sell you THEIR twisted take on things.

    There is an incredibly varied palette of medias, all of which have their own bias.

    The trick is to not stick to one single source.

    You know you are allowed to read The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, Russia Today, Die Zeitung, Le Monde, etc, right?

    Yes, they are all super biased.

    But if you read news about the Iran Nuclear Deal on both a German, Israeli and Qatari website, some nuggets of truth start shimmering through.
  • 6
    I don't think, any of that proposals is actually leading in the right direction.

    As an example, i remember a time where recommendations on Youtube did not try to lure me down a rabbit hole.
    Of course they listed popular videos matching the channel or "topic" (more a set of associated keywords) of the currently shown video first. But i also got a reasonable amount of seemingly random videos on scrolling down.
    Back then i saw that as a flaw. But today i would really like to not have to come up with random words to search for so i can see videos i didn't already watch...

    The real problem is, that the contextual recommendation algorithms work too good.
    Replacing ten to twenty percent of the results by purely random items would probably already solve the bubble crisis.
    Instead of the results becomming ever more accurate, they need to get "deluted" with less matching items to allow for discovering of opposing or unrelated content again.
  • 0
  • 1
    @JustThat So...? A reduction in terrorism is still a good thing, and honestly so is a reduction in misinformation and hate speech.
  • 2
    @ThisIsOra One important question:
    Who decides what is misinformation?
  • 4
    @PonySlaystation And who decides when misinformation becomes information and vice versa?

    If you voiced concerns in early 2020 that Corona seemed serious (looking at China) and claimed that masks would be a good idea, you were a right-wing conspirator. However, in late 2020, you had to claim the exact opposite to earn that status.

    Oceania and Eurasia have always been at war, or at peace, and freedom is slavery. Depending on what the ministry of truth decides, it has always been that way.
  • 2
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop The same goes for the hate speech bullshit. In these days everything is hate speech.

    Freedom of speech is more important than some people that needs validation and love from every person on this planet.
  • 3
    @PonySlaystation I mean... we all should. If A's viewpoint is supported by evidence and B's ignores it, that's a flaw in B's viewpoint. Truth isn't biased against anyone, some people are just biased against truth. It's not anyone's responsibility to cater to those people.
  • 2
    @ThisIsOra Disagree. Reducing hate speech online doesn't make it go away and may only slow its spread a little. All it does is force it underground and force those who subscribe to it to hide.

    Personally, I'd rather have those asshats in the open, declaring everything they hate so we can identify and marginalize them. And, if we're lucky, start to root them out.
  • 0
  • 0
    I agree.
  • 3
    @JustThat In principle I agree, but the definition of "hate speech" is currently "anything I don't agree with" in the current woke culture. If you don't subscribe to the woke you are by definition spewing hate in everything you say. I don't agree with this definition, but we need to stop redefining language (sign of an oppressor). If we don't we will never be able to have a common dialog. It will only continue to fragment and become even more polarized.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop what's really funny for me is right-winger bitching about corporate dictatorship after having supported it for decades.
Add Comment