Mozilla Foundation is trying to silence "harmful content"

Open Policy + Advocacy
1

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.

2 Likes
2

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.

2 Likes
3

absolutely! censorship is the bane of the free net.

1 Like
4

Should Mozilla oppose Twitter shutting down/blocking President Trump’s account numerous times?

Or the red-line comments placed by Facebook and YouTube under posts and videos that differed with their personal political views, or simply removing them so they could not be seen?

How about the way search engines filter search results and the way news outlets cover only one side of a story and completely ignore the other?

Are these forms of censorship that should be opposed by Mozilla also, or are we talking only about protecting YouTube’s right to recommend “harmful” content?

5

… Okay. Now let’s talk about double standards on social media that are run by people like Mozilla CEO Mitchell Baker…

6

Would you please elaborate? A fair and consistent standard is important, of course.

7

This isn’t about “filth”. Youtube/Twitter/etc let people mark things as 18+ and let others filter that out. If someone posts porn as G-rated, it’s OK for them to take action like temporarily suspending that person or adding the 18+ tag.

This is about hiding content from people based on the viewpoints in the content.

Are there things those in Saudi Arabia, China, etc should know but that are being hidden from them?

Have there been cases in U.S. history where important information not involving war secrets etc was only revealed later on?

Can you conceive of there being things you should know but don’t because it’s been censored?

Are you comfortable with @Jack, Zuck, & Google treating you like a child and deciding what you can and can’t see on their platforms which are in effect monopolies?

P.S. Mozilla has deleted both comments I left on their pro-censorship “Regrets” addon.

8

The article you referenced in the original post was specifically about the content that YouTube returns.

In regards to what you wrote in this last post, I agree with you for the most part; but don’t find you’re examples concerning Mozilla to be related.

I don’t think President Trump, as you mentioned at the first, has censored anyone but has been the victim of censorship by the groups you mention. Whether or not Mozilla is in support of that censorship, I don’t know. I don’t think the article you referenced at the first should be considered censorship, for it’s not in the same category at all. Harmful content was specific to YouTube videos.

There was a post here a couple months ago in which someone took offense to Mozilla taking the position that Facebook was supporting what they termed hate speech and encouraging individuals and business to not support it. The poster felt that was against freedom of speech. I tried to exchange messages with that poster but the post was eventually removed.

I read that the owner of Facebook put $500 million in this presidential election. Why? And Twitter blocked President Trump multiple times. Both groups and the news media suppressed multiple news stories also and twisted the ones they covered.

I viewed some of the election fraud hearings and YouTube/Google and Twitter put the red line under them stating it was proven that there was no fraud. I don’t know the extent of it firsthand; obviously, I could not; but there were a lot of people testifying that signed affidavits under penalty of perjury, and they and their testimony were ignored. There were a lot of people from multiple states. I have a hard time believing that they’re either all liars guilty of perjury and got together to perpetrate a fraud, or they’re all stupid. I doubt they’ll ever be prosecuted, unless we go to real communism here.

I read also that Facebook dropped around $50 billion in market value in a couple days
because investors didn’t like their behavior or expected that it would result in a drop and wanted out before it took place.

I don’t use any social media. It’s always looked rather stupid to me. I’d never trust it to be true and have no desire to post my life publicly or read garbage people post. The easiest thing to do is not use them but individuals and corporations fund and empower them. Ridiculously, even conservative organizations that speak against them then ask readers to share it on Facebook or Twitter. How absurd!

I don’t think Saudi Arabia and China are being censored, except by their own governments. I think their governments are instead using social media in attempt to wrongly influence people. I just read yesterday about the government of China creating something like 167,000 social media accounts to target leaders that were against shut-downs due to COVID. I don’t know if it’s true; but my web site gets searched every day by multiple countries.

I just looked at the Regrets add-on and it is about YouTube content again, about regretting having viewed something. That’s not censorship, or at least not the type you introduced into the discussion in this last post. That’s people commenting on what they were able to view.

Censorship you’re talking about is what YouTube won’t make available. What a search engine won’t return. What Facebook and Twitter suppress or remove. For example, I read yesterday about the people that died in Norway after receiving the new vaccine. I told someone about it and they searched on Google for it and couldn’t find it. I tried and couldn’t find it on Google either; but it was the first item returned by Duck Duck Go. That’s censorship. Perhaps, I’m a lousy searcher but we used the same search terms in both cases.

David Barton claims that he searched for people in American history that were Christians and Bing returned no results while Duck Duck Go had pages of results. I did not try it myself at that time and cannot say for sure; but, if true, that’s censorship.

I don’t know Mozilla’s position on these things but the harmful content and Regrets add-on aren’t the issue. They are about the quality and type of content on YouTube. Doesn’t Google own YouTube? If you’re upset about Google, why do care about YouTube being censored rather than YouTube performing the censorship?

I’m not trying to antagonize you or even disagree with you. I just don’t see what the benefit would be if Mozilla got rid of the Regrets add-on and didn’t care what garbage YouTube’s algorithm returns. The biggest problems you mentioned would all still be there.

I agree that the greatest concern is not about censoring harmful content, it’s about censoring the truth. It just appears to me that people get upset about wanting to protect the former and end up enabling the performance of the latter. Do you remember the Scopes Monkey Trials? They wanted to include the so-called theory of evolution in the school curriculum, which was teaching Creationism as they seem to call it now (and I don’t really know what they’re putting under that heading today but am only trying to make an historical point here). What was the result of including another opinion that shouldn’t be censored? The complete removal of the other from the schools. It’s never about freedom but about removing the truth.

Did you read about what they want to remove from the school curriculum now? The American Revolution, the Civil War, WW I, WW II. Anything that has any reference to slavery ever. There goes the Democratic Party, eh? They seceded because they wanted slavery. Did you know the first black congressmen were all Republicans? (By the way, I’m not promoting the Republican Party here; just stating a historical fact.)

I don’t know why people want to their information from social media or search engines anyway, the issue goes well beyond that.

They want to remove the truth. I can see your point in the extension of what is deemed harmful. For example, they are trying to say that since slavery is bad, it should never be mentioned again, and should be removed from all history books and speech. So, then, where the Bible mentions slavery–you know, the nation Israel in slavery in Egypt for 430 years–that would be bad to say, too, right? Wrong!

The motives go way beyond social media. Social media is just an easy way to influence the mobs.

Thus, if that’s your concern, then I agree with you. I just don’t understand why you’re wasting your time on Mozilla when the battle is with Google, Facebook, Twitter, and whoever uses them as a means of implementing the real censorship.

We’ll see how long this post lasts, huh?

9

Mozilla should not allow their moderators to express their own opinions in a Mozilla platform. There should be no political ads that are presented by Mozilla. I noticed some unsolicited political articles coming from ‘pocket’. The key is that Mozilla should not try and influence their users either by censoring content that they do not agree with or promoting their own.

Mitchell Baker has expressed her political opinion on a Mozilla platform several times assuming that she has a duty to decide what She thinks is the truth instead of stating both sides in a neutral manner.

She should express her opinions on a different platform than where she is arbitrating.

11

@anon48797620 I agree with you on this, especially in this day and age.

12

@Flyingedge,
Then again, Mozilla is trying to balance censorship with net neutrality. If Mozilla was going to solicit political ads, then that can be seen as treating those ads unequally as non-political ads; doing this would resulting in Mozilla not upholding net neutrality.