What does this community think about Mitchell Baker's "We need more than de-platforming" article?
What does this community think about Mitchell Baker's "We need more than de-platforming" article?
Article Link: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/
Pretty weird coming from firefox if you ask me.
Most of his suggestions are just advocating for greater transparency. What's the weird part?
@fidodo@lemm.ee @glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone @calm.like.a.bomb
I did read the article. All of you are cherry-picking the transparency aspect and are ignoring the whole spirit of the article in the first place.
She is saying, deplatforming is just not enough, we need to do something so that Donald Trump and people like him didn't even have a chance to speak. She is not only defending deplatforming people but she's saying deplatforming doesn't go far enough.
We must cut their funding by going after their advertisers. The "transparency of platform algorithms" is basically to make sure that the voices Mitchell Baker thinks are wrong should not be amplified. She is asking for the amplification of "facts" i.e., what she thinks are facts.
I don't think anyone who wants to argue in good faith can read that article and come out with the assumption that she's asking for more transparency.
The transparency part is so that she can see and demonize people who support speech she doesn't support. The main spirit of the "deplatforming is just not enough, we need more" and the fact that you took away the transparency part (which isn't what you make it to be in the first place) while completely ignoring the We need more than deplatforming part is surprising.
The CEO of mozilla is asking for Censorship, plain and simple. I don't think that's very free speech, not very true to ideology behind FF and an open internet.
I am a conservative (an old school liberal) and I would have defended the left had this happened against someone like Biden or his supporters, if someone had called him a black supremacist or something. But, when the shoe is on the other foot, people like you are very comfortable turning a blind eye and when given an article asking for censorship commenting that she wants more "transparency"
She is not saying that Donald Trump or his supports should not have a chance to speak. She is saying that websites and other social platforms should not amplify their voices above others. Trump and his supporters are known for spreading misinformation that has led to violence, and online platforms need to do something about it. There aren't any calls to deplatform Biden or liberals because they aren't the ones that inspire mass shootings, hate crimes, and attempts to overthrow the government. Of course, you have the right to your own opinion regarding the article, but I feel that there are many in the community who have similar thoughts as my own.
did you read between the lines? I didn't read that part ig
For real now, what is the weird part? As the other guy says, the author is asking for more transparency.
If you didn't read it then why did you post about it? What did you see "between the lines?"
First of all, firefox is politically active and on the correct side too. Fighting for equality, against discrimination and for a fairer world for us all is the only cause that actually makes sense atm imo.
I‘m not totally sure if I like the fact that they don’t actively talk about their „new“ focus more but I‘m not actively researching that either, but I digress.
Besides that, they‘re asking to amplify factual voices (instead of the extremes) which I find baffling that someone has to actually suggest this. People thinking any other way would make sence are definitely high on something.
Fighting for equality, against discrimination and for a fairer world for us all is the only cause that actually makes sense atm imo.
Fighting for equity, as a man who's supposed to be at the bottom of the hierarchy, I spit on it.
Besides that, they‘re asking to amplify factual voices (instead of the extremes) which I find baffling that someone has to actually suggest this.
Because the actual definition of factual and their definition of factual differs. When they say factual voices, they mean, voices which they like.
Somewhat similar to feminists, when they say they just want equality (and I am ok with equality) they don't want equality, they want equity. They want quotas. Their definition of feminism and my definition of feminism varies. And people who say they want factual discourse have utterly disqualified themselves from saying that again, they just want their opposition to be censored. The last few years have proven that
I‘m sorry but I don’t get what you’re implying. The only thing I get is the feeling of mysogynism.
Nobody cares about quotas, what some fictional screaming lesbians are doing to poor incels out there. Thats not real, man.
The rich are fucking us, not women. Don’t let yourself be made into their tool.
Fighting for equity, as a man who’s supposed to be at the bottom of the hierarchy, I spit on it.
I know this is difficult for a lot of more conservative-minded folks to conceptualise or believe, but the purpose of progressive movements is to dismantle the hierarchy, not change who is at the top or bottom.
As such, you are not "supposed to be at the bottom of the hierarchy", because there should not be a hierarchy at all.
They just want more transparency around ads and are advocating for algorithms to be public.
Did you just read buzzwords like deplatform and decide it was woke propaganda?
It's Mitchell Baker's expression of the naive but still-fashionable idea that the way to deal with the evils of today's dominant centralized social media is to tweak the algorithms and otherwise adjust things so that they do not promote undesirable effects such as all the "culture war" bullshit. It was instantly seized on by people using it to promote culture war bullshit, perhaps in large part because it mentioned Donald Trump. As part of a series of simplistic yet easy-to-misinterpret statements the reaction to which seemingly persuaded Baker to stick with more safely bland and meaningless public statements in more recent times, it is perhaps of some historical interest. But it's unclear why you've dug it up now if not with some ulterior motive in mind.
I have an ulterior motive in mind. I don't like her and I don't like censoring people, left or right. I would have stood up for the right of a person on the left not to be censored (unless children were involved in it somehow), I was wondering if people here who obviously are of a left bent would give the people on the right the same privilege. This was the ulterior evil motive of mine
The part that concerned me when I originally read it back when it was posted was the "Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation" line that linked to a NY Times article about censoring the internet. It is behind a paywall now, and I presume a lot of people who see no issue with this did not actually read the NY Times link. Without that context, "amplify factual voices over disinformation" absolutely sounds like a good thing. But I definitely do not want my browser deciding what it should and should not render for me. A browser should remain neutral.
I'm very much against this. This is antithetical to a free and open internet. Having a central authority decide what voices are more correct and then amplifying them. That's exactly the problem they're complaining about. They're only complaint is they're not the ones doing the amplification.
You need to pick some principles and stick to your guns. You can't be wishy-washy just because things you don't like are being promoted. I would much rather donate money to the EFF, the ACLU, GNU. Open platforms that don't try to politicize the people using the platforms.
This is exactly why funding the Mozilla foundation is troublesome, I want to support an open internet and I want to fund the browser. But I don't want to fund a political arm that's actively trying to add censorship controls to core systems.
good to hear someone on lemmy say what you just said!
Glad I'm not alone.
People should realize any censorship system will be used against you, eventually, the groups in power change over time. Any tool you make against the bad people is used against you, or your children, eventually.
Better to build fair, open, democratic, distributed systems then build extra thought crime controls into central ones.
Everything they touch gets AIDS, including their children.
what do you even mean by this?
Firefox is pozzed. Pozzed means the leftards touched it and turned it into a frustrating circus sideshow, it's a part of the process of demoralization.