Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter
-
The Dissenter browser extension which functions as a sort of social media overlay for commenting and discussion on any website, has been banned by Google Chome and Mozilla Firefox. Big Brother bs like this is why I stopped using Chome and Firefox, and in case the Vivaldi devs are reading this, I just want you to know that if you follow suit and ban Dissenter from Vivaldi, I will stop using this browser too. There is no shortage of browsers to chose from. I like this browser, but i can get any browser that allows basic user customization and make it good enough for me.
-
@JPlissken No browser bans an extension, the web stores do – and normally they have a pretty good reason. Anyway, since Vivaldi doesn't have an own store, they can't ban the extension, so I guess that's good enough for you.
-
@JPlissken If you can find some place to download it, I'm sure you can side load it onto Vivaldi. Vivaldi does not provide extensions, nor does it approve or disapprove extensions.
-
Here are the reasons
https://reclaimthenet.org/google-chrome-web-store-bans-dissenter-extension/
Vivaldi, having no own store, for the moment, can hardly have an influence on Google's decisions.
-
@Gwen-Dragon Oh come on, if Vivaldi had their own store, they would have to remove/ban extensions. This has nothing to do with philosophy.
-
Exactly, if there are extensions that are harmful, either by being malware or by spreading violent or illegal propaganda, it is logical to remove them from the store, by violating the rules of any web page and the browser itself.
At least what I just read about this extension has certainly not been favorable -
I for one am in favour of Dissenter. You gotta see the upside. Everyone downloading and using this extension, posts/comments into a void or bubble, only to be seen by other Dissenter users, thereby removing their opinion from the public. What's not to like about it? No one is forced to use it ^^
-
@Gwen-Dragon The problem is severe, since most people don't know how to install an extension which isn't hosted on a web store. And more crucially such extensions don't receive automatic updates. Extensions outside the chrome web store used to be able to receive automatic updates in the past, Chrome removed this possibility only a few years ago.
-
@Gwen-Dragon A disclaimer would be the fairest solution.
After all, the potential misuse of this extension is users fault - as the purpose of it should be "freedom of speech" and not spreading hate. And there isn't need for an extension to do that.
I'm aware this can easily abused, but is not a reason to ban providing a 404 page without - or with poor - official explanations. Users should always know why an addon is disappared.
I think only malware/hijackers have to be banned from a V-store (when it'll come). -
There may still be an alternative to Dissenter in the Chrome Store, it's called Hypothes.is and also Comment Aggregator
-
Side note:
"Freedom of Speech" does not mean I must provide a platform. -
@Gwen-Dragon said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
used to spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc.
The sole reason why I use Vivaldi is that I needed an alternative to Chrome, because
I don't like the evils of Googles when it comes to free speech.I find it incredibly disingenuous and anti-liberal to claim that dissent should be banned
because of a claim that some has used it to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc."It's a tool, just like Vivaldi is at tool. And like Dissent, Vivaldi can be used to do bad things.
So if you agree to the totalitarian principle that we have to ban anything that is used to do bad things
we will have to ban everything.Some people will use it to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc." Should we ban it?
Some people will use their freedom is used to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc." Should
human freedom be banned?The human voice is used to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc." Should our voice be banned?
The human voice is used to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc." Do you really think that that
is a good reason ban our bodies? -
@torque said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
@Gwen-Dragon said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
used to spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc.
The sole reason why I use Vivaldi is that I needed an alternative to Chrome, because
I don't like the evils of Googles when it comes to free speech.I find it incredibly disingenuous and anti-liberal to claim that dissent should be banned
because of a claim that some has used it to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc."It's a tool, just like Vivaldi is at tool. And like Dissent, Vivaldi can be used to do bad things.
So if you agree to the totalitarian principle that we have to ban anything that is used to do bad things
we will have to ban everything.Some people will use it to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc." Should we ban it?
Some people will use their freedom is used to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc." Should
human freedom be banned?The human voice is used to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc." Should our voice be banned?
The human voice is used to "spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc." Do you really think that that
is a good reason ban our bodies?Here the majority, as I think is in agreement with you, for this we use Vivaldi, precisely because we want to get away from the control by multinational companies like Google and that traffic with our personal data.
Also able to keep the network free of censorship.
But at the moment we depend on the store that Google offers for the extensions, so we can not do much more than take a monumental piss, protest and find alternatives. -
@Gwen-Dragon said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
@torque Thanks for your mis-quoting and framing.
Do you think banning is what i want? Really? I never said Dissenter has to be banned!Cutting parts of a sentence and use some words to show that it is my opinion is really impudent.
This was my post:
@Gwen-Dragon said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:Oh, now i read at reddit why the extension was removed. The terms of Service on Mozilla addon store does not allow such extensions which are used to spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc.
I find this TOS somewhat absurd. If that's the case, then Firefox would have to ban itself, since people also use it for spread hate, threats, violence, harassment etc.
Banning an extension is justified only if it contains malware or serves exclusively for criminal acts, for example for illegal downloads or hacking passwords of others, etc.. -
@Gwen-Dragon I did a quick search and the only people that seem to be outraged over this are the alt-right and Breitbart. I don't think that even conservative media outlets like Fox News had anything to say about Dissenter's removal.
Here's recap of the events that eventually led to Gab (the people behind Dissenter) getting taken offline back in October: https://www.lawfareblog.com/gab-vanishes-and-internet-shrugs
Neither event got much coverage in mainstream or tech media.
-
@Gwen-Dragon Doesn't ad blocking violate their concept of free speech?
-
Even in the EC, the person directly responsible for a social network and its content is the owner of it and the consequences must be addressed if it allows criminal content on the part of the users. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression, calls to hatred and violence do not belong to this freedom.
-
Google and Mozilla own the platforms, so they can choose what to host.
The reason both have given is their ToS, that point that bullying and hate speech is not allowed, Gab doesn't moderate their content so it can access potentially hate, threats, harassment etc. While any social media can potentially access that content they remove this kind of content so it's not a certainty. So unless Dissenter creates a system that can hide this kind of content for the extension, they can't expect to have the extension back.
@Gwen-Dragon said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
Dissenter plays out victim card. But their devs are a bunch of lazybones. THEY make it uneasy to install the extension. They do not host a crx or xpi extension.
Obviously, they were banned, they can't sign it.
@Catweazle said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
Even in the EC, the person directly responsible for a social network and its content is the owner of it and the consequences must be addressed if it allows criminal content on the part of the users.
It is because the law says so, but I totally disagree. A restaurant is not responsible for what their clients are talking or graffiti'ing on their walls.
Plus this is the internet, not a country, there's a lot of stuff that is illegal only on some countries. Legality is not a valid argument at all. Legality is just what a bunch of idiots (politicians) have decided to be legal or not based on their own stupidity or personal interest.
-
@An_dz said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
Google and Mozilla own the platforms, so they can choose what to host.
The reason both have given is their ToS, that point that bullying and hate speech is not allowed, Gab doesn't moderate their content so it can access potentially hate, threats, harassment etc. While any social media can potentially access that content they remove this kind of content so it's not a certainty. So unless Dissenter creates a system that can hide this kind of content for the extension, they can't expect to have the extension back.
@Gwen-Dragon said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
Dissenter plays out victim card. But their devs are a bunch of lazybones. THEY make it uneasy to install the extension. They do not host a crx or xpi extension.
Obviously, they were banned, they can't sign it.
@Catweazle said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
Even in the EC, the person directly responsible for a social network and its content is the owner of it and the consequences must be addressed if it allows criminal content on the part of the users.
It is because the law says so, but I totally disagree. A restaurant is not responsible for what their clients are talking or graffiti'ing on their walls.
Plus this is the internet, not a country, there's a lot of stuff that is illegal only on some countries. Legality is not a valid argument at all. Legality is just what a bunch of idiots (politicians) have decided to be legal or not based on their own stupidity or personal interest.
All social networks have moderators and one or more administrators and just as the owner of a restaurant can and should avoid that a customer annoys or attacks other guests, throwing him onto the street, in the same way the owner of a social network is responsible for the content of users that affect others.
I do not think it is restricting freedom of expression if the administration of this forum bans a user, if he threatens other users, posts illegal content, promotes violence or xenophobia.
What would you do if you have a business and a customer comes in who insults and assaults others present?
Do you let him do it to respect the freedom of expression?
The freedom of each one ends at the point where the freedom of others begins, -
@Catweazle You are confusing freedom of expression (free speech) from rules of the establishment and criticism. Plus can/should is not the same as must, that is, the law must not demand that, it's only what you expect from an establishment.
Censorship (of free speech) is when the government silences a person or when someone uses violence to silence said person on their own property or in public space.
Assault is physical harm and that's not free speech at all in any form. Threatening/coercion is also connected to physical harm as you're forcing a person to do your biding otherwise you'll do physical harm; they also are not free speech. Free speech, as you said, ends where the freedom of the other begins.
Insulting is free speech but it does not mean that in my property (my house, restaurant, site etc.) I can't set up rules for that. A restaurant owner, as well as Vivaldi, has full right to remove people that do not adhere to the rules of the house. The Twitter/Gab example is the best; Twitter has rules that inciting hate or violence over racial, religious, or other ethnic aspect is out of the rules and you'll be banned, and that's not censorship because you have agreed to that when you registered there. Gab on the other hand does not have rules for what the content may contain, and that's also fine, it does mean that imbeciles are more likely to be there and this obviously makes the majority not wish to create an account. (e.g. I don't have Gab because of idiots). That's completely different from the government putting the responsibility of what others said on the owner.
And free speech does not blind you from criticism. Being insulted, shouted down, banned from some places, boycotted from all spheres of the society are all consequences of proffering imbecility.
@Gwen-Dragon said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
@An_dz said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:
Obviously, they were banned, they can't sign it.
Not completely true, you can sign a Chromium extension without such store.
I've never heard of signing Chromium extensions, and manually installing CRX on Chrome was removed for a long time. The only two methods I know of is by loading it unpacked (as they pointed out) or by managing group policy on Windows (which is far more complicated).