Yes that's how it works, and no, it has nothing do do with capitalism...
FYI I signed up to Signal, now that WhatsApp changed the ToS for citizens outside the EU (even though I am not affected as a EU citizen I think it important to support diversity), and have been using Telegram for a longer while already. I provide Google's Chromium as an alternative to Mozilla browsers (even though Google is not all that different from Mozilla of course). Et cetera. There's always an alternative.

Parler is a product which violates the AWS terms of service. Don't use AWS and host the stuff yourself, using a hosting provider with Terms of Service that you can agree to.
Just like providers of illegal content are taken off-line.
Free speech also has limitations. As stated in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...-human-rights/) article 29, " In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

And there's always the legal boundaries any company has to deal with that has a presence in any country. Tech companies are restricted in what they are allowed to offer in totalitarian countries like China, Russia, Turkey, Iran. But the US is not all that different and thinks it is entitled to ban products like Tiktok for instance.

No vrp, I don't misunderstand. The big tech giants are using their great power to censor who they want to, and to present political twist as fact. Just like big leftist media has done for decades. Jan 6 should show everyone, it's not a good idea to do that. Suppressing free speech is not a good idea. It makes people madder than (eternally hot place). Plus, it helps to cause a bunch of people to get wrong/incorrect info. (Tribalism) Because they know that they can't believe a word that "they" say.

The answer for free speech that you don't like is...More free speech. The best ideas will will the hearts and minds of the people.

Yup. I could not resist. De platforming is controlling speech that "they" don't like. And it is not a good thing.

What does de platforming free speech have to do with white supremacy?

We have Falkon and Seamonkey!

Google is even more censor happy than Mozilla so why Chromium? If American politicians & US media organizations & their followers were deplatformed I'd jump for glee because: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...apitol-assault

Anyway this is a political topic. Firefox works fine. It isn't telling the FBI that anyone visited Gab or Parler (while it lasts), & it still allows you to visit those sites. This thread should be locked.

De platforming is creating more hate and conflict but it's exactly what the elite wants. It's the good old divide and conquer.
You see, when the peasants point pitchforks at each other they don't point them towards the king.

And what does de platforming free speech have to do with Slackware?

I am Russian, so I have no interests about the American politics. And neither the European Union ones does impress me.

I already requested the moderators to move the topic to the General forum.

Nothing, it's where someone started a thread. And Firefox's decision is politically motivated.
Thank you.

I salute this wise decision.

Not necessarily replaced, but that Slackware could also offer (in the future) an alternative browser. Just a thought and there can be both technical and philosophical reasons to do so. You can call it browser diversity if that is what sounds good nowadays.

Mozilla is heavily dependent on Google for its financing so obviously some level of assimilation to Google policies is to be expected. Given the current downturn in FF market share and changing management focus, things are not going to get easier to keep FF/Gecko afloat IMO.

Regarding free speech the other poster touched upon, we're entering new times where once small independent IT businesses used the networking effects in a way that they can dictate more than just the IT stuff. At the same time barriers to entry are becoming huge (if you don't want to use their infrastructure), so clearly it's in everybody's interest to keep the diversity (decentralization/fragmentation) relatively high.

Hate speech, fake stuff and the like are with us since the begining of internet, nobody complained about those in 1990's, so unless it's against the law, it has the "right to exist", how I deal with it is just my responsibility.

Have any of you actually read that Mozilla blog post?

Mozilla is not advocating a further de-platforming of people/organizations that promote hate/division/falsehoods. Instead they advocate to make these big platforms more transparent in who is behind the advertisements they show you and how their algorithms deal with displaying and amplifying online information. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Why should Mozilla be punished for advocating transparency?

I agree. It ought to be moved to General.

Yes I agree this thread belongs in general. But I see nothing wrong with this statement.

I for one wants to know who is paying for ads being forced upon me.

To me, many people paying for ads are cowards, not willing to put thier name to the service/product they are advertising.

Nobody is saying that there should be no limits to free speech. But limiting free speech is a dangerous path to go down, so the UN restricts it to "limitations determined by law" as well as requiring an approved motive such as protecting the rights and freedoms of others. In other words, a government has to propose legislation with a sufficiently wide popular approval not to lose them the next election, a legislative body with a properly functioning opposition party has to pass those proposals into law, and a jury has to determine if particular cases constitute a breach of that law. That is a very different matter from a company that controls most of the infrastructure of the internet deciding by itself that a certain platform will not be hosted.

main-way
at least let's keep lynx and maybe add vivaldi, chromium is there via alienBob repositories.
mozilla is indeed said to be in trouble for the last couple of years and this year too.
i'd rather keep donating to slackware since mozilla has its entries within the big tech money - which is neither outrageous nor unexpected on its own.

side-way
nonetheless, a bloat of a buzzword the mozilla-blog was told to use : )
banning either-or will not resolve conflicts.

I think there's a specific problem for Slackware here because of the Slackware policy of encouraging a full install to avoid dependency problems. This means that what is not in the full install is less likely to be used. Yes, there is slackbuilds.org and there is Alien Bob's collection. But it takes an extra little bit of effort to go to those places. And if you make the full install bigger, it is even more of a problem for downloaders with limited facilities.

I used Gentoo for a while (not for long!) and I remember that their philosophy was diametrically opposite. They avoided default packages like the plague because their management team regarded defaults as a limitation on freedom of choice (because it was always easier to just use the default than to explicitly install something else). So you installed a skeleton distro and then fleshed it out with the packages of your choice.