The Mozilla article posted above doesn't advocate violence against any group (unlike Christians, Conservatives, anti-vaxers and Trump voters, who often do.) It's brief so I will post the four points that it does advocate for here, verbatim, since this is Hacker News and I assume no one will bother, otherwise:
- 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.
Implying that Mozilla are seeking the extermination of undesirables like modern day Nazis is, at best, an uncharitable reading. Also note that all of these points except the third (amplifying factual voices over disinformation) are advocated by conservatives as well, and only because there is political capital in denying the existence of "misinformation" altogether on the part of a party that employs it so often and so effectively (as pointed out by the article.) No, the other side is not exactly the same, nor doing exactly the same thing.
If I missed the part where Mozilla wanted to put anyone into mass graves, please point it out to me.
You misunderstand the comparison for some reason. Mitchell Baker called for an active suppression of not only those who partook of the January 6th riots but also those who were in any way connected to the political movement which gave birth to those riots as well as to 'amplify factual voices' which translates to 'propagandise for our ideology'. That is emphatically not what I want any technology vendor to do. If the likes of Baker get their way there'll be a need for samizdat [1] to circumvent the Baker Browser Brigade. As to whether the Baker Brigades may end up putting people in mass graves I'll leave for you to decide but if history is anything to go by the chance of that happening is definitely not zero. It happened in many countries which underwent revolutions based on the same ideology. They don't need to resort to mass murder to make the proposed censorship, political persecution and propaganda campaigns bad omens for their intentions.
"amplify factual voices" means "amplify factual voices."
When you've gotten to the point that you interpret "fact" as "ideology", and the mere mention of "fact" leads you to believe a browser vendor wants to put you into a mass grave, then there is clearly no point in continuing conversation. I hope that someday you get over your martyr complex.
But on the way out, whatever happened to AOC's kill list, or the death camps the Covid cops were going to send everyone to, or the FEMA camps Obama was going to send everyone to? I'm sure Biden was going to do something too but all of these nefarious plots against Christians, Conservatives, white people and Trumpists are hard to keep up with. The way they try to clout-chase victimhood from the very demographics they've traditionally oppressed is getting kind of pathetic.
> But as reprehensible as the actions of Donald Trump are, the rampant use of the internet to foment violence and hate, and reinforce white supremacy is about more than any one personality.
It just says his actions reinforced white supremacy, and you've got to admit, white supremacists do love Trump, and they specifically love him because of the words he says and the actions he takes.
Yes, that is the conspiracy theory. I mentioned that you were replying to. Donald Trump is not a part of reinforcing white supremacy, the idea is ridiculous, and you have no evidence for this bizarre claim.
What would it look like to you for a president to reinforce white supremacy? I don't think Trump is a white supremacist himself, but he's close with some of them and helped them in their white supremacist agenda.
