Mozilla / Firefox goes all in for EVIL…

>lewrockwell.com

Attached: 1298527151028.jpg (627x627, 25K)

I hope this is bait

>posts link to fake news website

herpa derp NN is bad because I'm an ignorant corporate bootlicker who loves getting cock in his ass.

He's right about this shit being stupid and censorious though.

fake news, fuck off

Wanting facts instead of opinions for news is bad? Fact checking is bad?

Ministry of Truth is bad. I can filter news fine on my own. Don't care about uneducated amerifats who can't do the same because they continue voting corporate Democrats and Republicans who keep them uneducated and rape them in their bungholes.

Letting retards believe actual fake news is dangerous. Not only for them but everyone else too. It's not unwise to do what they're doing.

You get fake news from major "reputable" news sources as well, and sometimes they don't even correct themselves. Stop treating the symptom while the whole system breaks apart. You'll just mask the impending doom, if not accelerate it.

>muh breitbart and infowars
good riddance

>implying there aren't articles that are blatantly false or malicious
What do you have against not using these as reliable sources of news? And yes people have made mistakes. Part of this initiative is to help mitigate that. I don't understand your stance on this.

Not him but from what i've seen since Trump got elected, CNN has been caught far more times peddling fake news than Fox

Do you honestly think they will call out CNN?

Nope. When they talk about fake news, what they actually mean is new ways to limit conservative reach

Yes, fact checking is usually bad. At least in the form it exists now where the fact checkers are extremely biased, one way or the other

Show me a reliable, 100% neutral fact checking site

Anyone using Firefox after they kicked out Eich is a complete retard

which browser do you suggest to use instead?

Did you even read the link here You're going to extremes. Again, what do you have against not using blatant false news as part of mozillas optional newsfeed?
You can either verify facts or not. Not much wiggle room.

Not the same user.
If it's just on Mozilla's optional newsfeed, I don't really care, but if they're not allowing you to GET and POST (on the browser, of course) on say, infowars, then that is a problem.

Attached: 1516270109336.jpg (300x300, 23K)

Provide 1(ONE) example of them censoring, I don't give a shit what they talk about doing

What does it mean to "block media sources at browser level" and how does that work exactly?
Also what about Firefox forks like Pale Moon or Waterfox?

>block at the browser level
any source on this specifically? I don't really care if another misguided corporation is trying to censor speech as long as I have a way to turn it off.

>to me it sounds like they're actually researching ways to combat fake news and misinformation.
That's code word for "combat everyone Google doesn't like"

Probably a local domain name blocklist.
Or, perhaps blocking a site if it is likely to be """fake news""" via a score via words/context.

Attached: 1494091462589.jpg (560x560, 306K)

>Probably a local domain name blocklist.
you mean like blocking e.g. www.fakenews.com from loading?

Yes, or like I said, a fake_news score via words/context.
Or both.

Attached: 1492101428339.jpg (539x477, 34K)

Spbp
Turns out that the people raging against jewzilla here are the ones who need that whatever-initiative the most because of being too retarded for actually checking the info they've just read on some weird ass website

Explicitly not allowing you to visit sites across the browser is not at all what it sounds like or what they are even about. And even if something gets implemented it will be optional like always.

Firefox 48 doesn't have this problem

Welcome to the Bolshevik takeover of America. I give it about a year before the shooting starts. Maybe a year and half until you hear the gunfire at night down the road.

>And even if something gets implemented it will be optional like always
I hope so, but honestly I don't like this concept at all from the beginning. I can understand blocking malware, but blocking speech you don't agree with is retarded, and says a lot about the people behind it.
Then again, I'd let The Onion be in the news feed, so what do I know.
I wouldn't put it past big tech to implement blocking GET and POST for websites, or if the page is over the fake_news score limit.

Attached: 1513375689369.png (740x720, 655K)

Except realistically the kind of person who needs a fake news label/block (ie someone with no critical thinking skills) is exactly the same kind of person who would automatically assume that the label is put there by jews and mega corps to try and hide information.

Do you really think someone who reads fake news as fact is going to see an interstitial warning from jewzilla and NOT do everything in their power to bypass it? Do you really think that label isn't going to just affirm their beliefs that it's not fake?

You can't offload critical thinking to a corporation and assume it will work. It won't. People are still uneducated and unable to think critically for themselves. Facebook already tried this and things labeled as fake news blew up in popularity.

>but blocking speech you don't agree with is retarded, and says a lot about the people behind it.
What is bad about not allowing actual fake news in their feed? They are not blocking opinions.
>I wouldn't put it past big tech to implement blocking GET and POST for websites, or if the page is over the fake_news score limit.
I can see an extension being made that blocks certain sites with poor reputations based on a community score.

You underestimate the stupidity and gullibleness of people. It really is in everyones best interest to have news sources verified with todays internet and society.

I don't use Mozilla's news feed, so maybe I'm not aware, but doesn't it just pull off of google news or an RSS for an amount of mainstream news sites?
If they're hosting a list on their server, then fine, whatever.
If they're fetching live, then that's something I'm not fond of.

>I can see an extension being made that blocks certain sites with poor reputations based on a community score.
Of course, after enough lobbying, that extension will be a locked config "option" in the mainline browser.
But, I can understand how you might say I'm making a slippery slope fallacy, and maybe I am, but right now, the direction seems to be affirming my claim.

Attached: 1518669420174.gif (629x236, 1.78M)

>combat fake news and misinformation.
So exactly what do you refer to as fake news and misinformation?

Now ask yourself who gets to decide what gets labeled fake news and misinformation.

Now ask yourself what rich uber powerful people want defined as fake news and misinformation.

If "fake news" and "misinformation" is blocked then it becomes increasingly difficult to question or fact check the narrative

is waterfox or icecat worthy alternative?

>You underestimate the stupidity and gullibleness of people
And yet you intend to make those same people into the gatekeepers of what knowledge is labeled valid, completely putting personal feelings and biases aside? Even an intelligent well educated individual would have trouble meeting that expectation.

Not sure your logic follows user.

Attached: 150px-Turnerdiariescover.jpg (150x234, 12K)

I don't think anything is affirming your claim(s). Based on your questions and assumptions you dont sound familiar at all with what what is happening.

You think facts can't be verified to be true, false, or unconfirmed? You're trying be sound like an intellectual yet you cant even understand the initiative.

W A T E R F O X

>So exactly what do you refer to as fake news and misinformation?
The term "fake news" had a very narrow scope, it was specifically for stories that were made up and could be easily proven false with factual evidence.

>I don't think anything is affirming your claim(s)
Except the censorship of anything that's not the authoritarian "left" on various social media platforms.

>You think facts can't be verified to be true, false, or unconfirmed
(Not the same user)
The problem is who labels, and who's pockets they're in. It's a nice idea, but it's going to be, and is, abused.

Attached: 1500134872180.png (291x312, 146K)

I like Firefox. But let's not act like Mozilla is a good organization.

As I understood it, right now they're just researching and developing ways to deal with misinformation.
I really hope they come up with a better solution than some business or government entity deciding what's right and what's not, and then labeling everything undesirable media as fake news or even blocking it entirely.
If that's what they're after, then I agree, that would be rather sketchy.

>The problem is who labels, and who's pockets they're in. It's a nice idea, but it's going to be, and is, abused.
Facts are not opinion based. What your saying isnt even applicable.

Yes, the term "fake news" seems to and should be self explanatory. But anyone that has been paying attention to the news for the last couple of years has likely heard two sides of the same argument declaring that the other side is fake news. Both of them can't be right....

So I say again, who get's to decide what is "fake news" and "misinformation"?

I personally want unfettered access to all the information on the internet and elsewhere so that I at least have the ability to do my own research.

Well, that's the thing.
Facts are facts, that's without a doubt, but the problem is that people lie, and say facts are not facts.
If you allow those people to control speech, you will have a society of lies masquerading as facts.
Do you understand why this is a problem if it goes further now?

Attached: 1497394510698.jpg (358x428, 55K)

>So I say again, who get's to decide what is "fake news" and "misinformation"?
No one that's why it requires factual evidence that can be easily proven.

See Fake news is not opinion. Its something that can be proven false.

>people lie
Thats what fake news is and what the initiative is for!!!

What about scenarios where factual evidence is not readily available?

Then you cant really do anything until you know more. That would be the logical, no?

>Thats what fake news is and what the initiative is for!!!
You're either trolling, or are having some sort of cognitive dissonance.
We all know there exists real fake news, which I personally do not think should be censored, but you also have news that disagrees with a mainstream narrative that is not fake.
Are you saying there should only be one source of news, and that all others are fake and should be censored, user?
How do we know that one source of news is real? What stick do we have to measure it? How do you do a science experiment with no control group?

Attached: 1515544375103.jpg (200x200, 12K)

fuck off. even "trusted" sources are shit. these "fake" sources are actually probably more truthful and closer to the truth.

Then the story isn't "fake news" its unsubstantiated. Real news agencies do not post unsubstantiated news unless the information contained in the report is very important and they will usually indicate that the story is a rumor or unverified somewhere.

Yes, that was my point. In spite of that we see corporate tech giants banning people that disagree with them regardless of any actual wrong doing or evidence thereof.

Why the fuck are they wasting foundation money on this bullshit?
Also,
>pocket

Brave

Funny how everyone likes to talk shit about Fake News but literally every news outlet still runs those shitty ass fake ads which if you click the link brings you to a page that has nothing to do with what was in the advert. But that is ok because it benefits them.

Also why would a respectable news agency be posting a story that doesn't have any factual evidence to back it up?

>there exists real fake news
Example?
I really think I'm the one being trolled here.

>how can news be verified?
By confirming what was being reported. Its either true, false, or unconfirmed. How is this hard to grasp?

>Vivaldi is good
This entire image is retarded and nothing that person says has any relevance.

Well, The Onion would be the most prominent example. It's comedy of course, but it is fake.

>By confirming what was being reported. Its either true, false, or unconfirmed. How is this hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp; It's just impossible to implement, and is abused by financial interests to propagate a certain narrative.

Attached: 1483426471488.png (428x417, 245K)

>You think facts can't be verified to be true, false, or unconfirmed?
Not in an unbiased way in this context, no. It's very difficult to even condense an online article into facts.

Who chooses which statements are facts which need to be verified and which statements are just editorial or conversational? You could ostensibly take a single article and present it in two completely different ways depending on which parts of it you try to verify as fact.

Conclusions drawn from statistical and analytical studies, while based in fact, can produce completely different conclusions. Do you really think the gullible and stupid people you put in charge of fact checking will have the presence of mind to realize this? Or to not act on a bias knowingly or not when examining data like this?

I think it's naive at best to think this won't be abused (intentionally or not). You're not actually solving any problem. Stupid people are still stupid, even if you try to think for them. And at the point you're just controlling them, not helping them.

Hypothetical situation: I show you pictures of things outside of your window and tell you that they are true or false. You can easily look out the window and verify whether or not I am lying.

Then I cover up the window and keep showing you pictures of things outside your window and telling you that they are true or false. How can you tell whether I am lying? Where's the evidence? You can't see it "for national security reasons."

>Brave
>Vivaldi
Just use Pale Moon, Waterfox, or Chromium.
Brave having the ability to make payments seems like a botnet waiting to happen, if it isn't one already.

>Brave
spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html
>Vivaldi
spyware.neocities.org/articles/vivaldi.html
Iridium is the only sane option.
spyware.neocities.org/articles/iridium.html

Define respectable. Many news agencies, both mainstream and alternative, do it all the time

kys Jow Forumstard

I love Pale Moon and use it regularly. But it won't let me access PayPal and a few other sites

>won't let me access PayPal
wut
explain

Its been confirmed one way or another before. I have no reason believe otherwise until proven. Or I could be logical and assume nothing lasts forever and things change.

exactly, which is why you should be sent to reeducation camp and learn facts

>vivaldi a "freemiun" licensed browser
>brave which is so desperate for users it's offering up 5 million dollars to youtube/twitch streamers to shill for them

They each get $5 per users LOL
They also built a tracking API for their private advertising firm clientel who investing in their startup backbone and paid into their crypto racket.

Nice alternatives faggot.

Iridium is your friend.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the actual browser or the actual browser devs.
Second, the post alone is fake news. Mozilla is fighting for user rights, the fuck more do you want? Sure, Brave has done a lot for user privacy online but them using a chromium base means you have significantly less privacy options. And they also use an ABP-like blocker instead of integrating uBlock Origin which is infinitely better and more efficient.

>Iridium
It's trash based on chrome. Brave 1.0 will be better. Brave is literally the only good Blink browser.
There's literally nothing bad listed there that can't be disabled, aside from automatic updates. Addons will come in 1.0, brave is still in beta and reviewing it now doesn't make much sense.

it displays a page cannot be found message, but if I switch to another browser it works fine.

There's other sites that just keep trying to load indefinately

Brave is utter garbage and way slower than vanilla chrome, which is astonishing. Iridium is chrome without the spyware which at least is usable and not obscure like otterbrowser or qutebrowser.

So you would blindly believe what was being presented as truth or fiction without attempting to verify on your own?

>slower than chrome
It's literally just as fast and even scores better in benchmarks.

That's strange, perhaps it's a user agent issue? Use an add-on that switches user agents and try to access it again

Wouldnt it be nice if there was an initiative that would verify if a story is true, false, or unconfirmed?

Where did I say or imply that?

Most fake news isn't 100% fake, it's just extremely exaggerated, biased, or misrepresented to get an emotional reaction out of the viewers. Mozilla is probably talking about censoring smaller outlets like InfoWars and Breitbart, not CNN or MSNBC even though they have the same terrible credibility.

>smaller outlets
>InfoWars

I think thats where peoples definition of fake news differs.

>Wouldnt it be nice if there was an initiative that would verify if a story is true, false, or unconfirmed?
There is, it's called your brain.

>Where did I say or imply that?
"Its been confirmed one way or another before. I have no reason believe otherwise until proven."

You are believing what you are told until it can be proven otherwise

Actually you're right, I didn't realize infowars was that big these days. Really all news in the current year is total trash. I can't stand how the MSM churns out "DRUMPF" articles 24/7. It's fucking disgusting actually.

It got bigger after the recent bans and it will certainly get bigger if browsers start filtering/banning it as "fake news"

The same happened to me, all I get is this warning message but in chrome everything looks fine.

Attached: 0649081918.png (935x381, 25K)

More like it's code word for "Stop taking away my pizzagate bullshit Alex Jones shilling"

mine didn't warn of the security risk, it just told me that the page could not be displayed as If I had no internet connection.

>Fake news website scared of a fake news website blocker

Wow a surprising turn of events.

>There is, it's called your brain.
Sadly, not everyone has that luxury.

>You are believing what you are told until it can be proven otherwise
And? "Until proven otherwise" can be of my own accord. You assumed I wouldn't use my own collective research and knowledge.