Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    @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.


  • Banned

    Catweazle you are 1,000,000% correct that the vast majority are in agreement with torque.


  • Moderator

    @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. πŸ‘Ώ
    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.


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    @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. πŸ‘Ώ
    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..


  • Moderator

    @Catweazle said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:

    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..

    I fear it is dependent on law what a crime is and what support of a crime means.


  • Moderator

    @LordOfTheNet said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:

    Catweazle you are 1,000,000% correct that the vast majority are in agreement with torque.

    Please tell me more. Is there any majority defending the banned extension? Where can is see this on WWW? Do you have a link? Reddit? Or where?


  • Moderator

    @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?


  • Moderator

    @xyzzy Ah, well known radical groups who always feel be suppressed.


  • Moderator

    And the US organzation defending free speech ACLU do not say anything about that ban.
    In searches i did not find any post from ACLU which always defends speech and civil rights.


  • Moderator

    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.
    At https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/gab-dissenter-extension/releases are no signed extensions.

    Installing a exteion by loading uncompressed source is a bullshit!
    https://dissenter.com/download

    Downloads & Installation Instructions

    Select Browser Download

    Download the chrome extension

    Click the button below and your download will begin.

    Download Source Code

    Then

    Installation instructions for Chrome

    Follow the step by step instructions to successfully install and use the extension.

    1 Download and Unzip

    Download the extension and unzip it. Find "dissenter_extension_chrome_v015" folder.

    2 Navigate to the Extensions Page

    Go to chrome://extensions in the URL bar.

    3 Turn on "Developer Mode"

    In the top right corner of the extensions page, toggle "Developer Mode" on.

    4 Click "Load Unpacked"

    Click on the "Load Unpacked" button in the top left of the extensions page.

    5 Select the Folder

    After clicking "Load Unpacked", the file opener opens, select the extension's entire folder "dissenter_extension_chrome_v015" then click "Select".

    6 Find the extension in the Navigation Bar

    The Gab Dissenter "g" logo should appear in the Chrome navigation bar.

    7 Use the extension

    If you have any questions, suggestions, ideas, or bugs to report, please reach out to support@gab.com.

    I do not imagine why they do propose the hardest way for Chromium users to install. May be that is their revenge.

    Extension developers know there is a professional way with a signed extension dragging in Extension Manager's Developer Mode. But Dissenter do not provide this.


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    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.


  • Moderator

    @Catweazle said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:

    It has nothing to do with freedom of expression, calls to hatred and violence do not belong to this freedom.

    So true.


  • Moderator

    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.


  • Moderator

    @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.


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    @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,


  • Moderator

    @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).



  • I wholly approve the logic that stands behind banning a piece of software because some users utilise it to spread their twisted views about life.
    I wish this logic can be applied to make sure that this world is made to be a truly safe place by banning the internet all together.
    Because as we all know, what is screwing this world up is people expressing their twisted views online, and not governments' policies that favour the interests of the few over the interests of the many.
    As the joke goes: Julian Assange who gives private information on corporations and governments to you for free is called by the "Times" a criminal , while Mark Zuckerberg that gives your private information to governments and corporations for money is called by the "Times" Man of the year.


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    @raed said in Firefox and Chrome banned Dissenter:

    I wholly approve the logic that stands behind banning a piece of software because some users utilise it to spread their twisted views about life.
    I wish this logic can be applied to make sure that this world is made to be a truly safe place by banning the internet all together.
    Because as we all know, what is screwing this world up is people expressing their twisted views online, and not governments' policies that favour the interests of the few over the interests of the many.
    As the joke goes: Julian Assange who gives private information on corporations and governments to you for free is called by the "Times" a criminal , while Mark Zuckerberg that gives your private information to governments and corporations for money is called by the "Times" Man of the year.

    There is certainly hypocrisy on this issue, but neither should software be confused with a social network. The author of a software (if it is not directed directly at criminal acts) has no influence on the use that users give, in a social network. however, the administrator can have control over the use.
    But I also think that social networks that spy on the user should be considered as spyware and treated as such.
    Many social networks would be empty if the user would bother to read the TOS of this, in many cases abusive (FB)


 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.