"The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative"

"The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative"................
This sounds very 1984 to me

"Information Trust Initiative: The Official Source of Information. Don't Trust Anyone Else"

businessinsider.com/mozilla-new-initiative-counter-fake-news-2017-8

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/08/08/mozilla-information-trust-initiative-building-movement-fight-misinformation-online/
phys.org/news/2017-08-mozilla-fact-checker-fake-news.html
theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/fake-news-full-fact-software-immune-system-journalism-soros-omidyar
fullfact.org/blog/2017/jun/awarded-500000-omidyar-network-open-society-foundations-automated-factchecking/
edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/opinions/obama-masturbate-anime-clinton/
nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/3-cnn-journalists-resign-after-retracted-story-on-trump-ally.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You need to go back

I just opt out of every source of news media that I can. I'll still hold steadfast to my beliefs and ideals because I'm not a woman who's mind can be changed easily yet at the same time don't want to be bombarded with the same garbage over and over.

Please describe what is "1984" about this.

I make up my own news.

...

This can't be worse that main stream or alternative media.

>fake news drama
In the old good times no one cares if Elvis was dead or alive.

you are trolling right? They are building a database of websites which can't be trusted
bloggers, independent journalists and even sources that aren't mainstream like NY are on the blacklist
On wikipedia for instance they only use New York Times and Washington Post
If something happens and the view of New York Times will be used as the source of accurate information on wikipedia but at least somehow they allow independent websites like Occident Observer
For instance wikipedia allowed an article of New York Times which the journalist said ''alt-right" (whatever that means) are online terrorists and they don't allow the other side (someone saying they aren't online terrorists) because you have to use a mainstream journal like CNN, New York Times, Washington Post or Le Monde which are left/far-left outlets

Mozilla is doing even worse than wikipedia because the websites not on the whitelist will be considered fake news straight

Even in some left-wing alternative media there were honest journalists that exposed Hillary Clinton but they were labeled as fake news because the New York Times/WP ran articles contradicting them

The FCC debate they didn't allow any article showing about ISPs violating privacy and throttling the internet speed

Only a person with bad faith and/or working for them would deny what mozilla is doing is simply applying Politico and Occupy Democrats principles to a much larger scale

Wow it's a list.

>reddit spacing
You have to go back

>Don't Trust Anyone Else
What an excellent way to make sure I never trust you

cynical board culture is alright but you don't have to take it 24/7 as part of your own self
>Dude I am part of the selective cynical Sup Forums users that are self-aware nihilists xD
stop it user

>Mozilla is doing even worse than wikipedia because the websites not on the whitelist will be considered fake news straight
Where is the source for this? I don't see them mentioning anything about whitelists or blacklists in the article.

>I don't see them mentioning anything about whitelists or blacklists in the article.
A trust initiative (see the mozilla blog) is based on filtering good information from bad information
the mozilla blog goes to say Le Monde, NY Times and WP are examples of good information (good source)
I mean you can't really be this retarded you are simply trying to put it in a way that mozilla is doing alright by filtering information
obviously, as a hypocrite you'll say that google is the evil for doing it but mozilla is based

You mentioned a database, but not a filter.

the article has a link to the mozilla post, wouldn't be better if you read before replying? what's this obsession with replying in everything even if you are not aware of the subject in matter? are you a brazilian that just want to troll and huehuehue btfo ?

>are you a brazilian that just want to troll and huehuehue btfo ?
yes he is

Wow, thanks for thinking I'm a hypocrite just because I wanted a source.
All I was wondering was how mozilla plans to show what is fake; like are they going to go the lengths of researching and proving every one of the 'fake' articles.

And I'm not the other user that replied to you.

This doesn't look 1984 to me
I mean, we really need to get our facts checked. Misinformation do harm democracy

Did you actually read the article yourself? The only mozilla link in the article links to a post about the firefox logo and nothing about their trust initiative.

all you have to do is
google search that quote to see
>If we don’t manage to lessen the mental burden on people constantly worrying if information is trustworthy, it lessens the value of the open web for everyone who participates, and poses a lot of problems downstream
and you'll arrive at blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/08/08/mozilla-information-trust-initiative-building-movement-fight-misinformation-online/

Mozilla barely commits to doing anything in that article.

Your high-school level persuasive writing makes it seem like they're going to use the government to enforce their currently non-existent blacklist on everyone.

>The impact of misinformation on our society is one of the most divisive, fraught, and important topics of our day. Misinformation depletes transparency and sows discord, erodes participation and trust, and saps the web’s public benefit. In short: it makes the Internet less healthy. As a result, the Internet’s ability to power democratic society suffers greatly.

Point 1: They are saying ''misinformation''* harms democracy and makes internet less healthy
Point 2: they are saying misinformation using a New York Times article to show to everyone how a major news source can draw the line between reality and fake news
Point 3: they propose a Trust Initiative to use reports from famous outlets (like CNN, Fox News, ABC, Politico, Le Monde and all that garbage) to declare what is fake news and what is real news

As we all know even Fox news is too much extreme-right wing to them and they will end up using The Guardian and New York Times/WP

OH and btw the most important part of all this is the Trust Initiative will be using a n engine build by a company who received money from two philanthropists and one of them is George Soros

> being mad that people yell FAKE NEWS when you yell I-IT'S THE JEWISH KIKES, THEY'LL TAKE OVER THE PLANET
Heh.

>The "Mozilla Information Trust Initiative" comes as an automated real-time fact-checking engine developed by the Full Fact foundation was demonstrated in London
phys.org/news/2017-08-mozilla-fact-checker-fake-news.html
theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/fake-news-full-fact-software-immune-system-journalism-soros-omidyar

>The game-changing investment comes from the Omidyar Network, the leading philanthropic investment firm established by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and Open Society Foundations, the largest philanthropic funder of human rights in the world, founded by George Soros.

fullfact.org/blog/2017/jun/awarded-500000-omidyar-network-open-society-foundations-automated-factchecking/

If mozzarella wants to waste money on making their own think-tank, they're free to do that.

not Sup Forums

go be an activist elsewhere, undesirable

>Mozilla

No problems then OP. FireFox market share is circling the bottom of the bowl now. Mozilla flushed two thirds of what they had left with the Quantum release which broke everyone's add ons. Literally everyone I know has switched to Brave already.

>if they want to develop factcheck engine you should accept filthy goyim

>Net neutrality threads are ok
>mozilla fact-check is not
shut it down!

Yes, you should. Anyone is free to develop their own arbitrary filters in their web browsers.

There's already a braveshill in this thread, and Brave's business model is literally filtering ads (and then injecting their own ads) and there's nothing wrong with that.

Your 1984 alarmist memery is bullshit

meme neutrality threads are merely more of the tangential politics cancer that non-technical mouthbreathers from (((other boards))) love to discuss on Sup Forums

>Anyone is free to develop their own arbitrary filters in their web browsers.
and I'm free to complain
>nothing wrong with that.
yes because this is worse than ISP blocking torrents and throttling speed. They will actually incorporate a fact engine tool to their browser
They will use their tax-free business (since they claim they are non-profit and ''pro-human rights'') to censor
A fact engine tool is worse than blocking torrent traffict because you can bypass torrent block
If they manage to delete and censor the access to everything that is not fact-checked approved you'll have no idea how to even get other information
Fuck you libertarian kike

>New York Times and leftist journalists are free to dictate their policy on browsers
the state of Sup Forums
I don't even know why we have botnet threads
If people are ok with fact check engine botnet must be considered essential part of human life to you

Please Sup Forums, leave this board alone.

2/3s is an exaggeration, but I just looked. They were in low teens on the release, but end of November they barely have 11%. At the rate it's currently dropping, Firefox will be single digit marketshare by February.

They totally fucked themselves with Quantum. Even IE is ahead of FF now. Everyone is abandoning ship.

you've been given an order, bootlicker
out

I never said you're not allowed to complain.

Web browsers and search engines are literally zero effort to swap between, if companies want to filter things that are against their interests, then they should.

It's not censorship when you can instantaneously consult another web browser or search engine.

Torrents are fairly difficult to censor (they're easy to monitor, but that's another story), why would you be okay with ISP physically blocking your access to them? Are you a culture wars memer trying to manufacture outrage about Mozilla? You don't give a shit about circumventing censorship, do you?

>Are you a culture wars memer trying to manufacture outrage about Mozilla?
oh the beautiful 16 year old mentality
>they are attacking my company! These evil nazis are attacking my beautiful corporations

You realize mozilla fact engine tool share the same goals as google fact checking funded tool and we will all have to use microsoft edge or brave in the near future right?

Microsoft (R) Edge (TM) already places MSM in the new tab page by default, shill.

mods?

and mojewla will place a green check on CNN and New York Times
thankfully waterfox is building a totally different browser without mozilla code and hopefully pale moon removes all few mozilla code there is still left there so we can get rid of google/mozilla kikery

You mean upstream Mozilla code unless your fork author rewrote everything. Personally, I'm a fan of seamokey on my netbooks.

The right makes more actual shitty fake news. Or for that matter, lots of shitty fake news was created for manipulate the right by Russia and others during the last presidential election in order to get them to vote for the orange idiot.

Lets remember that the "fake news" in the trust initiative isn't "biased" news sites - sites like worldnetdaily, nationalreview are often BIASED but not necessarily fake news . Unfortunately the orange turd in chief decided to call anything he didn't approve of "fake news" so lots of morons use that definition.

waterfox is rewriting and pale moon is moving to a mozilla-free experience
other than that we have brave and chromium only
now that mozilla ''quantum'' feels like chrome and has more than 13 new telemetry/data collecting additions to their configs I don't see any difference between firefox and chrome
last week I installed the new firefox just to see how hard was to de-fuck it and the only way is to download a .js file
I won't do that I'd rather use a txt based browser or icecat

Occupy Democrats post of the month
There are more reports which actually happened in real life on RT, Al Jazeera and Memri than on CNN and MSNBC

Actual news from CNN: ''A very close source to the President told me he is lonely. The source is anonymous but you should trust me because I wrote 300 books and I appear on TV daily"

what about me?
In May I'll be getting Quantum but without all the (((telemetry)))

TMZCNN

>Citing multiple sources that she identified as friends of the president who claimed to have spoken to the Trump on the phone — who have “all known him for years” — Borger painted a picture of a president who returned from a nine-day foreign trip in a rather disconnected and foul mood. Specifically, Borger says that, according to her sources, Trump “now lives within himself” adding “which is a dangerous place for him to be.” It’s not clear if the dangerous place comment was from her sources or was her own psychological analysis.

This is a definition of fake news: no source, no proof, no nothing.

>Look I found Obama is gay a close source to him said to me multiple times he is gay. The source claimed he masturbates to Gachimuchi every day. Multiple sources also claim he asked Bill Clinton for a blowjob

Spamming Sup Forums with anti NN and false flag pro NN threads is never ok, Sup Forumseddit

>Citing multiple sources that she identified as friends of the president who claimed to have spoken to the Obama on the phone — who have “all known him for years” — Borger painted a picture of a president who spent the day masturbating to Gachimuchi

edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/opinions/obama-masturbate-anime-clinton/

>B-but dude private companies have the right to create their own fact-check to filter fake news

Easy peasy. Don't use their filters.

so you agree that CNN also spread fake news and that CNN will be one of the main sources to filter what is fake news and what is not?

>CNN, New York Times, Washington Post or Le Monde
>left
>far-left

I don't care about CNN.

I didn't ask about what you care
I'll ask again, answer

so you agree that CNN also spread fake news and that CNN will be one of the main sources to filter what is fake news and what is not?

I don't care what Mozilla wants to filter, because I don't want to use their filter. I don't recommend anyone use it either.

just because someone says shit you dont like doesnt mean it is fake news.

actual fake news is a real problem, and acting like a tool to fit in with /r/the_donald is not helping

So what? Just disable 'safe browsing' website checks or whatever it's called if you disagree with it

You have to go back.

>being a mozilla cuck after all the shit they've pulled

>I want my internet browser to censor the internet for me said no one ever
Why would they think anyone wants this "feature", how much of a fucking child do you have to be to want parental controls for news

interesting... a few months ago you complained about a brave shill...you could have said ''i don't care for brave or their ad filters''
looks like you have a selective ''don't care'' policy

It hurts to see people who have such a loose grasp on reality. Please get help, but if you won't do that then get back in your containment board

>Net neutrality threads are ok
they were before the Sup Forums cross-board shitposting. the ones lately were never ok.

>The mozilla (((fact-check))) initiative never gets discussed people simply want to shut it down and use Sup Forums as an argument
Why I'm not surprised

>Mozilla

We don't want to discuss politics on the technology board. It's that simple.

If you bring your concerns about this political issue to the political board, we'll be happy to discuss it with you there.

...

>george soros boogeyman
You have to go back.

Without Mozilla's code, things like waterfox wouldn't have been possible to begin with.

I also said that Brave's advert filtering and injection is fine for the people who want to use it. The shills are a bit annoying, but their model can't get off the ground without users.

Because its an obvious waste of money and also Mozilla is completely non committal about what they actually want to implement. In my opinion the outrage is pure righty memes.

argumentum post hoc Sup Forums

Used to be good does not a good browser make.

Riseup is a host. Do you think that if I make [email protected] it means Google supports Hitler? How the fuck are you people this retarded. Jesus christ.

>Mozilla is completely non committal about what they actually want to implement

No, people are just sick of your bullshit. If you hate Mozilla, Google or whatever the fuck there is, stop using their services. That's what people on Sup Forums do. You fucks doesn't even know your way around an adblocker, why would anyone believe you? They can make their own research instead.

My guess is that they're going to extend the web of trust filter, but I haven't heard anything concrete.

>The Establishment labels an anti-Establishment group as terrorists.
It's almost as if they had something to lose if most people started fighting the Establishment.

Also, fucking mods. Just move this fucking thread to Sup Forums already.

shallows news isn't fake news you fucking retard. of course GLOBAL news organizations report more "real" things because they're not relying on fluff. It doesn't matter what country they're from. also 90% of news is never really obtained by any of these people, just "reported". it's not like RT is out there finding the truth and the BBC isn't or something. people on the ground are often not bound to those organizations, or the news itself was never obtained by a reported, it was just a re-transmitted release by an organization and usually is no better than an opinion.

americans don't want to watch heavy news, they want fluff. that fluff is still true or just opinion based, it's not "fake news". and all major news outlets (on TV anyways) in the US do this, right or left. there is nothing stopping you from using other news sources like I do. but I'm not under any illusion that I'm rebelling against "them" and have found the "real" news, I just don't like fluff because it's boring, so I watch or listen to various international news sources.

what many think of as "fake news" in modern televised media is simply responding to consumer demand with the kind of programming that will get people to watch and thus gain ad rev. and the political stuff that seems like a conspiracy is just fluff to feed american idiots. they need more fluff than ever these days because so many people just trust random shit they see on facebook, they don't even interact with real news organizations.

tl;dr - the problem is with the people, fake news exists as a form of foreign opinion shifting, but the real problem is people eating it up.

you seem upset because people are exposing corporations using technological tools to censor

>shallows news isn't fake news you fucking retard
Shallows news = comedy, talk-show, opinion journalism, etc
Fake news = Trump is sad and lonely source says. Obama is gay source says

Censor lists are freeze peach weather you like it or not.

If anything you're the one that seems upset. After all this thread is made by """people""" like you.

...

WRONG

fake news is created for the explicit purpose of spreading 100% fake information as FACTUAL.

opinionated shallow news, like reporting uncredited sources, is as old as media.

>comedy, talk-show, opinion journalism, etc
those are not news at all, they are entertainment media or punditry at best. you basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>Three prominent journalists at CNN resigned on Monday after the cable news network was forced to retract and apologize for a story on its website involving a close ally of President Trump.
nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/3-cnn-journalists-resign-after-retracted-story-on-trump-ally.html

>fake news is created for the explicit purpose of spreading 100% fake information as FACTUAL.
Such as the example above. Such as the fact that a source says Trump is lonely and sad.
She didn't say "I think the sources are accurate and he might be sad". She said "He is sad and lonely"

This is 100% fake news as factual just like that russian investigation which led to 3 journalists losing their jobs

Sounds like fake celeb gossip as opposed to fake news.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

Remember Brazile saying wikileaks were fake news? then after google email key was published...
What is interesting after the keys were published no one in the MSM said "Oh so she was wrong to call wikileaks fake news"

>Just move this fucking thread to Sup Forums already
It's a discussion about software "features". That's technology related. You know it's bad when even Lunduke turns on Mozilla

at this point in history Sup Forums already accepted TMZ as the standard filter for news in their browsers

More like speculation about software features.

>More like speculation
>The "Mozilla Information Trust Initiative" comes as an automated real-time fact-checking engine developed by the Full Fact foundation was demonstrated in London
phys.org/news/2017-08-mozilla-fact-checker-fake-news.html
theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/fake-news-full-fact-software-immune-system-journalism-soros-omidyar

Oh wow real time fact checking, how many facts per second can it process?

this is just an article saying people were fired because the story they published did not meet CNN standards. which means they were doing sloppy work and were basically fired for embarrassment and to save CNN face, not because they were reporting fake news. a report of a source saying something is never a claim of fact, it's just a report of someone saying something. now the source them-self might be deliberately lying, in which case that person would be spreading fake news, but that person is not CNN or their reporters. the article also has basically no info beyond the first sentence or so where the actual fact of the firing is reported, the rest is just opinion.

I'm not saying CNN is good (that article is a prime example of why they are shitty at news) or that their news can't be misleading, but it is not an outright lie attributable to them and thus is not fake news. I don't like shitty news but the onus is on the viewer to use their common sense and rationality to know when something is being claimed as factual and when it isn't. people not having those basic critical thinking skills is why fake news works. to many people everything that is a suggestion of something is also an absolute claim about the universe. that just isn't true.

actual fake news is not made by news outlets because they could never get away with it (unless it's state sponsored and controlled news but that's another issue). fake news is created by someone or an organization dedicated to misinformation and then news outlets that report real news (of a kind) are the conveyance for the fake. that doesn't make the new outlet fake news, it make them shitty news.

various claims on any side that never pretend to have concrete proof can't be claimed to be fake news because the default position of that kind of reporting or whatever is that no factual claim is being made. I guess people don't think about that in modern times when everything is just flinging opinions.

>they published did not meet CNN standards
because it was a lie and they removed the article
Washington Post actually corrected 3 other news for them. After WP published the CNN error they changed their headline
2 of them were misquoting Trump and 1 was a fabrication
>CNN said X is investigated for Russia-Trump relations
>oh wait that's not happening
that's why they were fired. If that is not faking a report I don't know what it is

>I don't know what it is
you're clearly not understanding the underlying principle and I'm not going to waste time descending to analogies to try and explain it to you. try taking a logic class, hell just think hard about why "beyond a reasonable doubt" is fundamental to law.

and please don't shit up the board with Sup Forums trash anymore.

Mozilla is actively attempting to censor what people are able to access by default in their web browser. What part of that is speculation?

Oh, they implemented the filter already?

No, they're actively working on it hence why I said attempting. As in attempting to implement. Read the links I posted by the way. I'm just pointing out when you screech Sup Forums or want something removed simply because you disagree with it, you really live up to the trite but relevant SJW/snowflake stereotype. In some ways that's even more cringe than some of the more extreme Sup Forums users. Which is exactly what their point is, keeping that crap out of what was once arguably one of the best web browsers out there.

Nothing is more cringe than extreme Sup Forums users.