
Firefox bans free speech commenting plugin Dissenter from its extensions gallery - rancyber
https://reclaimthenet.org/firefox-rejects-free-speech-bans-free-speech-commenting-plugin-dissenter-from-its-extensions-gallery/
======
jjulius
I didn't know much about Dissenter until I Googled it just now, and it looks
like its audience is primarily folk on the far/alt-right. Hell, it was created
by Gab[1].

Given the rhetoric that is often found in comments from those groups, it's not
too hard to imagine that the complaints Mozilla cited as the reasons for
removal are legitimate.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#Dissenter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_\(social_network\)#Dissenter)

~~~
identity_zero
So, if the audience was far-left/Communist it would be okay? Because that
seems to be what Facebook is trying to do.

~~~
syshum
For the HN Community yes...

Far-left / Socialist is the only "acceptable" way of thinking

anything Libertarian, (which is labeled "far-right" now) should be shut down,
out, and banned

~~~
dragonwriter
> anything Libertarian, (which is labeled "far-right" now)

US Capital-“L” Libertarians tend to be solid-to-far right _as well as_
libertarian, but, no, genuine center- and left-libertarian isn't usually
called far-right by anyone.

Also, right-libertarians are a pretty big segment of the HN community,
possibly more dominant than anything on the left.

~~~
gspetr
Uh, personalities like Joe Rogan and Tim Pool have been called far-right[0],
then there are also secular muslims who get called "anti-muslim extremists" by
SPLC[1]. So unless you want to claim that these aren't "true scotsmen", there
are most certainly people who get called far-right, who are anything but.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-A_aNMe1Wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-A_aNMe1Wk)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz#SPLC_claim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz#SPLC_claim)

------
Karunamon
This is censorship, pure and simple. Gab, and Dissenter itself for that
matter, are apolitical entitles whose stated goal is to allow any speech so
long as it doesn't violate law. Say whatever you want, regardless of your
political leanings. Admirable.

Mozilla has made their stance on such a goal clear. I don't believe for a hot
second that this wasn't a politically-motivated decision, and it really puts
the lie to their claims of protecting "a free and open web".

"Free and open" is diametrically opposed to blocking an addon whose sole
purpose is to allow access to a third party web service.

------
flukus
What's the status of third party, unauthorized firefox extensions these days,
didn't they ban them or make them a pain in the arse to use several years ago?

They might not have to host it, but if they make it hard/impossible for others
to host and use it then they're certainly violating the first of the four
freedoms of free software: [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
sw.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)

------
peterhadlaw
It's stuff like this that makes it a far cry to call Mozilla "open" and "free"

~~~
0815test
Dissenters is a commercial platform, Mozilla are simply under no obligation to
promote it or give it a spotlight under addons.mozilla.org. Unless you can
point to a similar addon from some alt-left site that they have approved,
there's no reason to suspect that this was a political decision.

~~~
mymindstorm
Firefox requires that extension files be signed by Mozilla if you want to
install a .xpi file from a website. They don't have to be given a spotlight,
but this effectively makes it impossible for anyone who doesn't know how to
manually compile and install the extension to even use it.

~~~
Karunamon
No compilation necessary. You just download the addon source, flip on the
"debug plugins" option, and point it at the manifest file.

Still a pain in the ass.

------
luhego
Please, tell me again why Firefox is not evil and respect their users.

~~~
jjulius
Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far/alt-right online platform. Such
groups are known for fostering hostile environments online towards people of
various religions, races, cultural/political views, etc.. It is by no means a
stretch of the imagination for Mozilla to claim that users of the app were
using it for such purposes. As such, it would be apropos for Mozilla to remove
an app that provides a platform for individuals to disrespect others.

Were Mozilla to keep it up, they would not be "respect[ing] their users".

~~~
freshm087
_Because Dissenter was created by Gab, a far /alt-right online platform._

So what? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. It's doesn't look like
anybody was forced to use the extension, you don't like it - don't use it. If
it's ok to use clear-cut ideological censorship for plugins/extensions, then
it's ok to block websites. Personally, I find it hard to accept.

~~~
evgen
Does the removal of the extension from the extension gallery prevent people
from using the extension or just limit its exposure? If the latter then there
is not censorship but simply Mozilla deciding the cost is not worth the
bother. No one has any particular right to be promoted by Mozilla.

~~~
javagram
As far as i can see from the article, Mozilla is still agreeing to sign the
addon, just not to list it in the AMO site.

The article lists an 8 step process and claims users would have to follow that
on each restart of Firefox to enable the addon. I’m not sure if that’s true,
as the guidelines I can see on other websites seem to suggest self hosting
addons shouldn’t have that problem.

~~~
mymindstorm
If Mozilla won't sign it, you have to install it manually. [0]

[0]: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/Dis...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/Distribution#Signing_your_add-ons)

------
writepub
Playbook of valley companies in 2019:

\- Systemically ban and censor conservative speech. Never-mind that 50% of the
country and about 70% of the world adheres to the EXACT same, fairly
reasonable opinions.

\- Launch a massive PR campaign (opening salvo of which is accusations of Nazi
adherence) against those crying foul, or pointing out the clear ultra-left
bias in censorship and actions

\- Claim that private companies hold no MORAL responsibility to uphold
constitutionally guaranteed free speech laws

\- Claim that the internet be treated as a utility, with free access to
everyone, but ignore the fact that massive monopolies controlling the REAL
utilitarian aspects of the internet (search, email, payments, hosting, cloud,
etc. ) are all in cahoots to kill conservative speech, with cognitive
dissonance of how they've combined to de-platform entire philosophies from the
internet that they control

\- Behave with absolute impunity with political agendas, and claim to be
neutral

------
diminoten
I don't think these folks understand the first amendment if they think it's
relevant here...

------
jakeogh
It's almost like they want to fail.

------
jressey
If you have to create a special message board that is the only place where you
can say what you want to, perhaps you should think about what you are saying.

This is so obviously not an issue of "free speech." Free speech means the
government cannot prosecute you for what you say. Any company can tell you to
fuck off for any reason though, and that's the free market all the "free
speech" advocates love so much.

~~~
Nasrudith
> If you have to create a special message board that is the only place where
> you can say what you want to, perhaps you should think about what you are
> saying.

That only shows that reception to what is being said is overwhelmingly
negative. Society has an unfortunate long history of doing that for arbitrary
and stupid things. There are legitimate reasons for using something like this.

Granted with the "alt-right" it is a clear case of "They laughed at Einstein
but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".

I can't help but think it is a shame that an overlay messageboard concept like
that wound up being used in a double rot13 cryptofascist dumpster fire.
Although it would probably always tend toward toxicity given its usefulness
for hatedoms of any sort.

I'm imagining a useful fact checker one slapped over news websites and even
maintaining "score" of accuracy per author, site, and topic.

~~~
deogeo
> They laughed at Einstein but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown

Off topic, but I don't think they laughed at Einstein. Special and general
relativity were well received by the scientific community, weren't they?

~~~
Nasrudith
Sort of - he got it published easily enough and the revered Max Planck praised
it highly within a year and lectured on it but he certainly faced resistance.
He had some allies who were themselves great mathematicians and physicists but
he didn't exactly get the red carpet rolled out for him. It took four years
after publication to get an associate professor position sufficient to resign
from the patent office.

