The "precise and specific actions" called for in that article, specifically for the purpose of combating speech that encourages violence, like homophobia or white supremacy:
Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.
Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.
Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.
Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.
Why can't a browser company just be opinionated about making the best browser? Why does it have to have a shitty controversial opinion about social media? I don't know why, but my trust in the org and therefore the browser itself is gone.
I don't think being anti white supremacy and homophobia is shitty or controversial. Why would an Internet company write an article about something that affects the biggest sector of the Internet, social media? 🤔
"No they should stay in their lane and only talk about, I don't know, CSS or something." I don't buy it.
Who said anything about white supremacy or homophobia?
Regardless, yes, they should refrain from controversial subjects that are not related to their business. And if they decide to make social media censorship their business in a direct way, also fuck em.
...the article you linked me? The topic of this discussion?
It shouldn't be controversial to anyone. The suggestions given there are pretty mild.
Regardless, justice is not the absence of conflict. Sorry the article made you upset but that doesn't make it wrong.
I don't give a damn about the article. I only stated my reasons why Firefox and Chrome are total deal breakers for me. Maybe there's a better browser than all of them, but for now I'm happy with Brave.
And your opinion is your opinion, it isn't universal. Stop thinking that it is.
The opinion:
"Homophobia and white supremacy are bad and should be combated"
It's interesting that you think firefox is being "controversial" when their CEO writes a couple paragraphs about combating hate speech online, but brave isn't when their CEO sends money to hate organizations. 🤔
If the user share of Firefox falls too low websites will stop supporting it (which is already happening), we will have given google the internet. Everything that is not Firefox is based on Chrome.
The "precise and specific actions" called for in that article, specifically for the purpose of combating speech that encourages violence, like homophobia or white supremacy:
Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.
Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.
Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.
Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.
What's your problem here?
This, because it's a fucking web browser, and it can be weaponized for bad while pretending to be good.
The article is about social media.
Why can't a browser company just be opinionated about making the best browser? Why does it have to have a shitty controversial opinion about social media? I don't know why, but my trust in the org and therefore the browser itself is gone.
I don't think being anti white supremacy and homophobia is shitty or controversial. Why would an Internet company write an article about something that affects the biggest sector of the Internet, social media? 🤔
"No they should stay in their lane and only talk about, I don't know, CSS or something." I don't buy it.
Who said anything about white supremacy or homophobia?
Regardless, yes, they should refrain from controversial subjects that are not related to their business. And if they decide to make social media censorship their business in a direct way, also fuck em.
...the article you linked me? The topic of this discussion?
It shouldn't be controversial to anyone. The suggestions given there are pretty mild. Regardless, justice is not the absence of conflict. Sorry the article made you upset but that doesn't make it wrong.
I don't give a damn about the article. I only stated my reasons why Firefox and Chrome are total deal breakers for me. Maybe there's a better browser than all of them, but for now I'm happy with Brave.
And your opinion is your opinion, it isn't universal. Stop thinking that it is.
The opinion:
"Homophobia and white supremacy are bad and should be combated"
It's interesting that you think firefox is being "controversial" when their CEO writes a couple paragraphs about combating hate speech online, but brave isn't when their CEO sends money to hate organizations. 🤔
If the user share of Firefox falls too low websites will stop supporting it (which is already happening), we will have given google the internet. Everything that is not Firefox is based on Chrome.