Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjulius | Hacker News Reader

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 individuals to disrespect others.

Were Mozilla to keep it up, they would not be "respect[ing] their users".

View on HN

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)?

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.

If Mozilla won't sign it, you have to install it manually. [0]

[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...

Mozilla are directly violating their own manifesto, where they claim "We are committed to an internet that promotes civil discourse"[0]. Have you even read the article?

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...

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.

>>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.

Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.

>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.

> It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.

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?

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put 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.

>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?

> Btw Dissenter does preemptively censors bad language

So wait, Dissenter doesn't support free speech?

Lucky for you your opinions are mainstream.

The complaints were unsubstantiated with no examples of offensive behavior provided and might as well have been a smear campaign by people brigading by sending abuse reports en masse.

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.

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.

It might position itself as apolitical, but in practice it is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)

The only thing Gab/Dissenter itself does is have less speech restrictions than their competitors. Are you saying thats political?

So if dissenter was created by Antifa it would be ok?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com