Sup Forums will defend this

Sup Forums will defend this

How is Mozilla allowed to do this

Other urls found in this thread:

mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
commondreams.org/news/2017/08/01/poll-scary-number-republicans-support-court-ordered-press-censorship
imgur.com/a/9QGR8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundation
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why wouldn't they be allowed to? There's no law saying they can't, and it adheres to their mission statement that says their mission is to ensure the internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all.

mozilla.org/en-US/mission/

Why can't they just be FOSS. Why tack all the liberal shit on there too.

What is wrong with any of that?

free software is an ideology unto itself
these things do not exist in a thought vacuum

It means they will censor new news and facts they dont like, lableing them fake news

SJWs infect everything.

t. Alex

Why not create your own no-fact-zone software?

Liberals own open source as the whole idea of FOSS is liberal idea.

no it doesn't, those are past approaches which have not worked. what if mozilla has an idea for a different approach?

If you don't like it you don't have to use it. Their only product is completely open source so you can literally go make your own copy if you want

Ok

>news and facts they dont like, lableing them fake news

It's funny because Sup Forums and The_Donald do exactly that practically everyday. Publications like The New York Times and Washington Post and anyone else who posts things that don't go along with their are labeled "fake news" while stuff like Breitbart and Infowars are received with open arms.

Whenever I see Sup Forums and T_D freaking out about efforts to curb fake news because they think anything not left-wing will be targeted, I can't help but think it's projection because of how they themselves define "fake news" as anything that doesn't fit their right-wing views.

*things that don't go along with their clear right-wing agenda are labeled "fake news"

Hmm...

commondreams.org/news/2017/08/01/poll-scary-number-republicans-support-court-ordered-press-censorship

Breaking their contracts with master soros would be something only bad goyim do.

Those bad goyim then become very, very sad and commit suicide by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head from 5 meters away with their hands tied.
That's why the clever goy obeys.

they are talking about mozilla(non profit) forum software that can be used on websites

this has nothing to do with firefox and is honestly a good idea considering the amount of fake news said about the president for instance

honestly some people on Sup Forums are cool but the Sup Forums crossposters are the most clueless and paranoid bunch

Mozilla never made a deal with George Soros, they're fighting fake news independently. The rumors saying they're working with him is literal fake news from known fake news websites trying to cover their own butts and sadly Sup Forums types fell hook line and sinker for it.

Unfortunately this false belief has became so pervasive that Mozilla had to come out and denounce it themselves.

The fake news industry is running scared and they're willing to do whatever it takes to keep their business model running.

Good, thank you for correcting me.

I'm not in favor of censorship, but fake news are out of control at the moment.

The problem I see with something like this is that Mozilla clearly has certain political beliefs. Fake news are mostly political. I don't trust any entity that is not showing themselves to be neutral, to be objective in judging what is and what is not fake.

All the tech companies have liberal bias. This includes Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, etc.

Yes, and?

There are no neutral entities. Unless you count the rocks and clouds as entities.

Because they don’t like how Sup Forums is so popular that its memes rank higher than mainstream news media on search results

>There are no neutral entities
That's kinda my point. I don't trust anyone except my own research when it comes to false news. I don't need a biased entity to filter what I get to read.

>why can’t people just love free shit but not be liberals
Do you know how the world works?

You are a source of bias as well.

Don't trust anyone. Not even yourself.

>liberals love facts we’re all about truth
>don’t like censorship? Go somewhere else tough goy
Ok there bud

Really makes you think

>supports tech education for girls
wow these sexist bigots.
the hate against males (white especially) pervades their disgusting SJW PC propaganda platform

Well yeah, but that's the one bias I suppose we can not get rid of.

>”biased” media
>”biased”
>he thinks putting air quotes around it makes it less true
Nice try, CNN

They don't.

You know he doesn't mean actual liberals. He obviously means what gets called "liberal" in the US.

When you try to claim your shitty 2017 liberal news media ISNT bias, you instantly lose all credibility as honest

This post goes straight into the trash. The only people with a bias (everyone) I give the time of day to, are the people who can admit they have one (no one on the left so far)

I think we are past that point since the word "liberal" was hijacked by complete nutjobs.

Google memo showed this really well: the guy voiced his opinion and had some valid points but first response of Twitter crowd and "liberal" media was autistic screeching. Then it took a few days for people to write carefully worded articles how he isn't completely wrong. Then weeks later I saw him talk on a radio show and he was actually very reasonable.

What's liberal is currently defined by loud obnoxious people, who are out of touch with reality, while the silent majority keeps their mouths shut.

If you are aware of the bias, we can get rid of some of the bias.

Cultural bias, gender bias, political bias, height bias, age bias, ethnic bias, species bias, etc

Bias is only reduced with awareness.

Everyone's biased in your eye. Except those who you agree with.

Really makes you think

>bias is reduced with awareness
That would imply the biases are all incorrect

Everyone is biased in my eye, period. Those who are honest about it however, demonstrate better self awareness, and are worth giving the time of day. You are not, however, because you are too retarded.

With humans, a simple bias is almost always going to not be very useful.

Retarded comment of the day goes to...

Fair & balanced.

Seems like you haven't looked yourself in the mirror.

Is it you? You sure proved me wrong.

>projecting that I have as shitty of
a taste in media as you do
Yawn
>n-no you
Ok lads, it was fun, but you retards have nothing of value to say

>How is Mozilla allowed to do this
Because they can.
What do you suggest, that we use fucking Chrome?

All biases make impartial conclusion difficult, not incorrect.

Stay mad, niggers

...

>"everyone has a bias"
>LOL EXCEPT THE PEOPLE YOU AGREE WITH HAHA.
Wow an actual retard.

Is this an autism thread?

And the truth gives birth to new biases. Bias is a result of truth as much as it is a hindrance of it. You can not reduce bias. Only replace it.

Calling something fake news and censoring it are COMPLETELY different actions, the New York times can be misleading or even just lie, that doesn't mean they should be censored.

People, the general public, are not intelligent enough to handle the nuances of reality, even when spoon fed them. They are too emotional, too proud, too egotistic, and most of all the general public wants to be safe and happy more than free and informed. And they will get what they want, and bias will deliver it. One way or another, by left or right or whatever the fuck direction. Because truth is not objective, and you cannot narrow down reality to one frame of reference, and people will force truth, and the world, to fit into their own subjective frame, and bias will be their hammer.

They shouldn’t be censored for lying as a mainstream media outlet? Really? You realize the consequences of that kind of policy right?

Yes, it's called fake news.

Who is censoring what?

Fact-checking is not censorship.

you're full of shit.

Amazing how fast some authors can change their opinions and ethics eh?
>centralized power and control over what is true, by entities completely out of reach of the general public, has never gone wrong or been corrupted before
Ok there, bud

Fake news = all the news that liberals and communists do not like.

Let me show you what fake news looks like: imgur.com/a/9QGR8

Prove it. Prove that hillary isn't working with lizards to kill all white males.

Wait... what if she IS a lizard?

Hissssss!

Well, then we skin her alike and cut her open and dissect her insides. Duh. Is that a real question?

Newsflash:
Mass Media = Fake News

There is no good fake news and bad fake news....

Not sure how im full of shit.
It's a non-profit org just like Mozilla.
He doesn't work for mozilla or own it.

Mozilla announced their seperate organization on the same day as him and a reporter on a fake news site got confused.

The names aren't even similar at all.
You are spreading fake news.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundation

Obama getting butthurt about the election results after acting like such a pompus douche is one of my favorite things.

>anything not right wing, explicitly anti-immigration, climate change denial = fake news
>sensationalist right-wing blogs & conspiracy websites that preach about UFOs and lizard beings from outer space = REAL NEWS


The Sup Forums tinfoil is strong in this thread. They really are colonizing this board aren't they?

>thinks this is credible media instead
Yup, no retards in this comment

see nuance is important

I'm not saying breitbart should be trusted, but did you not pay attention to the 2016 election cycle and watch /every single major media outlet/ blatantly lie, misreport polls (especially for the DNC races), and produce their own self-favoring narratives?
And yet these are the same outlets that everybody keeps trying to point as "credible"?

You don't even need to be a Sup Forums faggot to know how rigged it really is, even someone with casual center-right views will notice how bad it is.

You would be thrilled if they tacked alt right shit on. At least be honest that you're hypocritical.

It's still a link that they claim they do not have, wouldn't it be simpler to let this person go and get their name back?

>open and accessible to all.

unless your opinion happens to be a microagression

liberals are ok

he probably ment leftists