Mozilla Foundation is trying to silence "harmful content"

See twitter . com/mozilla/status/1204402910290960384 (“YouTube finally acknowledged their recommendation engine suggests harmful content…”)

Obviously, Trump, SJWs, Putin, the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, North Korea, etc., etc. all have their own definitions of “harmful content” & all would eagerly censor it.

Whose definition should we use?

Does anyone want Mozilla Foundation or any of the rest deciding what they can and cannot see?

Mozilla Foundation should oppose censorship, not push it.

Here’s a different view to consider. A level of censorship would be a good thing and the argument that all censorship is bad is rather old and primarily used by those (and I’m not implying you personally in any way) who want to promote views or materials that are generally immoral filth and considered to be just that by most reasonable people. There can be a clear definition of that which is obscene and harmful. There are laws concerning these today in many areas.

For example, freedom of speech is not the freedom to say any filthy thing one wants in any setting and time. Others ought to have the right to not have to hear it and be exposed to it. Most parents expect a fairly tight level of censorship in the language used by the teachers of their children and the materials presented to them. Most businesses expect the same from their employees in dealing with customers. A standard has existed and is definable.

For many of us, it would be nice to search a topic without having to come across something dirty all the time. The point seems more akin to keeping the ‘public’ areas clean and keeping the rest available only under a more direct request. It would be nice if the internet were more business like, professional, for general public use.

I’m glad to see Mozilla take a stand toward cleaning things up.

I doubt that any of the content that Mozilla considers harmful would be permitted to be displayed today in any of the nations listed in your comment. I don’t agree with the politcal views and religious views of those nations in general, but their rules concerning dirty material are strict. In this area, the United States ought to be ashamed.

The article that I read by Mozilla had nothing to do with differences in politics or the like. What good change can be cited as the result of reducing the level of censorship in the United States over the last 50 to 70 years? How has society improved? All I can see is an increase in immorality and harm to young people who are most vulnerable; and we ought to be concerned about them over someone’s assumed right to ‘express’ one’s self.

In regards to your comment concerning what definition should be used, I don’t think it’s that difficult; for it’s that which can be agreed upon by reasonable adults who have a concern for family, the home, children, our nation, moralilty, and I dare say Christianity and the Biblical principles the U.S. was founded upon. Some still exist today and ought to be heard. Many such definitions and standards or codes of conduct exist in many areas of professional life today. We all have a sense of what right and wrong are.

So, again, I’m glad to see Mozilla take a stand toward cleaning things up.