Mozilla – We need more than deplatforming (2021) | Hacker News Reader

Mozilla – We need more than deplatforming (2021)

blog.mozilla.org

42 points13years38 comments

We need a way to support the development of Firefox without supporting the rest of Mozilla.

The simplest way is to support one of the forks.

Which fork has the most merges?

Is there a list of them somewhere? Where do I find the pros and cons of each?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_browsers_based_on... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-bas... should cover most of them.

At the point in time I’m writing this, this post is flagged, and I don’t understand why. Mozilla Foundation’s mission is for an open web, and I’d think that this includes asking more of platforms to be open and transparent in their decisions. Will these requests really work anytime soon? That’s hard to say with large companies with almost unlimited money to shove problems away. Will technology alone solve the problems? Surely not, but technology is a key part to solving them since it’s the one handling the massive coordination. Should we ask these of platforms and people? Certainly!

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

This seems to be the opposite of "open" to me.

I can't believe Mozilla is posting stuff like this.

All praise the enlightened who will guide us into the new 1984 utopian dystopia.

Nah, it wont be a dystopia, they'll tell us it's wonderful! and make sure no one can tell us differnt.

Ain't that hard to build an offset press from scratch. Ben Franklin could do it, we got geeks today who can do it.

It seems like people are mostly reacting to the title. This is what they are asking for:

  > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.
  > 
  > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.
  > 
  > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.
  > 
  > Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

Only #3 seems like it would be remotely controversial to anyone but adtech vendors and services trying to maximize "engagement".

That Mozilla used such a title is by itself an enormous redflag, no matter how "milder" the message is in the article itself. As an example, if Amnesty came up with an article titled "We need more than just incarceration" the title itself would be so antithetical to their core message that no matter how much more nuanced the article is, you'd still be able to realize that something went very wrong inside the organization and that they clearly steered completely off their core values.

The point is if Mozilla can't come out against internet censorship, they should at least not even touch this subject with a ten feet pole.

Like what are they gaining here, what does this have to do with their purpose as an organization? It still doesn't make sense even if we assume that they shouldn't just stick to making a better browser alternative.

The ritual attacks on named individuals who have not (in this context) been formally charged with anything is disgusting and Orwellian.

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation

Technology companies shouldn't be deciding what the facts are or aren't.

But they are deciding already. They can't show you everything, so they pick and choose for you based on your behavior profile. Maybe that's not deciding what truth is, but they definitely know what not to show to keep people clicking.

I can't argue with that. I guess they used to be more subtle about it though.

Number three is crucial for disinformation campaigns. Social platforms maximize interactivity, not transparency or honesty. The disinformation echo chambers have done great harm to society's mental health.

Kids (and adults!) need to be taught that just because you read it doesn't mean it's true. Individuals have done great harm to their own mental health, and it's their responsibility to look after their own mental health.

I agree with most of those (except #3), but it's presented in such a partisan way that it feels like nails on a chalkboard. Some of these actions (especially #4 and #2) also have much clearer and non-controversial justifications like the rohingya genocide.

Do you think that targeting advertisers can be executed with zero bias? Or what about "independent researchers"....can they decide things with no bias?

Ads should be targeted based on the content they are served with, not by profiling users.

Weed legalization ads should have been only targeted at people who searched for weed?

Or, ads can be untargeted, which also does not need profiling.

because the post was critical of Trump (who’d never do the things listed in that post!)

I'm curious why this post would be flagged? A bit of irony.

Truly, it seems we are already living it.

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

Since other comments here and everywhere already covered that, left unchecked, this just devolves straight back into a bad system where a select few end up as the arbiters of truth, I want to ask: as technologists, what sort of systems are possible that incentivize people to find the truth instead of finding “facts” that just confirm what they already believe? The only thing I can think of is prediction/betting markets. These are good at discerning truth of events with easy to observe outcomes, and anyone is free to contribute provided they’re willing to have skin in the game. Outside of that, it becomes harder.

This is such a stupid take. What on earth does Mozilla have to do with any of this? This is just a bunch of hysterical virtue signaling. Nothing to see here folks, just delete Firefox (I'm sure you already have) and move on.

discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941

(2021)

Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, meaning that (in the U.S.) donations are tax deductible. One of the requirements of 501(c)(3) is to avoid promoting any political candidate or influence legislation[1].

It appears that Mitchell Baker is walking on thin ice, by attacking Donald Trump and in general calling for censorship. There was actually a time when I supported Mozilla enthusiastically, as an innovative open source alternative to the (then) Microsoft hegemony.

Today I avoid Mozilla like the plague; I feel they have betrayed their libertarian roots.

1. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

Why are people getting worked up about this 2021 post? The things it proposes seem very reasonable, and it's not like it meant changes to Firefox.

- Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken:

- Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.

- Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.

- Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. [links to Facebook algorithm deliberately promoting engaging disinformation]

- Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

Edit: I think flagging should ask for a reason to display with the flag. I have no idea why someone would flag this without at least reading the very short article and realizing it's not flag worthy.

> it's not like it meant changes to Firefox

And perhaps that's the issue. Mozilla doesn't seem to be particularly interested in acknowledging the position in which their browser now exists, or even listening to the feedback and criticism that arose around it in the last, let's say, 15 years. It literally does everything else but focusing on the browser development or figuring out how to make it attractive again. Changing the UI of Firefox once again to the somewhat dull bulky mobile-oriented modern style (for a browser which was always a desktop software) doesn't constitutes as a progress or helps the popularity and that's the only big change done in the last months.

This post done by Mitchell Baker is about american politics and the outcome of events from the last year and what Mozilla (assuming that's Foundation statement and not only Baker's) seems to suggest as "solutions" against. And I'd say that's the reason this submission is being flagged.

Why does it matter if it's a 2021 article? Unless Mozilla changed it's stance since?

I don't know if they've changed their posture, I'd expect them not to because it's a very reasonable set of suggestions aimed at social networks.

It's less relevant because a year ago everyone was talking about the presidential election and the disinformation campaigns on social networks (cough Facebook), but the issue is much less talked of these days.

It has only increased over the past year. It is now control of medical information, but same principle. Joe Rogan's episode with Malone hit over 40 million viewers as a direct result of attempts at information control. This topic is even more relevant today than a year ago.

Perhaps the CNCF or linux foundation could take over technical stewardship? Apache?

“Please, give us more power to tell you what’s right-think and wrong-think.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com