[freshm087]

Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform.

So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.

[evgen]

Does the removal of the extension from the extension gallery prevent people from using the extension or just limit its exposure? If the latter then there is not censorship but simply Mozilla deciding the cost is not worth the bother. No one has any particular right to be promoted by Mozilla.

[freshm087]

So if Verizon would block certain websites for its customers it will not be censorship? Well, it will be. You seem to believe that censorship implies denying legal rights, and only is real when it's total. But censorship can be perfectly legal, and it's never total (albeit it requires either efforts, or money, you can reach forbidden websites in China). I'm not arguing about legality of Mozilla's decision at all. Nevertheless, it is censorship, and as long as it's motivated by ideological differences it's ideological censorship. And as Mozilla pretends to be just browser (not some party's browser) it looks weird, and no exactly smart. My question is why anybody who's not fanatically partisan would support it? Does it mean one feels a lot of pain using Mozilla just because political adversaries use it too? Consequently, do we need a separate fork of every browser for every faction nowadays (apparently, with separate sets of ideologically proven extensions)?

[gspetr]

Mozilla are directly violating their own manifesto, where they claim "We are committed to an internet that promotes civil discourse"[0]. Have you even read the article?

When they were asked to clarify what exactly was violating their ToS, they replied with the most standard bureaucratic non-answer, the kind you might receive from an auto-response email service, full of corporate-speak.

[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

EDIT: According to this[1], Mozilla supposedly cares enough about this free speech, free platform issue to donate $100,000 to "a coordination platform used by activists across the political spectrum, to improve the security of their email service". Do you still believe it's a stretch to hold them to a much higher standard than a for-profit corporation? Note the "activists across the political spectrum" part in their own words.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/03/mozilla-awards-half...

[javagram]

As far as i can see from the article, Mozilla is still agreeing to sign the addon, just not to list it in the AMO site.

The article lists an 8 step process and claims users would have to follow that on each restart of Firefox to enable the addon. I’m not sure if that’s true, as the guidelines I can see on other websites seem to suggest self hosting addons shouldn’t have that problem.

[mymindstorm]

If Mozilla won't sign it, you have to install it manually. [0]

[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...

[jjulius]

Here's what I posted in another response in this thread just now:

>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).

>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.

[freshm087]

Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol

If it's about politically incorrect speech - it's absolutely ideological.

If it's about obscene language - it's still not Mozilla's business to police someone's lexicon, and Mozilla doesn't do it generally, which means something ideological happens here.

Btw, it's interesting that you yourself agree that the whole thing is political by this stereotyping statement but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. And at the same time you disagree.

Try to check your biases: every time Trump tweets, Twitter explodes with left activists using motherfcker, fck, and a lot of derogatory expressions addressed to him, and right-leaning voters which has zero value for any civil discourse. So ask yourself: would you say "we both know it's commonplace on the left to use disparaging, and obscene exoressions"? And would you be fine with Twitter punished for this? (It enables them, gives the platform).

Finally, you are calling dissenter.com alt-right which is not true unless they operate alt-right censorship there. It shows some bias too.

[forgottenpass]

>>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform.

Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.

[krapp]

>Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda.

...and we're to conclude that, because Mozilla has "hegemony", and are denying a political agenda, they must actually have a political agenda they're not admitting to?

I mean, hegemony could just as well mean never having to deny you have an agenda, because what can anyone do? The US certainly doesn't hide its agenda regarding its military or nuclear hegemony.

[gspetr]

> It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.

Probably a good idea to provide evidence on a case-by-case basis first, otherwise how is this position different from right-wingers that want to play the numbers game too, and preemptively claim that since blacks commit a disproportionately large amount of crimes per capita, any black person should be kept away?