They disguise their desire for control under the guise of "but the le white supremacists or something"
>As more white supremacists continue to migrate to P2P technology, the risk that they organize violence through these tools also increases.
>As major internet platforms like Twitter and YouTube crack down on hate groups, these online communities don't just go away. Instead, there's been an exodus to spaces that are more difficult to scrutinize and moderate, but still have the potential to reach a mass audience.

It's just another head of Google.
https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/blog/fellow-research-decentralized-web-hate/

mozilla hates the decentralized web, but it's not because they hire some DEI CV-padder to go "uhh, you can use mastodon to jerk off to the idea that the day of the rope is coming, which is bad, but this transsexual made a blocklist, so it's also good"
it's because they're directly funded by google and that shapes their internal incentives in such a way as to make them waste their time adding AI or another set of pointless UI changes to their browser instead of paying attention to their real userbase and market niche.

if you could actually ban white supremacists from the web it would be a good thing. not because they are racist, but because they are guilty of something much worse than racism: being boring. no, worse than being boring, being tedious. being boring and repetitive.
there is no decentralized web of hate, but there is a decentralized web of tedium. only three types of people bother with decentralized technology at any scale: political idiots banned from other services who're too obsessive to successfully ban evade, nerds stupid enough to think you can use technology to resolve social problems (just build a protocol and they'll come!), and autistic nerds who're only interested in solving technical problems with no interest in social problems whatsoever despite directly working on communications technology.
this milieu of losers is a much bigger problem for the adoption of decentralization than any opposition from major companies. why would you use a service filled with such people when you've no interest in anything they have to say?

p.s. remember to vote Komeito.

>>4231
creativity emerges when under pressure.
there are no sides for technology, there is only progress, if the system cracks down on niche groups, eventually those niche groups push their tools to new extrems to avoid the system.
the nichier they get the more unique they become, the more creative they become, which eventually gains attraction from the maínstream to then re-accept them until they become the system lol

> not because they are racist, but because they are guilty of something much worse than racism: being boring

pot calling the kettle black?

>>4227
This actually has to be an early April fools or something????

Yes people use tools for evil, but that does not mean that the tools themselves are evil. Its pretty clear that all of these bullshit new things (e.g. Digital ID, Online (((Safety))) Act, CBDCs) are just for control, same as this article. Getting rid of a decentralized web lets them control whatever they want.

For a long time I have seen Mozilla as just a separate entity of Google since that is where their money comes from. Same thing with the fact that political donations are not actually donations, they are more used for buying themselves into the party. Besides the money from Google is not even a donation lmfao.

Can you imagine the best of the programmers working at Mozilla, and the amount of money they had, went to another browser like Pale Moon or another more independent better project? I think they would have so much money that they wouldn't know what to do with it!