That's not Clint! THIS is Clint!

WRONG!!!!

THIS IS CLINT!

That isn't Howard! THIS is HOWARD!

Ahem

So Firefox is actually Soviet creation? :P Finally I can decode the red color in "about:mozilla" message! Gotta make a new thread about this!.. sometime maybe perhaps..

You probably should.

Look, that "C" word was mentioned in article, but I found no proof so far of it, so I reverted it to "unconfirmed". But tracing and tracking of un-strict truth by a distributed AI developed for $500k grant - yes, plenty traces to that. Lets stick to whats reliably known, or we will cast the wrath of the bone broth-containing caveman upon ourselves. :)

You've both gone too far.

See, thats why I initially just posted the links to material I found without much sum ups. Now they think I pretend to be J.C. or have some agenda.

Don't shoot the messenger, buddy! And.. middle of Siberia actually internets. So, your choice anyways - just sharing, no arguing, peace. And here is comfortable [url=https://www.gog.com/forum/general/pinata_tracker/page1]pinata link, just being friendly as always.

THIS IS PATRICK!

Could somebody seriously explain to me what this thread is about? I have a tough time deciphering OP's...what looks to me like gibberish.

I wouldn't even call them Muslims - if they were they'd know better than to commit such atrocities. IS should actually be SCISCS (So-called Islamic So-called state).
Mozilla are trying to stop misinformation by blocking fraudulent news websites. That's as far as I got anyway.

There are a few organizations that are trying to enforce journalistic standards on information sources. Mozilla is one of them and partnering with others. The benefit here to the public is thus: extreme ideologies have very little or nothing to lose by spreading false information, but everyone else does in fact suffer from a lower average quality of information available. People who adhere to the extreme viewpoints are already *emotionally* attached to a stance, not *rationally* so, and therefore they won't much care about their sources being discreditable. See every chemtrail/fluoridation/antivaxxer post over the last decade or more for relatively recent examples of people treating "feels good" as equivalent to "is true."

By namedropping Soros several times, calling out "fake news" with capital letters (to prove, presumably, how sooper srs OP is), and rigorously avoiding an actual dialog about the proposed service - instead making up implausible slippery-slope outcomes and other tomfoolery - OP is clearly marking himself as sympathetic to what we'd in the US call the far right. He's worried that if people are able to fact-check sources, it will be easier to tell the difference between an op-ed and peer-reviewed research. That's a frightening concept to someone who relies on the emotion of information over the content.

EDIT: Lest I appear one-sided on this, keep in mind that what we've got in the US as far-left is *no less destructive* to a rational discourse. Indeed, the entire concept of a two-party system (politically or socially) is intrinsically lethal to the concept of an educated public. As single-issue voters adhere more and more rigorously to one party or another, any problem can be broken down into "my team" or "their team", even without actually considering an individuals opinions on the matter. It becomes enough just to know that you're on a team and thus must obey. Having actual facts allows people who are having a conversation to understand what they're talking about, not what what they're talking about feels like (that was tough to parse. Sorry.) If information has no cost to transmit - and on the internet, it has nearly no cost - then there's no penalty for a lower quality of that information. If trying to reduce the prevalence of poorly sourced opinion pieces can result in people being made aware that A is news and B is opinion, then it could be worthwhile indeed. You and I disagree on quite a few things at a very fundamental level. Remember the discussion on that other forum? You and I both had facts, and in the end we disagree not on if something is true, but on what the value judgement is as a result. That let us have a quality disagreement about a politically charged topic. That's what this is about. Reduce the screeching. Hope that people can back down from their self-righteous echo-chamber-fuelled rage and get back to thinking about things instead of being told what to think and why it's so terrible that someone else thinks something else.