Mozilla "WebThings" No Longer An Experiment

[Bsdisbetter]

we all agree that censorship is evil, but ignoring a problem is also evil. Everything needs a balance.

just because i do not like nor use child porn, it doesn't make it ok to exist as long i do not see it.
the same for ISIS propaganda. the same for nazi propaganda. That is just hide the head in the sand until that problem kicks you back.

one thing is to say black/jews/women/whatever are bad/stupid/whatever, another is to say they should die and promote that kind of actions.

There is a hard to define line that limits the free speech, when it starts to invade the other guy own freedom and rights.
Country laws set most of this limits, but people and companies can also set their own limits. Dissenter did want to push the limit and browsers allowed and then push it back when it started to generate complains. It's the equilibrium being set.

Well off topic, but, here goes: Nonsense.

You cannot censor yourself from these issues. Period.

If you want to view or read isis propaganda, go for it. Likewise with anything.

I fail to see what this achieves except some warm and fuzzy feeling by control types. Do you censor this for journalists doing an investigation into it? Perhaps allow lawyers to look at it for making a case against some nut? So you censor it, the lunatic left feel warm and fuzzy and the stuff goes deeper underground, where censorship is not even possible. But, hey, at least the controlling types feel better they swept it under the carpet.

However, all this being said, how is this piece of software apart from ANY other piece of 'social media' software subverting your sensibilities? It's not peddling child porn, is it? Is it peddling isis propaganda?

Let's be clear, censorship doesn't work. If google & mozilla have banned this software because it is used by less upstanding citizens, then this proves my point. Some corporate entity decides what is right for you or I and so stops its use. Lo and behold, it seems using it as an add-on is optional, so again, it proves my point.

Like prohibition, internet firewalls/censorship in countries (China, UK, Australia, NZ, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc), it just pushes people underground and makes criminals of those wanting discourse.

So, look, be a cheerleader for censorship, that's your choice, but it's evil, takes away people's choices and achieves nothing.

[higuita]

If you want to view or read isis propaganda, go for it. Likewise with anything.

What you fail to understand is that the problem isn't if i want to read about it or not, radical and hate promotion make people more radical. That is were the problem start, they will start to mess with your own freedom.

censorship, as you said, do not work, but keeping those content free also do not work, the long term effects of that are always very bad. While is far from ideal, it is better to make some censorship soon than try to fix things later.
Yes, the radical will move elsewhere but those are already radical, they hardly can be saved! What it stops is the other (not radical yet) people from being converted as those will not follow. That is why since social network show up, the number of radicals increased a lot, it made easy to find those radicals and promote fake, misrepresent info and "facts".

what do you think would happen if you allow child porn? more people will start to think that it is normal and ok to do that.
Isis was a small radical problem until it started to gather people from other countries. Without the free public propaganda, they would be a small local group, only after they were already mass killing people they started to get some censorship and stop the new recruit inflow.

the flat earth people have grow a lot, but since that do not affect other people freedom, it's ok to be free

However, all this being said, how is this piece of software apart from ANY other piece of 'social media' software subverting your sensibilities?

it is not, but while google and facebook didn't do anything for hate speech for many years, mozilla wanted to stop it before it could be a problem on their side.
right now google and facebook also try to limit more those posts, even if under pressure from governments to act more

So, look, be a cheerleader for censorship, that's your choice, but it's evil, takes away people's choices and achieves nothing.

again, i'm against censorship, but i'm also pro freedom, anything that tries to use their own freedom against other people freedom is wrong and must not be allowed.
Censorship is evil, but when the alternative is worse, it's a matter of choosing the least bad one. That is also why it should be avoid as much as possible.

Some time ago i read a interview to a facebook "censor"... he reported that sometimes it's hard to decide and need help... but he also said that he already saw MANY awful things that he couldn't even imagine... he ended quitting after years of work, citing that it was harder and harder to behave as a normal person and that bad things started to look slowly as minor problems, it started to change his own reality.

[fuzz]

What you fail to understand is that the problem isn't if i want to read about it or not, radical and hate promotion make people more radical. That is were the problem start, they will start to mess with your own freedom.

censorship, as you said, do not work, but keeping those content free also do not work, the long term effects of that are always very bad. While is far from ideal, it is better to make some censorship soon than try to fix things later.
Yes, the radical will move elsewhere but those are already radical, they hardly can be saved! What it stops is the other (not radical yet) people from being converted as those will not follow. That is why since social network show up, the number of radicals increased a lot, it made easy to find those radicals and promote fake, misrepresent info and "facts".

what do you think would happen if you allow child porn? more people will start to think that it is normal and ok to do that.
Isis was a small radical problem until it started to gather people from other countries. Without the free public propaganda, they would be a small local group, only after they were already mass killing people they started to get some censorship and stop the new recruit inflow.

the flat earth people have grow a lot, but since that do not affect other people freedom, it's ok to be free



it is not, but while google and facebook didn't do anything for hate speech for many years, mozilla wanted to stop it before it could be a problem on their side.
right now google and facebook also try to limit more those posts, even if under pressure from governments to act more



again, i'm against censorship, but i'm also pro freedom, anything that tries to use their own freedom against other people freedom is wrong and must not be allowed.
Censorship is evil, but when the alternative is worse, it's a matter of choosing the least bad one. That is also why it should be avoid as much as possible.

Some time ago i read a interview to a facebook "censor"... he reported that sometimes it's hard to decide and need help... but he also said that he already saw MANY awful things that he couldn't even imagine... he ended quitting after years of work, citing that it was harder and harder to behave as a normal person and that bad things started to look slowly as minor problems, it started to change his own reality.

The problem is you're equating various acts to free speech. Any organized society will always agree on some set of rules (some will claim they don't but ultimately a society has to agree on some basis of reality in order to facilitate communication).

Breaking the rules and freely talking about breaking them are two very different things. Without unrestricted discourse, all else is lost.

[DrYak]

the flat earth people have grow a lot, but since that do not affect other people freedom, it's ok to be free

Well until they start overlapping into other crackpot conspiracy theories. (which in the case of flat-earthers, very often happens to actually be anti-vaxer/anti-medicine/etc.)

And then the resulting lowering of herd immunity suddenly affects you, either personally or people around that you hold dear, by spreading diseases and killing those who aren't anti-vaxers but can't benefit from vacine protection for various medical reason. (Defective immune system. Too young. Too old and weak. Actually got the shot but not 100% effective, etc.).

[Bsdisbetter]

What you fail to understand is that the problem isn't if i want to read about it or not, radical and hate promotion make people more radical. That is were the problem start, they will start to mess with your own freedom.

Prove it. I'm not saying it can't or it can, but you're saying it will, so you need to back that up with some data.

censorship, as you said, do not work, but keeping those content free also do not work, the long term effects of that are always very bad. While is far from ideal, it is better to make some censorship soon than try to fix things later.
Yes, the radical will move elsewhere but those are already radical, they hardly can be saved! What it stops is the other (not radical yet) people from being converted as those will not follow. That is why since social network show up, the number of radicals increased a lot, it made easy to find those radicals and promote fake, misrepresent info and "facts".

what do you think would happen if you allow child porn? more people will start to think that it is normal and ok to do that.

First off, I'm not really wanting to discuss child porn as it disgusts me, but for debating necessities:

Censorship only achieves the end result.
A country legislates to make victimization/exploitation of a child illegal. That's your illegality. People who then engage in child porn are then arrested on this basis.
Censorship catches only those who get off on this rubbish.
I can only speculate here, as I don't have any knowledge of this.

Isis was a small radical problem until it started to gather people from other countries. Without the free public propaganda, they would be a small local group, only after they were already mass killing people they started to get some censorship and stop the new recruit inflow.

Now this I do have some understanding of. ISIS had basically taken over 1/2 of Iraq/Syria and called it a caliphate. The call to arms happened then in large numbers.
Previous to that there was a trickle of foreign fighters, mainly from countries with large muslim populations, where social media is not such a big thing, ie, Yemen, Indonesia, etc.

I don't deny quite a few went to fight there because of social media images and rhetoric , don't get me wrong. Equally, if you know anything about the world wars, men signed up to fight 'the Hun' in WWI merely on the reading in the newspapers and a 'sense of duty'. Here's an example:

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/enlistment/ww1

They didn't go there because of social media, they went there, in essence to help 'mother england'. They all volunteered!

The same can be said for the idiots that rolled up to ISIS so they could get used as cannon fodder. They volunteered, out of some misplaced duty.

Censorship wouldn't have solved it. Censorship is selective removal of information to suit the whim of the ruling class. What was once censored is now allowed in lots of cases (books etc). It's a stupid concept.

If you want to stop ISIS recruits, tell them they can go there and never come back - dead or alive. (The former happened more than the latter).

[ssokolow]

Censorship only achieves the end result.
A country legislates to make victimization/exploitation of a child illegal. That's your illegality. People who then engage in child porn are then arrested on this basis.
Censorship catches only those who get off on this rubbish.
I can only speculate here, as I don't have any knowledge of this.

I also remember reading that censoring child porn makes it harder to catch the actual criminals because it drives them underground.

I vaguely remember one of the U.S.'s Three Letter Agencies being against one of the censorship-related laws that wound up not passing (might have been SOPA/PIPA) because they knew it would help to drive a lot more mainstream interest in encryption and decentralized peer-to-peer file-sharing, which make it harder for them to spy on actual criminals because it would raise the bar for spying on anything.