Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

My own experience is that, when doing it face to face it's more easy, you can really get through someone. People are less "protected" and have more emotional connection.

But on the Internet ? I stopped trying. Every time it's the same thing: People prefer to be 'trolls' and just throw insults and bullshit all day. Unless the person is actually willing to have a real discussion, it's almost impossible to "debate" anything. As soon as you are going to try to have a real argument, an horde will just "dunk" on you throwing colorful name all around.

It's sad but i stopped believing in the possibility of having any interesting argument on the internet if it is not amongst a small community or a very moderated one.

Confronting people who hold a belief for reasons that are not necessarily based on facts or logic can result in them doubling down instead of reconsidering their position.

Look at the hatred Jordan Peterson gets, who by pretty much all measures is as reasonable a human being as you might expect to meet on average.

There are many online articles these days saying things like "yet another white male point of view" horribly generalizing all white males as the same and that is some how acceptable. It's no different that than me saying all black men listen to hip hop and have big hair. (I'm struggling to generalise but I'm sure the point is clear)

Not at all, people are simply not logical as much as we like to pretend we are.

https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html

Long-term conversation can and does work, but not the sort of hit-and-run debates that happen on social networks and forums.

This is very, very different from an internet comments section, where it is basically impossible.

Thanks to Chromium, we are seeing a diverse range of projects emerging that cater to different groups.

Although the Dissenter extension, while a good idea, is essentially dead, there are basically no lively discussions.

So what's the point of using their product? Most users seem to think of it as a statement.

The idea of including BTC payments is certainly interesting, but it will fail, too, in the sense of Gab Browser not becoming succesful beyond a very small niche group.

Brave has been working for years to create actual incentives for the platform to flourish, it is beyond me how the Gab team thinks they can pull something similar off without any working incentive systems.

And Brave is not censoring anything. It is extremely difficult to build systems that protect user privacy, this has been ongoing for years, but not having user data is the whole point of the Brave project. If they fail with this, they won't be succesful.

The whole point of the Gab Browser is to protect free speech, even though strictly speaking no one has limited their free speech on a browser level, they could get the same free speech with using Chromium+Dissenter extension.

The idea with the Browser is to anticipate possible future censorship by Google, certainly legitimate.

Since they do not care about data, they haven't gone to great length of making sure they don't get any user data. If I remember correctly, every url visited in the Gab browser is sent to Dissenter, that's how the extension works.

The aggressivenes with which the Gab team goes against Brave on Twitter, wile taking all of their hard work without a single 'thank you', is what annoys me the most.

They seem to think free speech means everyone fighting for sensible solutions need to be "on their side", and everyone who isn't with them is against them.

Like for example in this case the Mozilla Acceptable Use Policy. Change a few words, add some statements, and it can be used against Antifa.

Homophobes were just an example, you can substitute with Nazis or others.

But they literally kill people. And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts?

It absolutely, 100% is Gab's responsibility for not policing their platform. In fact, they invite this kind of behaviour. This is exactly what they want on their site.

It sounds like you're defining 'far right' to be worse than 'far left', and then presenting that relationship as your conclusion.