heh, Germany might be rich, but i am not.
you get a cookie for the effort to look through all this stuff. :)

I still think you are making some rather big jumps to arrive at the conclusion you posted in the OP.

yes, there is a company using artificial intelligence and machine-learning to make an automated fact-checker.
It is certainly right to question in how far that is good idea.
Same as it is worth asking who is funding these projects.

It is also true that Mozilla announced an initiative to "battle fake news", and that they'll look to team up with others to achieve this.
It is however an open question what will come off this initiative. And we just don't know if and in what way it is something that will be featured in Firefox.
There are certainly worrying possibilities that _might_ happen, but with the little information we have so far I see little use to fantasize about what might happen.

It is certainly worth keeping an eye on this development, but at this point it makes no sense to state "soon something bad will be coming to Firefox". That's just alarmist, doomsday rhetoric, sorry.
who knows ...
Whenever I ask my magic crystal ball about the future it is showing me a system error these days :o

but going from description from the stuff they have developed so far, it seems more likely that instead of some blacklist to censor "bad news", you'll get a helpful (annoying) popup telling you that there is a wrong fact in the article you are currently reading, because it is not 65% who are distrusting news from mainstream media but 66%.
Then you'll say:well thank you, I feel much better informed, now where can I turn you off :p

That's what I am also expecting, but that will entail a list, and no doubt one of immense proportions.

The questions I have are, will this be applied across the board to everyone, including corporations and governments, and will the implementation be transparent?

This thread is actually not about Lake News, even if I was forced to try to define what LN are in a futile attempt to keep thread ontopic.

This thread is about ongoing changes in huge wide recognized software project, it provides links about those changes and I added neutral links to who funds these changes. So if there are people who find this worth their attention, can themselves compare, evaluate, then it was worth sharing.

As of Netscape being Soviet, that was of course sarcasm, blatant lie expressed as blatant lie. :)

Great rhetoric as always, immi. Can I ask you to offer your version of the first post? Just quote it as whole, edit to your best then paste. I see no reason why I shouldn't improve OP. Thanks!

// though I disagree on being too much alarmist. We know that grants or any big projects can be plundered through kickbacks, however knowing who is behind the chain, I doubt that people attempting a kickback in this case would be well... So I expect something big, hidden and slimy to happen, however I wish it would just be a third-party completely open (actually useful and neutral) extension. But,.. its not funded by His Holiness either, and "who pays the 'lady' - dances her".

Thanks Lin545 for informing us of Mozilla's worrying move and questionable partners about information control.

This whole thing is crazy and it's all crazy talk and I don't believe a word of it!

Seriously, next thing you know, you're going to expect me to believe that yesterday the President praised a group of neo Nazis.




Oh wait

Frankly I hated the way gatekeepers were in the era of cable/television and radio and I don't like them being imposed by a browser or an ISP. I'll trust some of the news sites like the Intercept and others...they've proven their credibility to me.
If that becomes the case the only way I'll hear substantive news will be through my community radio station and NPR doesn't count.
If you think the whole of MSM don't hide or block things that risk profits to be said for their parent company you're deluded. Look how MSNBC won't talk about Net Neutrality and was mum about TPP.

wat? take 30 more seconds.

(not owned by netscape)

Sorry I missed your post originally. To answer you question of 'how will they defend it?' Like so:

This latest project by Mozilla is about reducing the number of accessible 'fake news' websites to help stop the spread of misinformation. Nothing to do with your privacy at all. So whether or not you like it, it certainly doesn't affect your privacy.

And that is how "they'll" defend that - by pointing out it has nothing to do with privacy whatsoever.
I don't quite understand this - I took 30 more seconds & Mozilla is owned by Netscape.

Please understand that the Mozilla Foundation is not in any way owned or even influenced now by the current subsidiary of AOL, and in large part internet service-provider with other net based services that is Netscape.

Netscape, a long long time ago now, founded the Mozilla project. That project endures, now under the stewardship of the Mozilla Foundation. Netscape never owned Mozilla. They were affiliated for a long time, but Mozilla was never actually owned by Netscape.

There's another reason to consider finding an alternative to Firefox: it's in the process of becoming a Chrome-clone, which does not bode well for the future of add-ons, or any other aspect of Firefox. Here's a couple of articles by the creator of DownThemAll that explain the situation in detail. .
.
Forgot to mention, if you haven't updated to 57 you may want to disable auto-updating, because 57 kills add-ons, many of them permanently.

Ok I understand now, thanks for the clarification.

np. that wikipedia page is really misleading.

Hm?

https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/support-ublock-origin/6746/451

Use instead, it will continue to [url=https://www.ghacks.net/2017/08/16/waterfox-news-android-app-legacy-addons/]support legacy addons.