Replacements for Firefox and Thunderbird?

[Bob]

** Reply to message from Ralf Mardorf via ubuntu-users
<ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com> on Fri, 15 Jan 2021 06:55:04 +0100

> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:13:03 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:54:04PM +0100, Kaj Haulrich wrote:
> >> On 14.01.2021 20.35, Liam Proven wrote:
> >> <snip>  
> >> > Removing hateful content is not censorship.  
> >> </snip>
> >> 
> >> And who decides what's 'hateful'?
> >>   
> >So *anything* goes?
> >
> >It's difficult I agree, but there has to be some sort of line drawn.
> 
> If we follow link by link within the links Kaj Haulrich posted on Thu,
> 14 Jan 2021 05:54:48 +0100:
> >https://tinyurl.com/yysew7g2
> >https://tinyurl.com/y277rmw3
> >https://tinyurl.com/yyzmo4vw
> we easily can notice a very plausible line. If somebody writing for
> Breitbart contributes to Wikipedia, this person could be banned, when
> the content contributed to Wikipedia is untrue content taken over from
> Breitbart, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This person will not
> get banned for writing for Breitbart, the person will get banned for
> adding untruth to Wikipedia articles. 
> Wikipedia allows to speak badly about Donald Trump, if it's underpinned
> with facts. "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a
> duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." Wikipedia is not
> favouring Antifa or left wing contributors over alt-right contributors,
> Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia aimed to provide facts, not to
> provide bullshit.
> 
> An example
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Voting_by_mail
> underpinned with a tweet from Donald Trump. The source isn't Antifa,
> the source is Donald Trump.
> 
> If an alt-right does contribute something against a civil rights
> activist and does underpin it with e.g. a tweet of this civil rights
> activist, then Wikipedia wouldn't censor this. If it's "underpinned"
> with lies from Breitbart, it gets removed. I wouldn't call this
> censorship, it's just selecting out lies.
> 
> To "hate" applies the same. "Free speech" can become "hate speech", if
> the speech is based upon lies. This is the line when censorship could
> become necessary. IOW the facts decide, not a person or interest group
> decide.

What you say is partly true.  They mostly check the facts being true/false on
one side and ignore the true/false statements of the other.

-- 
Robert Blair


Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.  -- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian