• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Eh, I’m not so sure it’s “well done.” They should comply with local laws and perhaps respond by making it easy to add your own addon repo or sideload addons.

    Getting banned just reduces your impact.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      By doing this they are setting a strong presence. You either can have full Firefox or no Firefox. It isn’t right to censor for specific countries.

      It is the same thing with EU chat control and Signal.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Idk, I think an addon store is different. Some regions could restrict certain types of addons (e.g. porn, gambling, crypto, language support, etc), and that should be fine. They shouldn’t compromise on core Firefox features, but I think region-gating extensions is fine, provided they have a way to side-load extensions.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          We aren’t talking about gambling here we are talking about massive censorship and attacks on human rights.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s the same general idea. Blocking gambling add-ons is just another form of censorship. As long as countries aren’t dictating core browser features, I don’t see why Mozilla shouldn’t comply with blocking access to certain third-party add-ons in their add-on store, but they should allow users to select third-party add-on repos if they so choose (afaik, that’s not a thing yet).

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Gambling has nothing to do with Democratic speech and access to information. We are talking about add ons that might show people the truth. Russia and Putin fear that greatly.

    • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They should comply with local laws

      To my knowledge Firefox / Mozilla does not have an office in Russia. And even if they had, the argument can be made that unlawful / authoritarian laws by any ethical perspective have to be fought against.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sure, but you have to weigh the pros and cons. This request seems benign enough that Mozilla shouldn’t be limited in delivering on its mission in Russia by following it, but they would certainly would be limited if they’re completely blocked.

        If Russia asks Mozilla to do something that compromises their core mission, that’s the time to refuse.

        • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s how it starts. Mozilla itself is maybe not hindered on its mission, but the people who depend on them are: the extension was blocked, and there is no official way that I know of to add third-party extension repositories to Mozilla. And sure, the more important part of the problem is you cede just one bit, but the authoritarians won’t stop. They know now Mozilla will spread their legs so they’ll ask more and more, and Mozilla will for sure choose to bend over for them than to act for the people they were supposed to be fighting for.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You can sideload if you have the extension file.

            The proper response, imo, is to implement third party add-on repos, so if Mozilla is forced to remove access to something, someone else can make a mirror or something. That way someone could create and host a repo that has blocked extensions and Mozilla doesn’t get in trouble for it.

            There should absolutely be a line drawn here. Mozilla shouldn’t make any code changes to any of their services to appease censorship orgs (e.g. domain block lists). Blocking access to services that can be hosted/replaced by someone else shouldn’t be an issue.

  • apis@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Am tired, but bit confused at sequence of events.

    Did Russia ban Mozilla from offering specific extensions, whereupon Mozilla removed for Russian users the banned extensions?

    Or…

    Did Russia ban Mozilla from offering some undefined type of extension, whereupon Mozilla removed for Russian users any which seemed to fall under the ban under an abundance of caution until they could assess each & reinstate those which did not fit the ban?

    Or, more worryingly, but maybe implied by the supposed temporary intent of the ban…

    Did Russia ban Mozilla from offering specific extensions, whereupon Mozilla temporarily removed for Russian users the extensions in order to give Russia the ability to track or otherwise meddle with Russian users of those extensions… or to enable Russia to interfere with the extensions’ code for their own ends?

    I feel I can make a reasonable guess, but there’s a fairly big safety issue here depending on what happened.

    Anyone dissenting within an authoritarian regime knows to exercise extreme caution, but always good to put out reminders to have multiple layers of protection, so if one fails you are still ok.