Please, tell me again why Firefox is not evil and respect their users.
That's the saving grace of Firefox. That's what makes Firefox better than any of the other currently widely-used browsers. A program's technical problems can be fixed, a program's speed can be improved (Mozilla recently proved this in the most recent versions of Firefox), but software freedom cannot be added to a proprietary program.
Therefore if you don't like how Mozilla treats add-on programmers or Firefox users, you have the software freedom needed to make a free derivative of Firefox which behaves in a better way (where "better" is up to you to define, it's purposefully vague). Perhaps you want your Firefox derivative to let its users easily install whatever add-on they like that will persist across restarts, or get add-on updates without hassles by checking multiple sources for updates, or installing add-ons signed with unfamiliar keys after getting a user's approval. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas you could come up with to implement.
But with software freedom the limits of what you can implement are limits you impose on yourself.
This doesn't make Mozilla or Firefox evil and distributing free software is respectful of the users. Don't confuse unrewarded labor (complaining that Mozilla doesn't make Firefox do what you want) with respect for the users.
The Dissent add-on, similarly, is really just another single point of censorship forum. We can't evaluate whether it is better at respecting user's free speech until they are challenged in a serious way (such as the implicit threats to big social media firms when they are given vague inactionable requests to 'do better' when their CEOs are brought before Congressional hearings and told to respond favorably to Russiagate lies). Already on this forum we see some posters confusing freedom of speech with reading something that echoes their views. One post, for instance, claimed "[Dissent's] audience is primarily folk on the far/alt-right". As George Orwell said, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear". Or as Noam Chomsky reminds us, "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.".
So both Firefox's add-on repo and Dissent's forum are singletons that don't liberate users so much as they establish their respective admins as censors. Perhaps you could come up with a way to let users more easily distribute comments from their own comment database so that all comment threads on a website come from multiple servers, and no censor power exists because no single user has admin control over all of the comment servers. Dissent is also free software (licensed under Apache License 2.0) so even if you believe Gab or Dissent aren't to be trusted, you could choose to improve Dissent to make it decentralized.
Were Mozilla to keep it up, they would not be "respect[ing] their users".
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.
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.
[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...
When they were asked to clarify what exactly was violating their ToS, they replied with the most standard bureaucratic non-answer, the kind you might receive from an auto-response email service, full of corporate-speak.
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
EDIT: According to this[1], Mozilla supposedly cares enough about this free speech, free platform issue to donate $100,000 to "a coordination platform used by activists across the political spectrum, to improve the security of their email service". Do you still believe it's a stretch to hold them to a much higher standard than a for-profit corporation? Note the "activists across the political spectrum" part in their own words.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half...
>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.
Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.
...and we're to conclude that, because Mozilla has "hegemony", and are denying a political agenda, they must actually have a political agenda they're not admitting to?
I mean, hegemony could just as well mean never having to deny you have an agenda, because what can anyone do? The US certainly doesn't hide its agenda regarding its military or nuclear hegemony.
Probably a good idea to provide evidence on a case-by-case basis first, otherwise how is this position different from right-wingers that want to play the numbers game too, and preemptively claim that since blacks commit a disproportionately large amount of crimes per capita, any black person should be kept away?
If it's about politically incorrect speech - it's absolutely ideological.
If it's about obscene language - it's still not Mozilla's business to police someone's lexicon, and Mozilla doesn't do it generally, which means something ideological happens here.
Btw, it's interesting that you yourself agree that the whole thing is political by this stereotyping statement but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. And at the same time you disagree.
Try to check your biases: every time Trump tweets, Twitter explodes with left activists using motherfcker, fck, and a lot of derogatory expressions addressed to him, and right-leaning voters which has zero value for any civil discourse. So ask yourself: would you say "we both know it's commonplace on the left to use disparaging, and obscene exoressions"? And would you be fine with Twitter punished for this? (It enables them, gives the platform).
Finally, you are calling dissenter.com alt-right which is not true unless they operate alt-right censorship there. It shows some bias too.
How is that such a hard concept for so many people in this thread to understand?
>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.
So basically you're saying you'd be okay if there's one place you could speak freely and be heard (the internet) owned by one guy (the tech monopolies) and he could shut it down for everybody if one person said a bad word on it?
Btw Dissenter does preemptively censors bad language, and they reached out to Mozilla who failed to provide them with specific examples. The same Mozilla shining champion of civility which funds Antifa, the group that does such nonvitriolic things like beat people with bike locks.
>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.
>they have every legal right to choose not to host that app.
Serious question for you, how do you feel about net neutrality and bakers and photographers having to work for SSM weddings?
So wait, Dissenter doesn't support free speech?
And unlike a private, for-profit company though,(for which your argument that they are within their rights to provide platform/deplatform whomever they want, would indeed hold) Mozilla attempts to claim the moral high ground in their manifesto[0], citing their commitment to "an internet that promotes civil discourse, human dignity, and individual expression."
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
EDIT: clarified the first paragraph slightly.