![librewolf wikipedia librewolf wikipedia](https://trendoceans.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/AppImages-require-FUSE-to-run.jpg)
LIBREWOLF WIKIPEDIA FREE
I generally want a free and open internet, but I also see the threat to humanity if we allow misinformation and disinformation to run rampant on the internet. These two principals can be contradictory, but I feel the same way as Mozilla.
![librewolf wikipedia librewolf wikipedia](http://www.associationsquebec.qc.ca/uploads/libre_service_02.jpg)
We are committed to an internet that elevates critical thinking, reasoned argument, shared knowledge, and verifiable facts. However, Mozilla recently added an Addendum to its Manifesto, which includes: The internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible. That would violate the second principal of the Mozilla Foundation’s Manifesto: They just need a moral excuse, some event after which no one can object to it without being associated with the bad guys in said event, and it’s gone, anyone types in mastodon.social into the URL bar and it just gives a generic can’t connect error. But I’ve seen a lot of once far-fetched things happen.įirefox could block B&H, Bitchute, Ruqqus, the fediverse, infogalactic, and any web page recommending them. Is it a bit far-fetched at the moment? Yes. This is why it’s important to have an alternative that isn’t signaling a desire to do this. Firefox could block B&H, Bitchute, Ruqqus, the fediverse, infogalactic, and any web page recommending them. All of these have alternatives that act similarly but do things in a way, or have content, that their users find more agreeable. Much like the money Mozilla gets from Google to promote Google Search. They’re popular, but it’s not for convenience, you can just bookmark them, put them on your home page, or type and you’re there. What’s the point in promoting these places? It’s not to showcase them, everyone’s heard of them. Amazon, Youtube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and Wikipedia. And they can do it for money.Ĭonsider the websites that come recommended in the default configuration of the URL bar. And that’s a problem, because they can make Firefox remove access to websites that they disagree with.
![librewolf wikipedia librewolf wikipedia](https://blog.desdelinux.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/navegadores-web-para-ubuntu-400x225.jpg)
Mozilla seems to think we need this and more. Should people be unable to view those videos on those grounds? One might even go as far as to call it misinformation and not be wrong. There have been several Librem 5 reviews posted here containing inaccurate information. Were the deplatformed wrong about things? Of course. And then, their service providers changed their rules, or heard about some unsightly possible flow of information between them and undesirable people, and shoved them out the door without even talking to them. More people than ever bought a Librem 5 or Pinephone. Not everyone did, but very large numbers, hundreds of thousands. The sources of information you heard about that got removed are things you heard about because they had a large following. And that’s a big problem for a browser maker.įor I see deplatforming, as it is practiced today, as something that isn’t just removing rule breakers or sources of information of which there’s a universal agreement that all were better off not seeing. Clearly it shows favor for deplatforming. The main problem with that article is the title itself. Which you can’t when it’s funded by ad revenue. More transparency in advertising would be good…if I could trust the transparency.