I've lost all respect for Mozilla by now.
They're still vital for the web ecosystem as a whole.
But they turned into a polititcal party and I don't like.
Moz://a has joined the moral authority camp for a long time now, consequently "this kind of crap" are considered by Moz://a as a moral obligation hence perfectly normal.
Considering how IT is increasingly used to make people's life miserable (part accidentally, part intentionally) I actually find this is a good thing they take a moral stance.
Although a user of Firefox on PC and mobile, I have not received that notification. So maybe there was an opt-in/out somewhere to which we answered differently.
As just about every editor of a free (as in beer) product, maybe the Mozilla foundation is also expecting something from you? That would not be your data, but you spreading awareness in your circle.
When they remotely installed add-ons for an ad deal and it blew up in their face, they promised "we've changed". I don't think they have.
I did not receive the notification despite using Firefox on mobile, but a friend did. Maybe because he uses Facebook, and I don't. But that's unthinkable, a Browser claiming to be pro-privacy sniffing around in your web-history to target you for political ads. But then again, you'd also not expect a Browser to send you push notifications for their latest blog post.
> Facebook is still a place where it’s too easy to find hate, bigotry, racism, antisemitism and calls to violence.
What an odd claim, coming from Mozilla - it's ultimately Firefox that displays all that hate and racism. If they think it should be censored, they can add a filter to the browser itself. Why leave censorship to Facebook, when clearly Mozilla is the more moral corporation, and knows better which content their users should be allowed to see?
Mozilla, please get your shit together. We like you. We want you to succeed. I don‘t get how you don’t get us. I thought you are basically us.
I half-seriously suggest fireing everyone, who was not a developer at some point. If people who‘s background suggests they truly get your importance actually come up with stuff like this, I have no hope. Everyone grab your kids and run! We were doomed all along!
Yeah, Cliqz, Mr Robot, Pocket, Fenix having no extensions in the original roadmap, this, there's just a continuous trend of poor judgement from Mozilla. I wish there wasn't.
Mozilla is using their Firefox browser to support their political censorship message.
What's next? Are we sure in the future that Firefox won't decide that certain sites espouse dangerous opinions and block these sites.
Mozilla's actions go against all their rhetoric about supporting the open web. They have no commitment to free speech nor any qualms about using Firefox to advance their political goals.
What you quote is not a stance, merely an observation. One can agree there's lots of socially undesirable speech (call it whatever you want) on Facebook, yet at the same time disagree Facebook ought to take their desired actions [0].
Besides, why my browser should send me a push notification for this particular campaign is beyond me. Even if I agree with the political contents this time, should I expect more push notifications of this kind in the future?
For me the political part isn't the issue - the push notification itself is. I can't stand browser desktop notifications and similar useless distractions and have blocked every kind of ad and popup in Firefox. Now the browser itself circumventing this to push some stupid blog article to me that I never asked for is unacceptable to me. Would you be fine with your image viewer, video player or file browser to push messages and suggest blog articles to you without asking? Then why should a website viewer do it?
I just want web browsers to display content I requested, block ads and otherwise just don't try to do anything clever. Which worked pretty nicely in Firefox so far.
Is supporting HK against violence violence political? Is supporting Uyghurs against china violence political? Yes, being anti-violence is political.
We can all agree that being anti-violence is a good cause but everyone seems it little bit differently. Someone sees the CCP violence in HK as "liberation" just as someone sees this Mozilla campaign as bullying facebook.
Web browser should be neutral and trustworhy don't bother the users with any agenda, however this campaign from mozilla is no surpirse, Mozilla has been like that for a long time.
The campaign espouses it's "American Values", they specifically talk about US electoral interference, they specifically want to remove exemptions for politicians from censorship rules, and they also want to ban groups of anti-vaccers and "climate denialists" however those are defined from their platform.
You're badly representing what's actually going on here in an effort to sound pithy.
They tweeted out in May a list of video call apps that they had curated, when everyone was stuck indoors. Usual suspects at the top (Facebook), with trusted apps (Signal) near the bottom. It made me rethink my browser choice.
Why hasn't Firefox been forked yet? Not a spin off like Pale Moon or Waterfox but an actual fork of the entire codebase. With only two real browser engines remaining the potential for an independent policitally neutral browser is high. I don't know why people haven't done it yet.
Why do you think that Pale Moon is not an "actual fork" though? They've forked off a rather old version of Firefox and kept updating and maintaining it for quite some time now, barely integrating new things from newer Firefox versions.
However the development of such a program takes a massive amount of work (and money), which is something Mozilla still offers and any fork probably doesn't have.
It generally doesn't make sense to do so even with the resources, because you'd be duplicating a lot of work, so the "spin-off"s prefer to keep merging the original code, just excluding changes they don't like.
People promoting violence usually means targeted violence. Proposing violence against a specific person or group of people. A protest that happens to have people in that become violent and then those some people posting online is a completely different situation than a bunch of Nazis saying we need to exterminate the Jewish people.
Allowing violent people to post online is fine. Allowing them to post violent content is bad. I don't care who the person is. I care what they post. As long as they're not advocating harm to a specific person or group of people it's fine.
I'm okay with people saying racist things from a free speech perspective (it's still despicable). I'm not okay with them saying people should go burn down the synagogue in downtown Seattle.
TBH, this point is poor. Violence and therefore promotion of violence are simply necessary in some situations. The former is even ingrained in the U.S. constitution.
Plenty of comedic and satirical shows have been censored for racism. Plenty of violent forms of entertainment have been censored. This campaign is also calling for the censorship of anti-vaccination and climate denialist views.
I've done a bit of volunteer work as a censor (moderator) and I'm not opposed to censorship. A flippant/morally self-righteous attitude towards censorship is a red flag though.
I can see that people feel bothered by push messages they didn't ask for, but... "political ads"?
Anyone who feels offended by "stop hate, bigotry, racism, antisemitism and calls to violence" needs to urgently figure out where their emotions come from.
I don't really care about their political stance or what they support (as many people claiming themselves to be slightly right of center seem to be so offended by) but using push notifications to shove that to my face is one step too far. They should just have stuck to their blog and social media.
Reminder this is the same company who have partnered with proprietary service companies to put on first-party functionality on their browsers (hi Pocket) and also used undocumented functionality to push ads on people before (the Black Mirror promo fiasco).
> Reminder this is the same company who have partnered with proprietary service companies to put on first-party functionality on their browsers (hi Pocket)
brought to you by company not willing to implement even optional pull down to refresh for 5+ years
one of the reasons why U don't use their buggy slow browser on Android (use outdated Kiwi Browser, since it's only non shady browser with extensions support)
55 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] thread[0]: https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/the-digitized-cul...
As just about every editor of a free (as in beer) product, maybe the Mozilla foundation is also expecting something from you? That would not be your data, but you spreading awareness in your circle.
Edit: The blog post in question is actually about Facebook.
Noticed the '... American values...' in the campaign page title and facepalmed. I got the ad and am European.
They did not think this through to catch that... I doubt they thought about consiquances of politicising the browser.
I did not receive the notification despite using Firefox on mobile, but a friend did. Maybe because he uses Facebook, and I don't. But that's unthinkable, a Browser claiming to be pro-privacy sniffing around in your web-history to target you for political ads. But then again, you'd also not expect a Browser to send you push notifications for their latest blog post.
What an odd claim, coming from Mozilla - it's ultimately Firefox that displays all that hate and racism. If they think it should be censored, they can add a filter to the browser itself. Why leave censorship to Facebook, when clearly Mozilla is the more moral corporation, and knows better which content their users should be allowed to see?
Firefox the browser doesn't push you towards or away from any particular content, with maybe a few caveats (default search engine, etc.)
Facebook (employees & algorithms) decide what you will see on their site.
Don't give them ideas
I half-seriously suggest fireing everyone, who was not a developer at some point. If people who‘s background suggests they truly get your importance actually come up with stuff like this, I have no hope. Everyone grab your kids and run! We were doomed all along!
What's next? Are we sure in the future that Firefox won't decide that certain sites espouse dangerous opinions and block these sites.
Mozilla's actions go against all their rhetoric about supporting the open web. They have no commitment to free speech nor any qualms about using Firefox to advance their political goals.
> Facebook is still a place where it’s too easy to find hate, bigotry, racism, antisemitism and calls to violence.
What a fucked-up politics we have this is not a neutral stance, but a polarizing "political view".
Besides, why my browser should send me a push notification for this particular campaign is beyond me. Even if I agree with the political contents this time, should I expect more push notifications of this kind in the future?
[0] https://www.stophateforprofit.org/productrecommendations
I just want web browsers to display content I requested, block ads and otherwise just don't try to do anything clever. Which worked pretty nicely in Firefox so far.
We can all agree that being anti-violence is a good cause but everyone seems it little bit differently. Someone sees the CCP violence in HK as "liberation" just as someone sees this Mozilla campaign as bullying facebook.
Web browser should be neutral and trustworhy don't bother the users with any agenda, however this campaign from mozilla is no surpirse, Mozilla has been like that for a long time.
You're badly representing what's actually going on here in an effort to sound pithy.
However the development of such a program takes a massive amount of work (and money), which is something Mozilla still offers and any fork probably doesn't have.
It generally doesn't make sense to do so even with the resources, because you'd be duplicating a lot of work, so the "spin-off"s prefer to keep merging the original code, just excluding changes they don't like.
We're living in an intesting time.
Allowing violent people to post online is fine. Allowing them to post violent content is bad. I don't care who the person is. I care what they post. As long as they're not advocating harm to a specific person or group of people it's fine.
I'm okay with people saying racist things from a free speech perspective (it's still despicable). I'm not okay with them saying people should go burn down the synagogue in downtown Seattle.
I've done a bit of volunteer work as a censor (moderator) and I'm not opposed to censorship. A flippant/morally self-righteous attitude towards censorship is a red flag though.
Anyone who feels offended by "stop hate, bigotry, racism, antisemitism and calls to violence" needs to urgently figure out where their emotions come from.
Reminder this is the same company who have partnered with proprietary service companies to put on first-party functionality on their browsers (hi Pocket) and also used undocumented functionality to push ads on people before (the Black Mirror promo fiasco).
They didn't partner with Pocket, they own Pocket.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14752590/mozilla-acquires...
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1172126
one of the reasons why U don't use their buggy slow browser on Android (use outdated Kiwi Browser, since it's only non shady browser with extensions support)