I think the ublock origin lite thing was a legitimate mistake, though I understand Mozilla's depleting benefit of the doubt.
disguised_doge
joined 1 week ago
Systems ~~used by courts and governments across the US~~ riddled with vulnerabilities
They get (got?) millions in donations, maybe instead of giving it to their CEO and political activists they put it into the browser they could run their browser without ads. But instead they became the infinite growth (at least attempted anyway, not doing well in the growth department) funded by ads silicon valley company in a nonprofit's disguise.
“user is clearly posting about the conflict and it is reasonable to read the red triangle as a proxy for Hamas and it is being used to glorify, support or represent Hamas’s violence.”
It sounds less bad than the title, not an outright ban on the emoji just a ban on using it as a proxy for otherwise banned ideas. Still not a fan of Meta's longstanding belief they're the arbitors of morality and what may be discussioned.
It feels almost coordinated to get you to feel like all companies are compromised, so you should just use the popular thing and forget about privacy and security.
People are criticizing Mozilla for the ads, tracking, and AI stuff. The stuff Google does. Criticizing Mozilla is not an endorsement of Google, in fact quite the opposite.
I believe that Google services collect a lot more data. You can also turn off telemetry in windows by disabling the service and such, so I'd probably say the big G is less private then Microsoft. Microsoft also has a slightly less tracking business model.
I know absolutely nothing about any martial arts, but my two cents is that if it beings you benefit and it's not hurting anybody then it go for it.
Sorry, not sure if you intended to reply to my post or if it was intended for another comment. If you were intending to reply to me, I doubt they'll ban the Israeli flag, although they also haven't banned the Palestinian flag either. They started removing one emoji when used as a representation of something that violated their rules and wanted to clarify the slightly misleading headline on The Intercept's part.
Again, though, as I said above I'm still not a fan of the rule. Meta has made a lot decisions (moderation and otherwise) that I'm not a fan of.