Worrying words from mozilla
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Tons of people around are going away from firefox because of these quite worrying pieces of words.
Since when did we went from "everyone needs to stay anonymous and encrypt everything" to "everyone is a potential $badPerson" since when people want to do preventive tactical strikes via free/libre software to avoid $badPeople ?
We already know that there are a lot of anti-function in vanilla ff, that's why we have forks like Icecat or Abrowser. But if mozilla dies because of I will say insane words like these, these forks can't last because of how google and co are influencing the W3C/market share.
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/fellow-research-decentralized-web-hate/
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/
I had a bet about when p2p would start being targeted. We all lost, nobody thought it would come so fast.
"We’re still ensuring that people see authoritative and informative news on Facebook"[1]. Now that's a relief...wait, what?!
[1] NYT article linked by https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming
That is a quote from Joe Osborne, a Facebook spokesman, who has nothing to do with Mozilla.
The blog post behind mangeur de nuage's first link is from the author of the mentioned report. http://rebelliousdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P2P-Hate-Report.pdf is the actual report. Its last page presents the author:
Emmi Bevensee is a Mozilla Open Web Fellow, Founder of the Social Media Analysis Toolkit (SMAT) and Rebellious Data LLC. They are also a Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Analysis of the Radical Right. They received a MA in Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding with an emphasis on decentralization of governance in conflict zones and studied Machine Learning in the iSchool PhD program at the University of Arizona.
They are not a Mozilla employee. More importantly, the report is not against P2P. Here is a sentence from the executive summary:
In this report I define P2P systems for a non-industry audience, explain how and why white supremacists are using them, and show how we can utilize the strengths of P2P systems for positive social impact.
I have not entirely read it but it does not look like it is against user anonymity or encryption either.
The blog post behind mangeur de nuage's second link is from Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation. It is not against P2P, user anonymity or encryption either. Here are all the actions she suggests:
You must be kidding. Here is the last sentence from the executive summary:
"This piece asks the critical question: how can we navigate the uncharted terrain of P2P technology"
This is at best uninformed, at worse a bad faith preamble to bad-mouthing.
> More importantly, the report is not against P2P
> I have not entirely read it but it does not look like it is against user anonymity or encryption either.
I am under the impression that you might have jumped to the executive summary, then immediately jumped aside. This is what one can get from the short blog post, the page it links to and the introduction to the report itself:
"White supremacists are starting to use p2p technology. Are we ready?"
"White supremacists are starting to use p2p technology. Are we prepared?"
"White supremacists use Peer-to-Peer tech to"..."share files and communicate" -> Yeah. What else? "Network". Damn.
"No central authority means both healthy content like dissent and dangerous content such as white supremacy are both irrepressible and hard to track." -> Of course, nobody wants to be seen as cracking on dissent, but we still need to allow it to happen because...white supremacy.
"As more white supremacists continue to migrate to P2P technology, the risk that they organize violence through these tools also increases." -> Let us ban mouths and ears before white supremacists find them and start using them stealthily en masse. The RIAA would surely approve of the idea.
"The decentralization of white supremacist groups is being increasingly facilitated by irrepressible and encrypted P2P technology."
"In most Peer-to-Peer communities it is impossible to surveill them or know how many people are using them because they are secure and often private by design. The only way to even catch a glimpse of how many white supremacists are using them is when they post on leaked forums or public websites." -> Whatever.
To put it short, p2p equates white supremacy, so surveillance is good while privacy and security are bad. Wow. We are reaching new lows by the minute. The apocalyptic prophecies currently being revealed to us in the Troll Lounge actually sound like soothing lullabies compared to this hellish free fall (as in "you are the product") into dystopia.
How much of the report did you read? I just skimmed through it, and it does not seem to propose banning anything. The "What can be done?" section mostly just summarizes how the developers of various projects have worked to address these issues themselves. I am very much in favor of decentralization. For that reason, I think it is important to look at the challenges posed by decentralization and consider ways that design and community-building decisions might affect the way that a decentralized network turns out. If things go wrong, it can tarnish the reputation of the project and repel those who would use it for good.
That said, let's not let centralized platforms off the hook. Centralized platforms' algorithms often amplify extremist content and help build its audience. This drives engagement with the platform, which is profitable, so rather than change the algorithms they just wait until something becomes a visible problem and then deplatform it. When the audience responds to deplatforming by moving to a decentralized platform, that leaves the developers of decentralized software to deal with the mess created by the centralized platform. Also, they often do not move to a decentralized platform at all, but instead move to another centralized platform that caters to them. The only platforms that I have (so far) read were used in planning Wednesday's attack on the U.S. Capitol are Parler, Gab, and Telegram. Parler and Telegram are centralized. Gab technically could federate with other instances of software that implement ActivityPub, but chooses not to (last I heard) and so in practice is centralized as well. Another centralized platform, Twitter is hardly innocent in all this either.
> How much of the report did you read?
I am still struggling to understand the focus on white supremacy, and the actual value of the report, so I am still re-reading it.
> let's not let centralized platforms off the hook.
That's the main problem in my view. I had started writing a much longer post about Mozilla's position, which I find indefensible: supporting Facebook policies while leaving (what I still consider to be) a gratuitous attack on peer-to-peer networking unchallenged is not going to convince me to "join Mozilla defending the web".
Whatever pieces could arguably be retained from the report, I cannot help seeing the related blog posts and consequently the report itself as bad-mouthing P2P under the fallacy of white supremacy weaponizing it.
I was still upset by the Mozilla-platformed content I had just been reading while writing the longer post, so I might as well sleep on it but this is surely disastrous behavior from Mozilla. I'll just say that I love the hesitation while answering the question about privacy friendliness at 3:03 in this 2018 Today Show: https://blog.mozilla.org/Internetcitizen/2018/06/06/the-today-show-mozilla-firefox-facebook-container. It then goes on to say that "Mozilla helps users protect their information"...by giving them a false sense of privacy protection while using Facebook? I also love the youtube link, as if they could not host their own vlog's videos.
Maybe they know better. Let us hope they will not take the path of Facebook, Twitter, Google and friends in pretending to have become our new gods, otherwise the internet will indeed become "very Big Brother like and dark, and difficult" (as suggested at 2:43 in the same video). I am sending this through Abrowser, so I have to believe there is still hope.
I am still struggling to understand the focus on white supremacy
The authors is "a Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Analysis of the Radical Right".
I had started writing a much longer post about Mozilla's position, which I find indefensible: supporting Facebook policies...
Where have you read that Mozilla supports Facebook policies? The word "Facebook" appears in neither blog posts and only appears in these two sentences of the report:
- To access Facebook your computer asks Facebook for the data on some page and they send it back to you from a centralized server.
- Despite utilizing centralized infrastructure Twitter, Facebook, and the like have largely been unable to completely stem the tide of hate and disinformation content and appear to see decentralization as a possible solution.
... while leaving (what I still consider to be) a gratuitous attack on peer-to-peer networking unchallenged
Where have you seen attacks on P2P in these blog posts or in the report?
I love the hesitation while answering the question about privacy friendliness at 3:03 in this 2018 Today Show: https://blog.mozilla.org/Internetcitizen/2018/06/06/the-today-show-mozilla-firefox-facebook-container
Mitchell Baker's answer is that privacy is in Mozilla's DNA. Yes, she took a second formulate her answer. So what?
It then goes on to say that "Mozilla helps users protect their information"...by giving them a false sense of privacy protection while using Facebook?
Sure, the best is not to have a Facebook account, as I do. For those who have a Facebook account, using Mozilla's Facebook container certainly enhances privacy, unless you show us why it does not.
I also love the youtube link, as if they could not host their own vlog's videos.
It is not Mozilla's video. It is TODAY's video. On TODAY's YouTube channel.
It is impressive how you can misinterpret anything to support your views.
> It is impressive how you can misinterpret anything to support your views.
I guess this is the typical ad hominem that drives people to think you are arguing in bad faith. What do you know about my views anyway?
If you read carefully my original two-liner, there is no attack on Mozilla. I have no idea why you still felt you had to jump in to defend them.
Trying to focus of what can be done:
> The "What can be done?" section mostly just summarizes how the developers of various projects have worked to address these issues themselves.
I might sound too pessimistic but I cannot see how federated (like XMPP/Jabber or Matrix) or pseudo-federated (like Gab and maybe Signal) structures can escape the blame game once they become popular, whether as a technology or as an instance.
My doubts about the report started with the P2P shematic: the picture clearly depicts a fully decentralized P2P structure, while the actual platforms at stake are, as you say, mostly centralized (or "pseudo-federated"). Both can sell various degrees of encryption, privacy and some form of anonymity, depending on what the developers have in mind and/or what their user base is asking for. Only a fully decentralized network can provide autonomy, privacy and authenticity and anonymity (though not necessarily simultaneously) and protection against algorithm manipulation.
Algorithm manipulation will happen whenever any content gets monetized through mass diffusion. IMO, this is one of the worst sides of the current state of the web and it does seem to be here to stay.
The idealist in me is dreaming of a Shire-like web of trust based on Friend-to-friend authentication. Human interactions are full of all the human flaws but smaller groups are usually better at devising mechanisms to maintain acceptable levels of livability than larger ones. Consequently, I do not think that efficient coping mechanisms can be designed at the aggregate level of a networking tool where swarms of unsettled stormers might land at short notice because the last fashionable large platform decided to deplatform them. Sacrificing privacy and autonomy in order to try and prevent that would thus be a useless sacrifice. The swarm will just move on to the next available tree, leaving the mess behind.
Instead, users of the non swarm type should be empowered with locally managed tools that allow them to enjoy electronic privacy with their inner circle even while all hell breaks loose at the various centralized and quasi-centralized levels. If we start calling authentication, encryption and decentralization names, this will never be possible and all the field will be transformed into a ruin. I might thus retain the "Stay small" recommendation from the report, while hoping that it does not condemn us to reduce our social interactions.
In other words, we will only be able to get the autonomy that our motivation will have let us build and deserve. It will not be bestowed upon us by the self-proclaimed heavenly guardians of the internet.
> I might sound too pessimistic but I cannot see how federated (like XMPP/Jabber or Matrix) or pseudo-federated (like Gab and maybe Signal) structures can escape the blame game once they become popular, whether as a technology or as an instance.
Yes, you sound too pessimistic. Design decisions and community building decisions affect the trajectory of a network. You lump together a bunch of different projects with very different userbases and reputations. We should look at what different projects have done differently to reach different outcomes, and learn from their successes and mistakes.
You might think that you are defending decentralization right now, but by saying there is nothing to be done you are actually buying into and reinforcing the narrative that centralized control is the only way to ensure that a project develops in a positive way.
> Sacrificing privacy and autonomy in order to try and prevent that would thus be a useless sacrifice.
The report does not propose sacrificing privacy and autonomy. The report looks for other solutions. You are the one arguing that there is no solution other than sacrificing privacy and autonomy. Your response to that notion seems to be "so let's just not solve the problem" but many other people will respond with "so let's just give up privacy and autonomy." It's simply bad strategy to make an argument that can so easily backfire.
I see.
I guess I'll just have to crawl back to my cave then.
Last thoughts while crawling back:
1. I was both upset and tired when I wrote that post about what can be done and there certainly is some unhelpful confusion in it. I ask for forgiveness for being a limited human and not being able to always write as clearly as I wish. Also, I do not pretend that my views on the topic are clear and definitive. I am still looking forward to see what these solutions concretely are. Maybe someone with a more appropriate background and approach than "Analysis of the Radical Right" could do better.
2. In fact, there is nothing I can do alone about the massive attack on both privacy and autonomy[1] which is taking place since more than a decade now (see that 2018 video for a warning from Mozilla), so I will leave it there. Writing some thoughts here does not seem to help.
3. Have fun imagining tomorrow's solutions through somehow-decentralized-but-still-not-too-much-so-Big-Brothers-can-still-stick-their-nose-whenever-they-deem-it-fit-but-only-when-really-really-necessary, with the help of Mozilla.
4. I am actively looking for a replacement to Abrowser. There are already many suggestions in this forum so I will give them a try. Mozilla has simply grown too big to be trusted, whatever amount of good faith they might be able to display. This happens to all organizations. Having to rely on reputation warriors is never a good sign, however clumsy they might be.
[1] Autonomy = not being dependent on a central actor.
1. No worries. I'm pretty grumpy these days myself.
2. Are you interested in contributing to some free software projects pertaining to decentralization or privacy?
3. Who said anything about the help of Mozilla? The only special leverage they ever had to shape the web was contingent on Firefox's marketshare. That's gone now. Google won the second browser war, and Mozilla's vision of the web deserves no more attention than anyone else's.
4. If you don't want your browser to sit downstream from anything having to do with Mozilla, you can swap out Mozilla for Google or Apple by switching to a WebEngine-based or WebKit-based browser. I don't know if you'd consider that an upgrade.
2. Are you interested in contributing to some free software projects pertaining to decentralization or privacy?
Definitely. In fact, I have recently re-installed Code::Blocks and re-opened some well written beginner course material in order to take my C++ programming skills to a decent level, at last. There is a long way to go until they become operational for any kind of purpose but I had to start somewhere. My immodest intermediate goal is to be able to understand how RetroShare currently works but the ultimate goal is to contribute to any project worth the investment in time and energy, so intermediate goals can always be readjusted accordingly.
4. If you don't want your browser to sit downstream from anything having to do with Mozilla, you can swap out Mozilla for Google or Apple by switching to a WebEngine-based or WebKit-based browser. I don't know if you'd consider that an upgrade.
What about Goanna? I have started reading the details of the nearby thread you started about browsers, and from what I have read so far I get that your suggestion is to rebase the web and stick with Mozilla's derivatives (or possibly Ungoogled Chromium) until that is done.
> The report looks for other solutions.
What are these solutions and in what way do they solve the massive problem of algorithm complexity we are facing?
Seriously, who actually read that damn report before taking on my posts in this thread? It is only about 20 pages long.
> Seriously, who actually read that damn report before taking on my posts in this thread? It is only about 20 pages long.
Your expectation that people will read anything before calling you a moron and a nazi is unrealistic. They are simply following modern internet etiquette - shoot first, ask questions later.
The way to win an online argument is to expect they will attack you, expect their line of attack, have your proof that their line of attack is false before they use it, and then spring it on them when they do attack. That's 4th dimensional chess.
You can also use a honeypot trap - post a comment that will attract a certain type of attack, have your proof ready that the attack is false ahead of time, then trap your poor victim in your web and watch them wriggle in despair.
Think of online commenters like carpenter ants - show them no mercy, or otherwise they will eat your entire house. Use the flamethrower on them.
> Your expectation that people will read anything before calling you a moron and a nazi is unrealistic.
I read the report, and I did not call Lutes a moron or a nazi.
> Think of online commenters like carpenter ants - show them no mercy, or otherwise they will eat your entire house. Use the flamethrower on them.
Is that really how you see me?
Oh please, get over yourself. a) I am writing to him about a humorous (to me, not to him) incident which he and his house narrowly survived this past year. b) If I wanted to say something nasty to you I would just say it to you. When have you seen me do otherwise? If your skin is that thin, then just ignore me for awhile, I don't plan to stop being annoying anytime soon.
> I am writing to him about a humorous (to me, not to him) incident which he and his house narrowly survived this past year.
Sorry, I missed the reference. These Troll Lounge inside jokes have become like memes or pokemon for me. I used to be able to keep track of them, but now there's too many and I feel like an old man who doesn't understand what anyone's saying.
We are (or were) a lot like family in the troll lounge. With Masaru going silent the past month it's changing.
> flamethrower
You forgot, we are already burning in Hell - or is it the Parking Garage bonfire?
This is the matrix.
> Seriously, who actually read that damn report before taking on my posts in this thread?
I did.
> What are these solutions
They list several ways in which decentralized projects have mitigated these issues. The three I found most interesting are:
* In Scuttlebutt, "moderation and what gets amplified is decided by trust and how connected someone is in the network, rather than by an algorithm optimized for engagement like on Twitter or Youtube. In order for a message to spread in the network, that user must be trusted. According to the developer André Staltz, this makes it less attractive to those trying to amplify things like hate or disinformation."
* Scuttlebutt also avoids branding and presenting itself in a way likely to disproportionately attract bigoted users. Though the report does not mention this, I would also point to the difference between how Tor and Freenet present themselves, the different userbases they have attracted, and that as a result Freenet has a much more negative reputation than Tor.
* Gab rebased on Mastodon and effectively became a Mastodon instance. In response most Mastodon instances choose to preemptively defederate with Gab. As a result "while Gab is still live, it is largely isolated." Gab users have a space where they can say whatever they want, but it doesn't get amplified through the rest of Mastodon the way that extremism does on Twitter.
> and in what way do they solve the massive problem of algorithm complexity we are facing?
None of them solves the issue completely (we also require antitrust regulation and public education), but they show that there are meaningful actions that can be taken that don't rely on centralization.
> I did.
I believe you.
> Scuttlebutt [...] Mastodon
I am not sure of the detailed functioning of Scuttlebutt and Mastodon but I have no doubt they provide proper tools for group/community micro-management. If I am not mistaken, they are both federated, not properly speaking peer-to-peer. I just realized that distinction may explain a great deal of our misunderstanding on that topic. What does the report actually suggest should be changed there anyway in order to avoid giving crackpot nonsense a platform?
> None of them solves the issue completely (we also require antitrust regulation and public education), but they show that there are meaningful actions that can be taken that don't rely on centralization.
I think this perfectly sums it up, and I would not take any part of your sentence away (except maybe the word "completely", which I still think is an understatement). I have no idea where a long post focusing on education I had been painstakingly writing went, I guess it was sent back to the void. No matter, this is where I think the emphasis should be put, instead of amplifying further the noise by trying to shout louder.
> If I am not mistaken, they are both federated, not properly speaking peer-to-peer.
Mastodon is federated. Scuttlebutt is p2p. The report brings up Mastodon in the "What can be done?" section even though it is not an example of proper p2p. It should probably be more clear about the distinction, but federated systems and p2p systems are similar in some ways, so some subset of the experience of one may be useful for the other.
> What does the report actually suggest should be changed there anyway in order to avoid giving crackpot nonsense a platform?
I think the report is just pointing out that approaches like Scuttlebutt's and Mastodon's have been effective to some degree, and suggesting that this is something to learn from. I read this report mainly as a summary of the current state of things and what has been tried so far. It might be a useful introduction to someone who isn't very familiar with the topic, but it doesn't really come up with any original ideas, good or bad. I think way too big a deal has been made of Mozilla's stance on this issue, which to me looks like an attempt keep up Mozilla's appearance of relevance by inserting itself into a hot topic despite not having a real contribution to make.
> I have no idea where a long post focusing on education I had been painstakingly writing went, I guess it was sent back to the void.
For some reason RootFarmer deleted their account and all of their posts, and all replies to those posts were deleted in turn.
> Scuttlebutt is p2p.
So the conclusion is that p2p networks are efficient. So where is the problem? How is it supposed to support sentences like this one: "The decentralization of white supremacist groups is being increasingly facilitated by irrepressible and encrypted P2P technology"?
> I think way too big a deal has been made of Mozilla's stance on this issue, which to me looks like an attempt keep up Mozilla's appearance of relevance by inserting itself into a hot topic despite not having a real contribution to make.
I do not really have a general opinion about Mozilla but I could not agree more with this. Conversely, some people are blatantly trying to use Mozilla and free software to stir up hot topics. The effect of both, whether it is intended or not, is to give p2p a bad name. Meanwhile, Facebook is being referenced as a reliable source for a solution. That is the point I was trying to make.
>> I have no idea where a long post focusing on education I had been painstakingly writing went, I guess it was sent back to the void.
> For some reason RootFarmer deleted their account and all of their posts, and all replies to those posts were deleted in turn.
In fact I am not sure I ever posted it. I think I closed the text editor while trying to close an unused configuration file. Keyboard shortcuts are great but can backfire painfully. Maybe it is time I quit computing for good and focus on less demanding activities than writing stuff on a computer.
EDIT: typo
> So the conclusion is that p2p networks are efficient. So where is the problem? How is it supposed to support sentences like this one: "The decentralization of white supremacist groups is being increasingly facilitated by irrepressible and encrypted P2P technology"?
I think the conclusion is that Scuttlebutt has tried a few things that appear to have helped, so it might be a good idea for other p2p networks to try those things as well, and we should try to understand why those strategies helped so that we can come up with more strategies that help even more.
> I do not really have a general opinion about Mozilla but I could not agree more with this.
My opinion is that the only thing that Mozilla should ever have focused on was increasing Firefox's marketshare into order to have enough influence over the web to be a check on Microsoft's (back when IE was dominant) and Google's (once Chrome became dominant) power, and then use that influence for good.
In May 2015 it Firefox had about 11% market share.
=> https://venturebeat.com/2015/05/01/chrome-passes-25-market-share-ie-and-firefox-slip/
That is right around the time that Mozilla decided to implement EME in Firefox. They were ethically opposed to it, but determined that they didn't have enough leverage. Netflix had already started using EME, and if Firefox didn't implement it they feared their users would just switch to Chrome. None of the other major browsers had any ethical qualms about DRM, so once Mozilla gave in DRM became a de facto web standard (later codified into an official standard by the W3C).
Now Firefox has more like 7% market share. If 11% wasn't enough leverage in 2015, 7% certainly isn't enough now. Mozilla implements anything necessary to make as many websites as possible keep working. It can't fight for its own vision of the web while it's constantly playing catch-up to Google's, so it no longer matters whether Mozilla's vision of the web is right or wrong.
You completely misinterpret the sentences you chose. They never propose "to allow [cracking on dissent] to happen" or to "ban mouths and ears". They never say that "p2p equates white supremacy" or that "surveillance is good while privacy and security are bad".
lol perhaps white supremacy is just a smokescreen reason, because most people aren't down with racism or whatnot?
-http://rebelliousdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P2P-Hate-Report.pdf
"For this project, I interviewed 6 experts, held 4 workshops, attended 3 additional workshops on
the topic, had countless informal conversations with various actors in this field, and held a
Rebellious Data LLC & Emmi Bevensee | 10community-wide open editing process."
^unverifiable and senseless?
At least there were interviews, or so we are told.
It appears that the author also happens to be writing stuff elsewhere where they show an appalling level of fact distortion and biased analysis, and an outstanding amount of conflation and name calling. Even the Wikipedia pages on similar topics have more balanced content. Nobody in their rational mind would want to associate with them, whether they disagree or not with their conclusions. In that light, the content of this report suddenly becomes much less surprising but Mozilla's heedlessness appears to be tangent to self-destructive. I personally do not wish Mozilla's self-destruction so I hope this was an accident. Accidents happen. I guess nobody would expect someone with a PhD to go into such levels of intellectual depravity.
Maybe Mitchell Baker's blog can be given the benefit of the doubt and assume perhaps just she's upset at the current politiriks and msm news coverage? Like seems as she was trying to call out big tech for their already censored social platforms? Probably another website to put controversial political opinions would have been better than on mozilla's main website, like how rms does? The whole white supremists and p2p argument keeps making no sense to me the more i've thought about it, like the innocent people would have more privacy from the so called white supremacists as well? lol Idc about politriks or what happens on the mainstream news too much.
Is the person in photograph 31 a white supremacist?
it is disgusting how people will so quickly allow their principles to be overrun by emotions. The plutocracy is quite adroit at manipulating the public's emotions for the purpose of tricking them into giving up their civil liberties.
WARNING-- If you have a strong feeling about something that happens to help the plutocracy; be suspicious of it. --WARNING
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-telegram-chat-apps
"Right-wing groups on chat apps like Telegram are swelling with new members after Parler disappeared and a backlash against Facebook and Twitter, making it harder for law enforcement to track where the next attack could come from."
These things do not seem to be going anywhere. If anything, the successive attempts at banning them have predictably and spectacularly backfired. Still, some suggest to stubbornly follow the same course. What's next? Ban end-to-end encryption?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/17/apple-capitol-siege-telegram
"Our research revealed serious instances whereby TELEGRAM’s end-to-end encryption service was enabling."
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires