OneFiercePuppy: 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.

OneFiercePuppy: 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.

zeogold: Hm. I think I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I like the idea of just blocking out a website (assuming T.Hodd was correct) as the solution. What's the criteria to end up on this kind of blacklist?

OneFiercePuppy: ...

Have you seen Full Metal Jacket? You just made my face look like R. Lee Ermey's face when he's yelling at Private Pyle. Are you trolling me now?!?

I need to take an aspirin and lie down XD

No, wait. A pirin. Yes, I need a pirin tablet.

zeogold: All I did was ask for the criteria to end up on said list.

It's trolling to ask for clarification before I just take what you're saying for granted?

OneFiercePuppy: 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.

OneFiercePuppy: There *is no list* Zeo. Link was in OP. There is an initiative that has been announced, and is being funded. It has a vision statement. It isn't doing anything. Literally any claim that Mozilla "is going to do ______" is made up bullshit because at this moment, all that has been announced is that there's a funded initiative that exists to accomplish a vague task.

Why did you take the existence of a blacklist for granted and then ask me for sources? (I mean, I've always got sources, that's no problem.) Why didn't you ask for clarification - or even read the article that prompted the OP post this thread - before assuming that a list exists and censorship is happening?

Don't tell me. Tell yourself. That's a valuable thing to know.

zeogold: Good lord, man. Relax.

immi101: thank you. finally a sane person who actually reads the article :)

OneFiercePuppy: ...*emotionally* attached to a stance, not *rationally* ...

.... and rigorously avoiding an actual dialog about the proposed service ....

immi101: thank you. finally a sane person who actually reads the article :)

_ChaosFox_: Centrist advocates are automatically accused of being "Rothschild puppets" (incidentally, the Soros/Rothschild conspiracy theorism goes hand-in-hand with the rampant anti-semitism, which is why you see a lot of overlap with the far-left).

DaCostaBR: On the other hand, let us not forget all the ones who say "I'm not right-wing or left-wing, I'm a centrist. I'm just a rational free thinking skeptic who looks at the evidence", and all the evidence they do look at just happens to be badly sourced opinion pieces who agree with their viewpoints, and all those viewpoints just happen to mirror those of the alt-right.

Case in point: the OP, apparently.

DaCostaBR: On the other hand, let us not forget all the ones who say "I'm not right-wing or left-wing, I'm a centrist. I'm just a rational free thinking skeptic who looks at the evidence", and all the evidence they do look at just happens to be badly sourced opinion pieces who agree with their viewpoints, and all those viewpoints just happen to mirror those of the alt-right.

Case in point: the OP, apparently.