mozilla big brother

[666philb]

looks like mozilla want to bake political bias into its browser
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/0 ... atforming/

[taersh]

I did sent them a mail right now:

So, Mozilla is on its way to bake political bias and/or political correctness into their browsers?
Good!
I decided now NOT to use any browser from Mozilla anymore.
Mozilla seems to prefer censorship, which has nothing to do with the freedom of speech anymore. Censorship from the far-left is as ugly as censorship from the far-right.The far-left is as faschist as the far-right is.
Both of you seem to shake hands now, agreeing in censoring any independent points of views, speech and opinions.

FUCK YOU ALL!

[rcrsn51]

looks like mozilla what to bake political bias into its browser
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/0 ... atforming/

What statement in the above article led you to this conclusion?

[taersh]

We need solutions that don’t start after untold damage has been done.

Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms.

Thinking this to an end I can imagine algorithms analyzing posts while typing and suppressing to submit posts. It's the easiest task to implement such.
Who decides what person would be defined as a bad actor?
Who decides what is a "damage being done"?

Facts that don't fit into the preferred image could be "damage" then and the person/organization publishing such unwanted facts could be the "bad actor" then.

In German we have a saying: Wehret den Anfängen! Literally translated: "Resist the beginnings!"

This needs to be done to anything extremist and censoring. But at these times it is focused only on the so-called "right" people. The current state of view is: everything from the left is good, everything from the right is ugly. Though, that's simply NOT true!

[666philb]

looks like mozilla what to bake political bias into its browser
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/0 ... atforming/

What statement in the above article led you to this conclusion?

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

who decides these factual voices?

plus the whole post is some anti trump diatribe.
it's supposed to be a browser, not some platform to push their preferred political agenda.

[xenial]

I see nothing in that article which would suggest a political bias.
how does the political leanings of a software company like mozilla affect the actual usage of firefox.

[666philb]

"amplify factual voices" is fine if you read the new york times or the guardian etc. if you think they are biased and prone to suspect reporting then with firefox you'll be out of luck as they will what you will get.

i prefer to make my own opinion and like my browser to just browse, not suggest to me what is right or wrong.

[Adam Li]

Maybe Mozilla's advice: it's best if the developer crashes with his program ...

[Clarity]

Technology is NOT the blame, but mankind has been awaken to its dark side where factual evidence no longer applies. I am not sure if its our human intelligence that leads us down this path, or if its our emotional biases that put us into this OBVIOUS framework.

In any event, this is a human problem where mankind will need to agree of what is factual and what has no basis in evidence.

Here in this forum more than 99% of what is technologically presented comes to us with some basis in observable factual evidence that is applied in a useful way. BUT, mankind, though we have been the creators of technology is facing some very human facts that we must take our heads out of the sand and seek solutions that will lead us back into a framework of using evidence to evolve instead of the non-sense that any thought is "appropriate" no matter if there does not exist evidence of any kind.

This thread is off-topic, I know, but I support industry attempts to try to fill-in for the lack of factual based thought leaders who are emerging to lead mankind against his own best interest.

Let's refrain from taking a side on this and step back to "THINK" about what ways can be employed to have mankind become the same kind of technology that it builds versus allowing a flawed existence to take all of us down.

If we dont want industry to fix it, it up to us to create technology to help mankind work within a factual existence. And frankly I find little evidence that humans are getting it.

Maybe the technology people, here, can start a movement leading us, humans, out of this biased non-evidence quagmire we are now caught in.

[bigpup]

looks like mozilla what to bake political bias into its browser
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/0 ... atforming/

What statement in the above article led you to this conclusion?

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

This statement Plus the left wing bios of the complete article.
At no point, do they say anything about people that did the riots and burning, of different cities, in the US!!!!!
How they used the internet to communicate!!

Everything you say is wrong, because I am the one that decides what is disinformation.
Just that simple.

If you say something is not true, long enough.
Then even if it is true, no one will believe it is true.

[Clarity]

Left-wing, Right-wing, all of these kinds of statements is American peoples calling names. The fact that we are seeing it here is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. People are now concern as to what wing the person is on VERSUS what is actual evidence and facts.

And because of a wrong sighted view that EVERYONE is entitiled as if that somehow means it is factual with substancial evidence is why we are here with strong leanings of entitlement.

WE ARE LOST! ... unless we are WILLING to change.

Paralysis is NOT an answer. WE MUST START A NEW movement of life aimed at verifiable evidence where we use that evidence to the best of our ability for the good of mankind.

This how we have built technology...and its time we build ourselves like we do with technology.

It is NOT a them vs us game. IT IS US!!! Time to really examine what we have become with use of evidence, information, versus consistent loud noices based upon something someone heard that is NOT a fact.

USA has become the modern day model that we must now consider combating. NOT the technology, but the behavior of people with incorrect twists on evidence.

We saw this play out various times in 20th Century in the world. Did we learn anything, yet?

I will NOT post another coment on this thread as it has NOTHING to do with "off-topic" technology or Puppy

[wiak]

Left-wing, Right-wing,... People are now concern as to what wing the person is on VERSUS what is actual evidence and facts.

I was talking with some other people about exactly this issue in a non-technical context just a few days ago. When anyone attacks others using fake terminology such as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' all they are doing is trying to silence opinions differing from their own. If a person uses the word 'social' in any explanation, it is unfortunately common for fixed mindsets to try and silence opinions they do not like via nonsense accusations of 'communist' or 'left wing' or similar irrelevant rhetorical slur, rather than providing reasonable alternative argument.

Supporting ideas or policies that try to give every human being as much opportunity during their lives is a matter of fairness in terms of human rights - writing off such fairness to others via rhetorical slur is simply a mark of ignorance and inability to argue via reason.

The use of such slur alternatives to reasonable discourse all began long time ago - more recently, the 1950's, and its obsession regarding the less-than-ideal 'communist' systems being pursued in some countries in the world, left a mark that is still being used as a cheap excuse by some to keep unfair systems of government in place. Relying on such terminology as Right and Left, to silence discussion and prevent change, effectively stalls society improving itself as a whole - prevents people from discussion and thus change, and creates a situation where a country's population becomes simply split into two camps. Those who see themselves as 'RIght' seem particularly unable to reasonably discuss anything - instead they resort to silencing slurs and word games. Note that those who claim 'Right' are not only those from the 'nice' middle-class neighbourhoods who want to keep the less privileged of society out, but also the most uneducated and thus ignorant red-necked individuals that can be imagined. The uneducated and ignorant are effectively 'conned' by the rhetoric of those who are trying to protect their own wealth - others who are educated but seek fairness and equality in society are seen as dangerous by those of that 'Right' who want to keep others out by building fences and, since there are no good arguments to support their greed and insecurity, they resort to rhetorical slur word games to silence those who want a better more egalitarian society.

The fact is, as a result of this fake rhetorical discourse of right and left, humans are not only facing environmental disaster (including disease) but the rich are using their privilege to obtain more and more of the Earth's dwindling resources, such that the price of houses and land is becoming out of reach to the new generations, and no social mechanism is being provided for that will ever allow any of that greed obtained resource to be released back to the huge populations that actually need it.

[ozsouth]

Speaking of the rich - who are they?
I read that if you have just US $100,000 in assets, you are in the top 8% of individual wealth in the world.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business ... -story.htm
So my half share of a small house in a fairly cheap suburb puts me in that group. Sobering.

[Grey]

By the way, about where this World is heading. In my country, a priest sprinkles "holy" water on a space rocket before launching and blesses it And there was no such garbage under the communists, it was introduced by the capitalists, or rather the feudal lords. Such is the "development of technology". And tradition has nothing to do with it - the Tsars did not have rockets to start such a tradition

[rcrsn51]

Wow. This discussion is a perfect example of how a person`s political/cultural bias affects how they interpret the content they absorb.

Some people read the original Mozilla article and seem to have concluded that Mozilla is planning to hard-code "anti-fake-news" filters into their browser.

My interpretation of the article is that they are discussing the Internet and social media in general.

Be honest. How was your reaction to the article affected by its reference to Trump?

[user1111]

In my youth we used to walk along 'speakers corner' in Hyde Park (London) where individuals would debate/proclaim all sorts of things - free speech. Technology has scaled up that platform to a global level. Many of the debates/proclamations were 'totally nutty' but that provided a opportunity to hear all angles and form your own opinions, or simply to have a laugh, or let off steam. Healthy. Nowadays a few want others to only hear/say/do what they think is appropriate. Unhealthy. Where they are in effect denying others to form their own minds.

When censored/edited, the platform transitions from being a social media platform to a edited publication and as such should be taxed and sued accordingly. Where each posting accessible by others is in representation of the group providing the (edited/filtered) service, and should be clearly identified as such. If Mozilla goes down that path then its no longer a general purpose web browser/media viewer but becomes a dedicated publication viewer, liable for anything that might be viewed/posted using that tool. As more providers migrate over to accepting that responsibility/model, so content will have to be edited/controlled. Other alternatives will however form out of that - that are free speech media based, not liable for content - subject only to conveying lawful content (removal of unlawful content) and that might include extremes (free speech) within the limits of the law.

Mozilla, facebook, google, youtube ...etc. have all adopted the edited/filtered/publication model and have monetised that accordingly. The fundamental negative is that they're also looking to lock out free speech as part of that. Unfortunately that has big money on one side, battling against 'free'. More suing for context accessed using such tools/platforms could be the way to address that. In a similar vein to how some intentionally force a 'accident' in order to pursue a claim, so some might post content that the publishers are then liable/sued for.

[rcrsn51]

Mozilla, facebook, google, youtube ...etc. have all adopted the edited/filtered/publication model and have monetised that accordingly.

Could you please explain how Mozilla is doing this? Are you talking about the links that are posted on the Firefox home page?

[greengeek]

this is a human problem where mankind will need to agree of what is factual and what has no basis in evidence.

This demonstrates exactly why it is dangerous for an organisation like Mozilla to censor opinions or to sanitise or discard "facts".

There is no justice in silencing dissenting voices and dissenting opinions.

There is actually no such thing as a "FACT"

Let me offer an example:

FACT 1 : Peanuts are a nutritious, healthy, high energy snack. Tasty too !!

FACT 2 : Peanuts will cause your throat to close up and lungs to inflame to the point where you cannot breathe properly and may die. They are dangerous and must be banned from school lunches.

How is it possible for two completely contradictory statements to both be true? Because we are not robots - we are human and there are always alternative facts.

Humans are unique individuals and are not designed to share one unique, constrained ecological niche. We need to express different cultures and live in different ways.

I do not support Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, or any other news/information vehicle deciding which voices should be paramount.

[666philb]

the issue is the

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

and the "amplify factual voices" is a link to a new york times article about how face book changed it's algorithm during the election to amplify news sites like CNN

i personally don't consider CNN a factual voice, but the makers of firefox & facebook seemingly do..

As for whether this means mozilla will be baking politcal bias into the browser, i find it difficult to take any other way.

[rcrsn51]

This demonstrates exactly why it is dangerous for an organisation like Mozilla to censor opinions or to sanitise or discard "facts".

Do you have any evidence that this is happening?

I do not support Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, or any other news/information vehicle deciding which voices should be paramount.

Do you have any evidence that Mozilla is doing this?

Fact 3: Eating peanuts will cure cancer.

Is that statement equally valid?

[puppy_apprentice]

Currently Mozilla warn me if i want to open potentially (some of them could be false positive, Google offers filters for this) dangerous site. But still give me choice to open it or not. I think that will be the same, but message maybe will be: this site is spreading fake news or offer fake medicines or treatments. I don't see any problem for this.

[rcrsn51]

I think that will be the same, but message maybe will be: this site is spreading fake news or offer fake medicines or treatments. I don't see any problem for this.

Do you have any evidence that Mozilla plans to do this?

[puppy_apprentice]

No. But if they some day implement something like that (similar to dangerous sites that spread viruses) and give me choice to open that page or not i will don't have problem with it. But currently i think that some peoples afraid to much.

[Clarity]

I said I wouldn't post again, BUT, 2 people hear are/have echo what I had alluded, indirectly; namely @rcrsn51 in what he is trying to get ALL to see, and @rufwoof in his growing-up years of park listening.

The Internet is NOT evolving. Users have used social media platform for a sounding board for misguided view of non-evidence based information that they are trying to exert as facts!

Rufwoof shows what has been lives for those intellectuals who use to show up in the parks. If a dummy showed up there, he would get reactions that are unfavorable because he demonstrated info that was NOT based in evidence (since some here dont like the word "facts"). And YES I know dummies have a "voice", but in the parks I have been during my collegiate years, we have laughed them out of the park when non-sense is presented as fact. Our interest was improving mankind...not destroying a subset of it to satisfy an obsolete objective.

The internet is going to or will have to create the kinds of "parks" that existed before the internet.

Social media outlets are NOT those kinds of parks, today. So they will have to evolve or parks will have to spring up.

Today, even here, people dont want to believe reality and want to create alternative ones. And they are upset if there is any allusion that there is no support for an alternate reality.

This is why many appear upset when any effort is exerted to shine a light of alternate reality that we know as "FAKE News" (and I am NOT talking about the traditional journalism outlets as they, in my lack of wisdom are NOT presenting alternate reality as having substance in the real world we exist).

WE, here, must begin to "think" about whether we want to assist mankind toward the kind of thought that matches the useful successful technologies we build. If we can combine the world wisdom that is available to go out into the stars as we have shown over the past 6 decades, then we can certainly look at ourselves for EXACT improvements to our own behaviors. Knowing this problem, in solution, we must then teach our kids how current mankind directions must be reversed so that they will have a figthing chance in human behavior improvements necessary to take us into the future where we generate harmony based on facts ... opps... I mean evidence.

BTW: I hope most in the world are aware of the "thought police of US politicians who are shutting down education changes trying to reflect the true USA". (Book burnings, anyone? This I am afraid is coming, again, as we didn't learn anything over the past 120 years..)

Last post here by me (I PROMISE THIS TIME) : And thanks to those individuals I mentioned trying to help us with their insights.

[greengeek]

This demonstrates exactly why it is dangerous for an organisation like Mozilla to censor opinions or to sanitise or discard "facts".

Do you have any evidence that this is happening?

Bear in mind that I don't know who Mitchell Baker is.
I don't know how "official" the Mozilla Blog is.

The title of the Mozilla Blog article is "We need more than deplatforming" which suggests that the writer is in favour of censorship (removing publicity from certain individuals), but wants to go even further than that.

One of the actions the writer is looking for is "Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. " and as an example of that he links to the New York Times article which admits that Facebook deliberately suppressed details and discussions of US election rigging.

In other words Mitchell Baker is encouraging Mozilla to stifle debate, opinion, and investigation in order to manipulate the public's opinion on issues of importance.

Do I have evidence that this is already happening in Mozilla browsers? No - but I am thankful that this has been brought to my attention so that i can keep an eye on the Mozilla Blog to assess their future direction.

I do not support Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, or any other news/information vehicle deciding which voices should be paramount.

Do you have any evidence that Mozilla is doing this?

There is plenty of evidence of all the major browsers allowing companies like Facebook, Google, Trademe, Ebay etc etc to manipulate my browsing experience. They steal my bandwidth and surround my searches with adverts for products I may have already bought, already searched for (even on different devices!) and may want to keep private.

Mozilla is not innocent in this regard. So I see it as a small stretch for them to embrace their perception of "social good" ahead of "my right to inform myself without manipulation". But then who is Mitchell Baker? Does he have any way to impact the future direction of Mozilla? Or is he just dribbling?

Fact 3: Eating peanuts will cure cancer.
Is that statement equally valid?

Not something I have heard of before - but i am happy to hear the evidence for and against that suggestion. That is of course if we are given a fair opportunity to debate the question and evaluate the evidence.

Thousands of people died unnecessarily in the US because they were unable to get treated with Hydroxychloroquine to treat covid. Was Mozilla one of those entities that de-platformed the doctors who were trying to get the message about HCQ out into the public? These days the AMA supports doctors rights to use HCQ and as a result the death rate is declining. But great harm was done by restricting the messaging in the early days. All media generators and publishers have responsibilities to allow broad debate.

Why should Mozilla contemplate setting themselves up as arbiter between fact and "misinformation"? It's often impossible to tell which is which if one chooses to listen to the wrong expert.

[misko_2083]

The Internet is NOT evolving.

The evolution is not a progress, it's an adaptation.

BTW: I hope most in the world are aware of the "thought police of US politicians who are shutting down education changes trying to reflect the true USA". (Book burnings, anyone? This I am afraid is coming, again, as we didn't learn anything over the past 120 years..)

Everything learned can be unlearned as life adapts.
In small steps, the fish can adapt to live in the land, the mammal can adapt to live in the ocean.
I've read somewhere that, while growing up, cats exposed to exclusively the lines of one orientation
develope different brains and capabilities.
In other words, they grew cats in rooms with horizontal and vertical lines on the wall-papers.
There it is: Exposure to lines of only one orientation modifies dendritic morphology of cells in the visual cortex of the cat
Cats brain develops quickly. It a good thing that the brain of a human child takes much more time to develop.

Human mind does not stop there.
It constantly adapts to the new reality projected to the front and back of it.
Everything you learn can be unlearned.
You reject ideas as the new pieces of the puzzle appear the whole picture of the reality changes.
The people in different circumstances have different realities.
People with a lot of money have different priorities, views and ideas from everyone else.

Book burnings. Now that's from a famous Aldious Huxley's novel Brave New World.
He had an interesting interview in 1958.

Now there is a digital book burning trend.
Free to speak as Facebook, Youtube, and Google allow.

No. But if they some day implement something like that (similar to dangerous sites that spread viruses) and give me choice to open that page or not i will don't have problem with it. But currently i think that some peoples afraid to much.

People underestimate the power of suggestion.
If Mozilla suggests that the site (may) contains fake news, brainwashing content with the big red DANGER sing, it is automatically in the back of people's minds.
What will most people choose? Safety when facing fear in absolutely most of the cases.
Fear is a powerful tool of manipulation. Even if there is (only) a suggestion of harm.
Also amplification means sorting in a certain way which prioritizes certain web sites (or posts, comments, photos, videos, texts, news, games, films, commercials, keywords... you name it).
It's like searching for files by date of creation and the result always gives you the prettiest photos. The rest are ugly.
Based on individual internet usage or the interests/habbits, the amplification can specifically target users or sites.
The users get what the company policy filters out and sorts.
The users and sites that toe the line get less priority and more censorship from the ones that don't.
It's the exact same model in China. People get points if they behave in a certain way, lose them if they behave differently.
More points lead to benefits, less to bans of some public services.

[puppy_apprentice]

People underestimate the power of suggestion.
If Mozilla suggests that the site (may) contains fake news, brainwashing content with the big red DANGER sing, it is automatically in the back of people's minds.

If your whole life is in internet so you have problem. If you have friends in real life, you can always confront this with them. I don't have problem with it. For me it will be problem if somebody will starting burning books in libraries.

And anybody can stay with older version of Firefox (maybe some pages will be ugly). And you can always make a fork. I hope they don't change licence.

[Grey]

People underestimate the power of suggestion.

The power of suggestion does not always work in our time. An example from life. The Russian government has produced a LOT of films and TV series about how wonderful it is to live in villages and countryside. In these films, the happy people in the village drink vodka, play accordions, sleep with everyone and are generally happy. But young people DO NOT WANT to live in the countryside. Only in a big city, but better in a metropolis, because there is entertainment and office work.

Another example. The so-called "Far Eastern hectare". The government invites anyone to take a piece of land in the Russian Far East. But people understand that this is a NAKED piece of land, without communications, without roads, without water and electricity. Without everything. And it is given free of charge for five years, and then, if it turns out to squeeze something out of it, it will be possible to lease it for 49 years or receive it as property. But even if something can be squeezed out of this land... What if, five years later, this land will be taken away by a cunning local official? Yes, easily. And people understand that most likely they will have to sell a house in the European part of Russia, well, simply because they need an initial investment in this bare piece of land.

[misko_2083]

People underestimate the power of suggestion.
If Mozilla suggests that the site (may) contains fake news, brainwashing content with the big red DANGER sing, it is automatically in the back of people's minds.

I don't have problem with it. For me it will be problem if somebody will starting burning books in libraries.

I'm familiar with that way.

Oh maintaining millions of lines of Firefox code...

People underestimate the power of suggestion.

The power of suggestion does not always work in our time. An example from life. The Russian government has produced a LOT of films and TV series about how wonderful it is to live in villages and countryside. In these films, the happy people in the village drink vodka, play accordions, sleep with everyone and are generally happy. But young people DO NOT WANT to live in the countryside. Only in a big city, but better in a metropolis, because there is entertainment and office work.

Another example. The so-called "Far Eastern hectare". The government invites anyone to take a piece of land in the Russian Far East. But people understand that this is a NAKED piece of land, without communications, without roads, without water and electricity. Without everything. And it is given free of charge for five years, and then, if it turns out to squeeze something out of it, it will be possible to lease it for 49 years or receive it as property. But even if something can be squeezed out of this land... What if, five years later, this land will be taken away by a cunning local official? Yes, easily. And people understand that most likely they will have to sell a house in the European part of Russia, well, simply because they need an initial investment in this bare piece of land.

Well the communists made that mistake and tried to suppress the peoples desires. It always failed.
The others were smarter and used the desires against them. What-is-something-about-human-psychology-that-almost-nobody-knows/

If everyone belived in the Holywood films, soap operas and New York Times, everyone would think all of you Russians wrestle with bears,
drink Vodka instead of water and can't hit anything with AKs while Rambo doesn't even need to aim.
What is needed is a critical mass and a lot of repeating until the lie becomes the truth.
It's not limited to Russia, the politicians and mainstream always target your emotional side so it can override the rational thinking.
Often frighten people with bad news, negative content to implement new draconian laws and measures.
Promising utopia on one side and certain chaos as an alternative.
People are mostly in love with themselves, all you have to do is feed that self.
Simply to make them belive they are the greatest nation on Earth, an Arian race destined to rule the world and beyond or something else to feed the ego.
The heck, give them two teams, R/L-wings or two action heroes and they will quarrel about which one is better.
Bread and circuses, like in the ancient times.

What is scary is deepfake techology and it's implications.
This one is for entertainment only. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6zZTtXnTtU
The ability to create a video with only one photo and syntesize a voice with a 5 seconds audio sample.
As demonstrated in the video here.

[Wiz57]

quoting greenngeek
"Thousands of people died unnecessarily in the US because they were unable to get treated with Hydroxychloroquine to treat covid. Was Mozilla one of those entities that de-platformed the doctors who were trying to get the message about HCQ out into the public? These days the AMA supports doctors rights to use HCQ and as a result the death rate is declining. But great harm was done by restricting the messaging in the early days. All media generators and publishers have responsibilities to allow broad debate."
end quote
Oh bullcrap! Total misinformation! HCQ was NEVER proven to be of much, if any, benefit to Covid-19
patients! PLEASE, if you desire to find an example to demonstrate some entities nefarious designs,
come up with a truthful one! You know so little about AMA it shows...doctors have ALWAYS been free
to use approved medications for unapproved uses! This has resulted in some beneficial results, but
has also resulted in undesirable effects (remember the FenPhen diet?) Hells bells, man, the FDA even
REMOVED the emergency use approval for hydroxychloroquine when the science demonstrated it had
no benefit when compared to increased risk of cardiac arythmias.
So, given the strawman argument you presented about HCQ, one could possibly deduce your other
conclusions are similarly tainted!
Wiz