A board that prefers tech that is efficient and open source

>A board that prefers tech that is efficient and open source
>That tech turns out to be someone with a political stance
>Don't use that tech cause person disagree with their political view
Isn't it a better idea just to let technology drive the future instead of some bs political agenda that the company employees prefers? Wouldn't just ignoring their political views instead of giving it attention due to controversy be a better idea? Why not just use the application and ignore their stances? Is it really that hard?

No, but Sup Forums has started to realize that they are the rotten scum on the bottom of the genepool, which is why all they get to date is catfish and so now they whine about stuff like this to fill their time until their virgin death.

Then you get banned or spied on because you don't fit into their agenda.

Stop shilling this shit. There's been like 10 Firefox threads this week alone and it's only Tuesday

I guess nobody cares what Sup Forums's political stance is, because nobody cares what manchildren/edgy teenagers want.

Well it is a good browser... You honestly think Mozilla hires shills for Sup Forums of all places?

Gonna need an example. The only one I can remotely think of is a far right website basically being denied hosting by google and russia. It made sense, they didn't want to be associated with them.

Off the top of my head, Discord.

They were banned after member reporting their server rather than being spied on. Plus they apparently violated their terms of service as well.

Their terms of service literally being "This is supposed to be a gaming voip"

Google, Microsoft, Mozilla. All of them have fired right-wing employees because of ideology.

Ok, give me a news article. The only one I remember is one google employee basically going full blown autistic one day and sending his "women are incompetent" email to everybody. That was stupid. That is something you go to HR for and report a certain individual or two are terrible at their jobs. If that doesn't work you go to the manager, not an email to an entire company with everyone cced on it.

Stop spamming this board with Nightly threads. Seriously, fuck off.

There are alternatives though, so people can still choose something efficient and open source that also has correct political views, like Brave.

that nightly pic was an afterthought.... I didn't intend for this to be a nightly thread, but mozilla is a good example of people denying a competent application outright due to a company's political agenda.

I am not talking about browsers in general, I just put firefox cause
>mozilla is a good example of people denying a competent application outright due to a company's political agenda.
I am just wondering why Sup Forums does not ignore the political agenda of the employees so they fade into obscurity and just use the better application instead of making noise and giving attention to a political stance.

So in the browser wars, firefox pre 2016.

>Gonna need an example. The only one I can remotely think of is a far right website basically being denied hosting by google and russia. It made sense, they didn't want to be associated with them.

And, of course, it didn't stop there. It never, ever does.

As soon as they were done with DS, they took aim at PJmedia. Then at Gab. Next, it will be someone even closer to the center.

Soon after, it will be someone liberal, just not liberal "enough".

It's not a hypothetical muh slippery slope. It's happening.

>>A board that prefers tech that is efficient and open source
>>That tech turns out to be someone with a political stance
Sup Forums is full of vidya kiddies and neo-fascist wintards, old Sup Forums is long dead, even before gamergate

>Ok, give me a news article. The only one I remember is one google employee basically going full blown autistic one day and sending his "women are incompetent" email to everybody. That was stupid. That is something you go to HR for and report a certain individual or two are terrible at their jobs. If that doesn't work you go to the manager, not an email to an entire company with everyone cced on it.

That memo included a lengthy section on what Google could to to get more women in tech. It was not hateful and contained numerous citations, which mainstream "news" outlets erased in their reporting of it.

The guy who wrote it is a liberal.

>because of ideology
if by "ideology" you mean "being too triggered to leave your political shit at home and making a stink at the office" then sure

Private companies are allowed to not do business with others for any reason besides protected groups under law. You can't force a company to just do anything. Freedom of speech is freedom to not be jailed by the government. Its not freedom from consequences for your actions.

The nazis are free to start their own hosting companies, but they won't since Sup Forums is mostly made up of losers with no accomplishments clinging to the accomplishments of others that kind of look like them being scammed by a few shady guys that are good at manipulating people.

Seriously... what is this world is ending shit. Do you actually believe this? Also Companies have the right not to do business with others and the far right is not popular with the young hipsters that use the internet. It makes sense.
That is not the problem... the problem is he thought it was a good idea to send a manifesto to the entire company's employee directory. He was an idiot for doing that. Google obviously had to do something about that after some employees literally sent it to HR and then got leaked to the public.

>Private companies are allowed to not do business with others for any reason besides protected groups under law.
How convenient that you think you get to determine who is protected. Won't be so convenient when this sort of thing starts being used against you. The companies you're defending, were the worst thing in the world to you, 15 minutes ago. They only fight for themselves. They will (and do) silence anyone who threatens their power and money. Their actions have NOTHING to do with morality.

You find them on your side, momentarily. It's a happy accident and it won't last.

>You can't force a company to just do anything.
You literally can, apparently.

>Freedom of speech is freedom to not be jailed by the government. Its not freedom from consequences for your actions.
You're right, except speech isn't action, it's speech. Free speech means freedom from consequences. That's the meaning of free speech. Otherwise, it's not free. You can cling to "muh private company" and the letter of the law. Funny you don't cling to the law when it comes to people violating it by immigrating illegally. Then, all of a sudden, it's about morality and what the law *should* be.

Either everyone has free speech or nobody does. If someone can be silenced, you're only being allowed to speak because people in power like what you're saying.

You are not fighting for freedom. You will look back on this time and feel shame.

This whole posts sounds like a naive boy that just watched V for Vendetta 2 min ago... Freedom of press is still there. There will be fanfare if censorship of that caliber happens.
>They only fight for themselves.
They fight for profit and right now they see old conservatives being a minority compared to the young hip left liberals in their market so of course, they will choose to get rid of the far right. Hell they actually don't have problems with the right, it is the far right itself that is a very small minority that is worth killing.

>You're right, except speech isn't action, it's speech. Free speech means freedom from consequences. That's the meaning of free speech. Otherwise, it's not free. You can cling to "muh private company" and the letter of the law. Funny you don't cling to the law when it comes to people violating it by immigrating illegally. Then, all of a sudden, it's about morality and what the law *should* be.
Jesus Christ... first off morality isn't law. Morality is not a rigid structure that deems in black and white circumstances. You think it is a complete "moral" choice to deport people that escape from poverty?
>Free speech means freedom from consequences.
From the government... not private companies...

>Either everyone has free speech or nobody does. If someone can be silenced, you're only being allowed to speak because people in power like what you're saying.
This smells of you being underage. What is this V for Vendetta wannabe quote...
>people in power like what you're saying.
Yeah.... that is why people like Shapiro and Trump are getting the shit kicked out of them right?

>You are not fighting for freedom. You will look back on this time and feel shame.
I am actually concerned about the loss of privacy from citizens, but what the companies did were justified cause they are actual companies. They sway towards popularity and if there is a niche worth profiting from your ideology then sure... they will help you.

> (OP)
>No, but Sup Forums has started to realize that they are the rotten scum on the bottom of the genepool, which is why all they get to date is catfish and so now they whine about stuff like this to fill their time until their virgin death.
(You)

Triggered Sup Forums? No need to project.

>Freedom of press is still there.
Categorically incorrect. The press pushes a far-left liberal agenda.
>There will be fanfare if censorship of that caliber happens.
There is, it is just not reported.
>What is this V for Vendetta wannabe quote...
Not an argument.
>They sway towards popularity
Which is why they must be demonstrated to be incorrect at all costs.

>They sway towards popularity
>Which is why they must be demonstrated to be incorrect at all costs.
What is democracy for 100 please? Democracy follows the wishes of the most popular believe it or not. Even if the opposition is powerful as well.
>Categorically incorrect. The press pushes a far-left liberal agenda.
So that is why CNN and sinclair media group is buying everything up in local news and pushing their agendas then right?
>There is, it is just not reported.
Name 1 that is as heinous as you say it is.

It's too hard for people on here. user has a lot of trouble going through life without calling everything they disagree with a conspiracy or fake. It triggers them into becoming the snowflakes that they claim others to be. That's why this is their safe space and anything that isn't conforming to them is "wrong". It is insane as it is essentially punishing someone for using their choice that open-source claims to choose a pragmatic option. Y'all be total hypocrites but at least you're consistent.

since when has helping people been a "liberal" thing?
If that's the case then conservatives are pathetic.

>Ignores user other points and essentially cherry picks other points. Even makes a joke into an incorrect answer from user.
This is a bit sad.

>Also Companies have the right not to do business with others
Unless they are gay amirite :^)

yeah bro thats pretty gay :^)

You don't even know the full story you fucking autistic retard. He sent the memo to a specific group within Google where issues like that are SUPPOSED to be discussed. They then passed it around Google HQ and then it got in the MSM. Watch any interview with the guy and you'll see he's a very tame guy who just wanted the best for the company he worked at. They fired him because Google is now so left they're actually denying biology to pander to a cancerous group of post-modern snowflakes. Fuck Google.

but I use it
I use it to watch disgusting porn that subvert everything they're lobbying for, I even click on the ads sometimes

You are right he sent it to a specific group, but nowhere does it say anywhere that the it was where the issues were supposed to be discussed. Apparently he did try to make a case after the gender seminar, but he was ignored according to many sources. He still was an idiot in sending it via email to a group of people. He should have talked to HR or someone person to person before actually sending an email out that the company can personally view.

> What is democracy for 100 please? Democracy follows the wishes of the most popular believe it or not. Even if the opposition is powerful as well.
We do not have a true democracy. Democracy demands everyone is equally informed.

You claim that there is freedom of expression. How can this be so when to express views as a certain Google employee did resulted in his dismissal? Is the argument that he had a choice not to express them? The Mafia is very good at making offers you cannot refuse. Does this still count as choice?

>Name 1 that is as heinous as you say it is.
Do some fucking reading. Thankyou for re-demonstrating that liberals have a tendency to refuse to challenge their opinions.

Freedom to choose is not freedom. Freedom to make any choice without repercussions is. Google have made it clear they are anti-freedom, and have an extreme-left regressive agenda.

>We do not have a true democracy. Democracy demands everyone is equally informed.
No it does not... unfortunately. Our second presidential race consisted of Adams and Jefferson basically making their own newspapers and slandering eachother with lies to win an election.
>You claim that there is freedom of expression. How can this be so when to express views as a certain Google employee did resulted in his dismissal? Is the argument that he had a choice not to express them? The Mafia is very good at making offers you cannot refuse. Does this still count as choice?
Cause it is a company and a company has the right to dismiss whoever they want. Personally, I think the CEO of google was wrong to fire him and he is a dumbass for letting sexism get this far that men could not hold it any longer. You can argue all you want but it is a company and the decision was made by a CEO who was misinformed with promoting sexism in the guise of equality.
>Do some fucking reading. Thankyou for re-demonstrating that liberals have a tendency to refuse to challenge their opinions.
So that pretty much means you can't find any? Do you know how to argue? You need to give cases instead of writing hypotheticals and random blabber. All you are showing is your own ideology without the substance of actual evidence or proper understanding of law.

>Freedom to choose is not freedom. Freedom to make any choice without repercussions is. Google have made it clear they are anti-freedom, and have an extreme-left regressive agenda.
Stop with these cringy V for Vendetta quotes. These are your ideology and not anyone else's. These are going to change noone.

>No it does not... unfortunately
Your definition of democracy is ridiculous.

>Cause it is a company and a company has the right to dismiss whoever they want
People's livelihoods depend on earning a wage working for these companies. Saying they may do as they please is paramount to implying the individual has no control over their life. Of course everyone understands that this is what the left wants.

>Stop with these cringy V for Vendetta quotes. These are your ideology and not anyone else's. These are going to change noone.
Nice ad-hom. Your definition of freedom is stupid. Continue not to address the point. Why is it okay to be given a superfluous choice if the outcome is heavily dictated by the circumstances? That is not a choice. That is not freedom. Yes this is an entirely ideologically motivated point, because the lack of choice is an assault on the ideology that built this country.

>Don't use that tech cause person disagree with their political view
Pretty sure I switched away from Firefox a few weeks ago due to DownThemAll not working in nightly and I couldn't be hassled to deal with having to micromanage versions.

I've figured out how to get DTA! to work in XULRunner and because you fucktards didn't make your voices heard enough when DTA! survival in Firefox was on the line, I'm not sharing a goddamned thing with you shits.

Figure it out.

I hate Firefox as an application on both desktop and mobile because it's laggy and shitty (I actually agree with their politics because I'm sjw commie scum but I ignore their politics because who cares ffs), but I actually do use Firefox Focus on my phone because it's speedy af and has an ad blocker

>if by "ideology" you mean "being too triggered to leave your political shit at home and making a stink at the office" then sure
yes, it's a shame they cant leave their sjw patriarchy and muh diversity at home too - for every action there is a reaction.

I only care about a company's politics if they start using their position to bully people they disagree with.

>using the smiley with a carat nose

>firing its ceo because the remaining board disagrees with his _personal_ views
you are a weak ass shill, have fun while your company goes down

>Your definition of democracy is ridiculous.
There is fucking 1 definition of democracy and it is nowhere idealistic or specific as yours. Stop trying to literally change a definition of what it means.

Also I like how you redacted out my perfectly good example that showed from the beginning of America that democracy has always been skewed. For a person who really likes to talk about freedom of speech, you sure like censoring and hiding intentions.
>People's livelihoods depend on earning a wage working for these companies. Saying they may do as they please is paramount to implying the individual has no control over their life. Of course everyone understands that this is what the left wants.
The left, believe it or not, are not saying people have no control of their lives. What in the world did u get that idea from? People work at these corporations, but they still have a choice to choose which they want to pledge their allegience to. The companies are no democracy it is a brutal congolomorate that will do everything it can to win the public's approval for appearance and massive amounts of money. They have full rights to cut the weakest link or any link for that matter if they believed if it affects either.
>Nice ad-hom. Your definition of freedom is stupid. Continue not to address the point. Why is it okay to be given a superfluous choice if the outcome is heavily dictated by the circumstances? That is not a choice. That is not freedom. Yes this is an entirely ideologically motivated point, because the lack of choice is an assault on the ideology that built this country.
My defintion? My definition is just from law and the literal definition in the dictionary. Your opinionated one is the one that is stupid because it is all your opinion and only your opinion. Funny that you say that I am okay "with a choice when the outcome is dictated by circumstances" because I actually argued that when you were spewing how laws were more important than morals.

Btw where are my rebuttals to my other points? For a person who cherishes freedom and democracy, you sure cherrypick and censor facts.

Good, well I am not a shill so I really don't feel like I will have the fun.

>There is fucking 1 definition of democracy
Spectacularly naive.

> from the beginning of America that democracy has always been skewed
And I thought I was the conservative? Things that are broken should be fixed. This is not an argument.

> People work at these corporations, but they still have a choice to choose which they want to pledge their allegience to
But if collectively none of them are supportive of your views - which I might add have nothing to do with that sector of employment - your choice is to silence yourself or starve. Not really a choice. See below.

>My defintion? My definition is just from law and the literal definition in the dictionary.
The literal definition in the dictionary is open to all kinds of linguistic interpenetration if you want to argue semantics, since I suspect that's all you have. It is an affront to liberty (which I was under the impression that liberals stood for) to suggest that being offered the choice of "not expressing your views" is the same as being free to express them without consequences. This is censorship. This is thought policing.

>For a person who cherishes freedom and democracy, you sure cherrypick and censor facts.
Explain exactly what I am censoring? I am against censorship.

If mozilla ever censors or spies on us that's when I'll stop using it, sure they might be liberal but they are and have always been pro privacy, and that's why me and many others use their product, politics should get in the way of business

Should not get in the way of business*

>And I thought I was the conservative? Things that are broken should be fixed. This is not an argument.
Not that I am disagreeing with you there, but it has been broken back then and it still is now. That is my point, our democracy has always been that skewed so don't try to pretend that there is some altruistic option where there has never been one.
>But if collectively none of them are supportive of your views - which I might add have nothing to do with that sector of employment - your choice is to silence yourself or starve. Not really a choice. See below.
Also ignoring again, the rest of the part where the corporation have their own choice to cut a link that damages the reputation of the company or monetary income because they do not have to cater to an entire population, just their workforce that is expendable. Nice cherrypicking.
If your view is not popular then you starve and corporation care about that popularity for image and future transactions.
>The literal definition in the dictionary is open to all kinds of linguistic interpenetration if you want to argue semantics, since I suspect that's all you have. It is an affront to liberty (which I was under the impression that liberals stood for) to suggest that being offered the choice of "not expressing your views" is the same as being free to express them without consequences. This is censorship. This is thought policing.
It is not that I am stuck in a lack of imagination, I am just realistic about the current world. I suspect that you are just underage cause believe me, noone gives a shit about your idealistic view of whatever word you have. Reality is reality. I do express them, but the current world does not so stop trying to shoe horn your fantasies into reality. Noone cares, everyone has their own view. You are not special in your view.

I hate the real world

>There is fucking 1 definition of democracy

You're a fucking idiot that pretends you didn't get his point to drag the conversation forever. There are many flavors of democracy, learn2humanhistory.

>Explain exactly what I am censoring? I am against censorship.
Against how companies are a separate entity from the government while you go strangely bleeding heart liberal to counter it weakly
>Name 1 that is as heinous as you say it is.
>Do some fucking reading. Thankyou for re-demonstrating that liberals have a tendency to refuse to challenge their opinions.
Apparently you can't name one and avoid it
>Categorically incorrect. The press pushes a far-left liberal agenda.
>So that is why CNN and sinclair media group is buying everything up in local news and pushing their agendas then right?
Still can't find an answer to that?
Also ridiculously
>We do not have a true democracy. Democracy demands everyone is equally informed.
Whatever this opinion came from and how you argue this is a fact for some reason.
>Saying they may do as they please is paramount to implying the individual has no control over their life. Of course everyone understands that this is what the left wants.
Still want to know where this came from cause it is actually hilarious
>people in power like what you're saying.
>Yeah.... that is why people like Shapiro and Trump are getting the shit kicked out of them right?
Still need an answer to this
>You're right, except speech isn't action, it's speech. Free speech means freedom from consequences. That's the meaning of free speech. Otherwise, it's not free. You can cling to "muh private company" and the letter of the law. Funny you don't cling to the law when it comes to people violating it by immigrating illegally. Then, all of a sudden, it's about morality and what the law *should* be.
>Jesus Christ... first off morality isn't law. Morality is not a rigid structure that deems in black and white circumstances. You think it is a complete "moral" choice to deport people that escape from poverty?
Need an answer to this cause you just flipflopped. Grats

>Literally believing this
There are slight flavors, but this is literally the single format every democracy follows ffs. What user is saying is a complete looney fantasy of what democracy is.

It ain't too bad honestly. There is a reason that the Romans kept the power in the rich, because they were educated. It is all a popularity contest. JFK won against nixon cause he was more handsome on TV. That is a fact.

I don't even know, the mega corporations are getting too much power in my opinion, not sure if a world like Wall-E is a world I want for my children

can't argue with that... that is the government's job to break it up, but that isn't happening. We also have too many compromised agencies because of lobbyists...

Your shilling attempts end up doing more damage than good, unless that of course was your goal all along, sasuga shill-kun

I switched to Chrome because it scales with Linux's high dpi settings without jumping through hoops.

>Your shilling attempts end up doing more damage than good, unless that of course was your goal all along, sasuga shill-kun
Putting up that image as an example has been the worst thing I could have possibly done...

Congratulations for latching on to all insignificant points in the debate thus proving neatly my point.

> Against how companies are a separate entity from the government while you go strangely bleeding heart liberal to counter it weakly
Revise your reading comprehension. Corporations and the government are symbiotic. The government needs taxes, people need wages. The government is dependent on their population having jobs. If corporations are against your point of view, how can you hope to a) get a job **, and b) ensure the lobbying power of said corporations is not utilised to marginalise your political opinion?

This is the point you are not understanding. This is dangerous. This is thought policing.

** without "choosing" to suppress your beliefs. This is not a choice, since refusing to do so - as demonstrated by recent events - will land you without a job, which will land you without the means to live.

But go ahead and ramble on about CNN, that's an easier thing to attack than actually thinking.

>when you wait almost 2 hours for someone to respond to your bain

stop pretending to know what you're talking about

you can call it democracy if you want, but nothing about the use of rampart misinformation is democratic. It is quite the opposite.

You're absolutely right, but we're in a minority around these parts. The lowest common denominator got a hold of Sup Forums years ago and now everything is politics.

I just want the fucking catalog to work on the damn Android version.

>not using clover
How's it like to live like a caveman?

>This is thought policing.
>Realism is thought policing
I think we are seriously done here. What the fuck is that? it is a fancy word for lack of imagination. Is that a new right term?
>But go ahead and ramble on about CNN, that's an easier thing to attack than actually thinking.
I mentioned it once lol
> If corporations are against your point of view, how can you hope to a) get a job **, and b) ensure the lobbying power of said corporations is not utilised to marginalise your political opinion?
Corporations don't hold a viewpoint, the people that own it elevate towards the popular viewpoint for the maximum amount of support. I have been saying this forever now in your terrible arguments.
>Congratulations for latching on to all insignificant points in the debate thus proving neatly my point.
So basically you are dismissing all the valid arguments as insignificant points? You are a hypocrite in your whole spiel about democracy and freedom. I think we are done here. We both know who won here.

>stop pretending to know what you're talking about
>Literally the definition of democracy
I... can't this much delusion.
>you can call it democracy if you want, but nothing about the use of rampart misinformation is democratic. It is quite the opposite.
>The dictionary is information
HOLY FUCK user. STOP

>The dictionary is the misinformation
typo.
Btw I am done. If you literally think the dictionary is misinformation I am leaving. You are beyond help.

Wow what a fierce battle on the Sup Forums board today, find out what happens after in the next episode of dragon ball Sup Forums

>Don't use that tech cause person disagree with their political view
That's not it. We love tech/software that is efficient and open source and use it while it is, but various social movements start shifting the focus of software creation to other problems (not related to tech/software itself), and end up in visible degradation of software quality.
This is for various reasons, but main point is that devs who work on software should set their primary focus to the software itself imo.

>Mozilla are SJWs
>they hire a load of wymyn and diversity hires instead of competent people
>Firefox goes to shit and alienates it's main userbase

>Y'all
back2reddit

Firefox Focus is technically Chrome in disguise. It uses WebView, which in newer Android versions is just Chrome.