Hey goys, help Mozilla to make internet safer by reporting misinformation

Hey goys, help Mozilla to make internet safer by reporting misinformation.
blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/08/08/mozilla-information-trust-initiative-building-movement-fight-misinformation-online/

I don't see anything wrong with this.

Mozilla is for homos

I don't see this as easily abusable .

oy vey, really warms my dreidel

this jew hasn't been involved for more than 10 years

>the Wall Street Jewrnal
>thoroughly fact checked story from a credible news-gathering organization
oy vey

...

Also New York Times is pretty much accurate

There really is a coordinated crack down on the internet on all fronts, this shit is getting ridiculous. What is their end goal?

wonder what stallmanchild's opinion would be this (is censorship isn't it)

Goy is singular, goyim is plural. Gentiles can't even into proper English.

read what we tell you to
also
>The first article—designed to inform—receives limited attention.
>The second article—designed for virality—accumulates shares.
money (((they))) are losing

Gas yourself

goy is not english dick cutenstein

Why? I'm a good goy. It's much more likely that you'll be gassed, because superior Jews run the show.

>designed to inform
I forgot that the news media was a charity with the aim of enlightening the public with the truth, not a business seeking to make money and push the viewpoints of its owners, silly me.

In United States there will be against the law to criticize Israel soon, so this is just an icing on the cake.

Jews say "goys" in English as well, because Hebrew grammar is not English grammar, you fucking retard.

>Imagine this: Two news articles are shared simultaneously online.

>The first is a deeply reported and thoroughly fact checked story from a credible news-gathering organization. Perhaps Le Monde, the Wall Street Journal, or Süddeutsche Zeitung.

>Wall Street Journal

HAHAHAHAHAAH
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHHA
Which one of you trolling retards wrote this article? Nobody sane would call the WSJ credible after all the news articles in relations to cases with documentation available to the public which got twisted and corrupted through the WSJ filter as they wrote an article, glaringly so.

Thank G-d I hope they'll close 4-Chan.

Where's the form to report places that collide with my weltanschauung?

Internet is the new cable, we've reached that critical mass. I'm sure there were plenty of smaller guys squeezed out during the TV era whom no one remembers or cares about, either.

when the censoring is against right-wing people Stallman stays quiet like a jewish rat he is

jidf.com

Le Monde and Süddeutsche are also far-left outlets and looked down upon by many these days. I don't know anything about WSJ, but that's my insight as a European.

Can I report nazis too on this link??

There was no mention of censoring. That's not what this is about.

there is a book released by a french guy exposing le monde as worse than pravda and this french guy worked in le monde for like 11 years

stop lying you jewish rat. The article is clearly saying if the (((fact))) is not found on WSJ or Le Monde website it's fake news
Fuck off

Can you show me a quote where it is saying that? Can show me a quote where they say they want to censor misinformation/fake news?

>anything that doesn't conform to my views is fake news
Typical Sup Forumsack

>point out leftist bias/fake news
>get banned from mozilla forums
calling it now

>Can you show me a quote where it is saying that?
Jewish rat, the article says that things that are not reported by mainstream media hurts democracy
It's the third and fourth paragraph
lying kike

Gentrify and sell it, turn it into the "normienet", where everything have ads from the big companies.
But this is a mistake in several levels, as they're building their empire out of playing cards and sand.

Are you talking about these:
>The first is a deeply reported and thoroughly fact checked story from a credible news-gathering organization. Perhaps [...].
>The second is a false or misleading story. But the article is designed to mimic content from a credible newsroom, from its headline to its dissemination.
?

I would live to do that to the faggot baby on my plane last night. Kids should be limited to old enough to take a fucking sleeping pill or something

>false or misleading story [as reported by Wall Street Journal and CNN]
>[...]makes the Internet less healthy. As a result, the Internet’s ability to power democratic society suffers greatly.

Conclusions:
- Not verified by large media groups = fake
- Some story that was originally promoted by ''alt-right'' nazis KKK hitler = hurts democracy
- The dissemination of articles not sponsored by big also hurts democracy

I know you are either trolling or is a Sup Forums contrarian leftist but just in case

Stop projecting, liberal.

People who don't conform to the gentry's stereotypes get stopped and hassled just for passing through """their""" community.

Waht makes you think that's their real intent, rather than a cover for action? Google, for example, is already pushing the World Socialist Web Site down the results for searching for 45 different terms, and is threatening to demonetize sites that simply don't conform to the neoliberal consensus. Nothing Soros touches is ever any good for anyone who's not for sale.

Nigger, there is no leftist bias. You're a Soros shill or a Republican shill, both of whom are barely good for meat.

Respectable news outlets can have political leanings. For example, these two will likely report more extensively on issues that the left deems important, and publish mostly left-leaning opinion pieces. This does however not mean that any of it is false.

>Le Monde
>deeply reported and thoroughly fact checked story from a credible news-gathering organization

>In contrast to other world newspapers such as The New York Times (sic), Le Monde was traditionally focused on offering analysis and opinion, as opposed to being a newspaper of record. Hence, it was considered less important for the paper to offer maximum coverage of the news than to offer thoughtful interpretation of current events.
oy fucking vey

Daily reminder Pizzagate first major article on the big news was written by New York Times 1 MONTH! (28 days) after everything was already disseminating on the internet

The article simple said that ''rumors'' were hurting business and didn't say a single word about the very weird pics of babies and gay jokes

Yes. but you see, the more the old clueless about tech takes over the internet, the less they will care about something called security, specially if they make their infrastructure with the cheapest indians they can hire.

And someday, some russian kid, just for the lulz will take everything down as soon he discovers he can DROP TABLES everything on a name input box.

>Offering analysis and opinion somehow means it's fake

Is this what you're trying to say?

Mozilla is using their 300+ million dollars in events while hiring pajeets for cheap or free
That's why we see Firefox getting worse and worse each year even though they finally fixed(after 3 years) the ram leak

Analysis, yes, opinion, no.

NYT: "Pizzagate is a conspiracy"
Article: 0 words about the pics, not even mentioning the content of the pics and not even asking the author why he posted
Conclusion: it's fake news because it's published by a big media news and they wouldn't lie xD

It will be fun to see the pajeteed firefox going to a defcon.

>there is no leftist bias
>you're a Soros shill
lmao, top irony

>Respectable news outlets can have political leanings
Of course. They lean toward what the """respectable""" bourgeoisie wants to have the little people believe.
Class is thicker than opinion.

How times do change.

It means it is no longer an unbiased record, therefore not a valid input for people who have judgment and care to use it.
Therefore, the rich talking down to the poor.
Therefore, soft class war.
Therefore, worthy of retaliation.

It does mean that it is biased though

>thinks social justice is a left-wing doctrine
>not just the logic of the muh market applied to social groups
>such as anyone can buy their way into any group
>and that the market is open to anyone with currency
Fuck off, CTR.

>still wasting time answering to leftist redditors

Opinions aren't facts.

Your literacy skills are pretty bad my dude. This is just an example. Comparing a legit news article (aiming to make it as legit as it might get, hence the examples of big, established news outlets) with an article with misinformation, written to be spread virally. And no, not misinformation as reported by others, actual misinformation (it says right in the beginning that this is an imaginary example).
The site says that the latter receives more attention and has a bigger impact. And that is indeed happening and a problem.

There is no mention that news articles need to be verified by large media groups. Or of any political direction. These are just your interpretations because you want to misunderstand it.

>that the market is open to anyone with currency
Actually the money is only invested in leftist groups
Tell me 1 traditional Catholic or Protestant group receiving money from rich people
It doesn't exist because rich people can't donate to those groups without retaliation

This is just your opinion.

When my football team's coach only reports the goals that their team scored then declares a victory, it doesn't mean that the goals they scored weren't real.

>Your literacy skills are pretty bad my dude
>he still denies that the article is saying word by word that things that are not reported by big media is fake news
Lying kike

>social justice isn't left-wing doctrine
wow, and you call others shills

>with an article with misinformation, written to be spread virally
So I assume the browser will henceforward be warning us of links to articles by the Guardian, Telegraph, New York Times, etc., or at least those with titles along the lines of "Dear Men, You Aren't Heroic Just For Loving Someone Curvy" or "Sexism Row Reignites After Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Screed Leaked"; one being bitchy, bottom-of-the-barrel Vox-style opinion clickbait, the other being misinformation clickbait.

Every publication is biased because nobody wants to read only what happens, but also opinion and analysis. Some are so particular in their choice of what they report that it borders on being fake, like Huffpost or Breitbart. Some are more slightly partisan, like NYT or WSJ.

oy vey mozilla is innocent they dindu nuffin they are just trying to partner with Soros to make a better internet

>he still denies that the article is saying word by word that things that are not reported by big media is fake news
Except, it isn't saying that. At all. And I explained that to you already.

Breitbart amplifies and is pro-Israel but they don't make up stories like Huffpost and Jew York Times
back to Sup Forums leftist scum

>nobody wants to read only what happens
this is wrong

Everyone in this thread is fucking retarded.

When did NYT make up a story?

It's not about clickbait, it's about misinformation. Which often uses clickbait. But fighting one does not imply fighting the other.

Much like how every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.

Is it misinformation to say the Muslims George Soros pays to ship to Europe have created a fun pass time called Taharrush which is basically gang raping European women?

I'm leaving the thread
anyone that reply to you isn't me

What makes you think I care about your opinion about me? I can tell you, you're wrong, but you wouldn't believe me anyway, because it doesn't fit into your world view.

nah man while it's true that respectable newspapers can have polical leanings (they all have political leanings ultimately) Le Monde tend to cite and sometimes misrepresent studies without linking them and in their international reports they frequently lean heavily towards one side, which gives the impression that there's a large consensus on an issue when there is not.
They're far from being the worst and they do good stuff sometimes but they're still pretty sketchy

So many butthurt Trumpanzees escaping their cage.
Shoo shoo
Back to your home

>misinformation
Then they need to do something about the aforementioned.

This is the part where, since it's difficult to remember and list any false passage in particular, you will conclude the NYT hasn't published anything demonstrably false. Your best bet is to look at its reporting of the Syrian civil war, because journalists seem to think that if they won't dare to enter a country at war to collect information, then they can just report as fact any old shite fed to them by a small handful of activists and terrorist groups.

I don't know. If it's true it is not. If it isn't then it is.

Looks real to me.

Let's post some reliable companies that uphold the highest journalistic standards and only publish The Facts, and none of that opinion lark.

>Then they need to do something about the aforementioned.
It is what they are planning to do. Which you would know, had you actually read the article.

Numbers are an alt-right fantasy.

You idiot, everyone knows the mainstream press print only reliable information.

...

>Firefox is bad, better use Jewgle Chrome!
This shitty meme has been going on for years, when will it end?

but that headline is accurate. the study did find that 40% reported a drop.

Nobody advertised Chrome, you colossal faggot.

I wonder whether copy-pasting things from other outlets & Twitter counts as trying it spread misinformation?

So.. the headline was right?

this webm triggered me so fucking hard.
fuck this cuck continent and cuck union I'm in

>posts an article and an opinion piece
Are you just pretending to be retarded?

Da fuq are they thinking.

>Hey, Google is driving away a portion of customers...Let's also drive them away from our alternative

BUT WHY

That's always the implied alternative
What am I supposed to use, fucking Midori?

The headline had an obvious bias in what it selectively relays, not to mention a false attribution to some "Trump Effect". They took data and ignored most of it so they could construct a headline with a false narrative. Besides, the number in the headline is 1 too high. Quite disgraceful really.

I don't think it's censorship honestly - Much of this seems like variations of what Rupert Murdoch was demanding from the Australian government - They basically want to protect their monopoly on news services, less for devious conspiracy reasons, and more because...money.

Murdoch fucking rages at people "stealing" his content by repeating information learned from his outlets.

This basically like the news media's version of the MPAA blocking pirate bay and friends.

>sperging over 1% rounding
Drumpfkins lol

They shouldn't be publishing opinion anyway.

For instance, this;

The Wall Street Journal isn't left wing. It's another Murdoch rag that pushes pro-big business agendas, and pro-Murdoch agendas.

They want to maintain their monopoly. Why the fuck Mozilla would get in on this garbage is beyond me, unless they view this as their big chance to sell out.

>This basically like the news media's version of the MPAA blocking pirate bay and friends.
Censorship, then.

ITT: Firefox shills damage control this hard
why are firefox fags so attached to mozilla? are they the new apple fags?

They've been trying to make the internet just another variation of Cable/Radio forever now.

I have mixed feelings on net neutrality because of this. On one hand it might slow this process down, on the other - FCC.

Yeah, I mean, but not necessarily to guide a political agenda - Just to basically make the internet another media monopoly like cable or radio.

Vice is another Murdoch outlet. He plays all sides, Xanatos gambit.