ReggieJJJ

It seems extremely prejudicial and even driven by a bigoted and hateful motivation to emphasize the purchaser of the fragment when the story is really about the person who is accused of illegally taking and selling the fragments.

It would be like writing the headline like this "Oxford is Officially and International Illegal Historical Artifacts Dealing Organized Criminal Enterprise." if one were to have a bigoted bias against Oxford.

When one takes a step back the far worse villain then Hobby Lobby, is definitely Oxford, which was apparently complicit in this type of activity by way of insufficient controls to prevent it. But even that would be ridiculous in many ways, but not as ridiculous as blaming the other victim Hobby Lobby, that was defrauded by the Professor who also used Oxford's credentials and authority to make the sale.

Can anyone make sense of why some people have two versions of pictures, one close up of their bust, the other of most of their full body; while others only have a single image? It seems rather arbitrary if it's intentional at all.

I for one am rather curious about many recent Mozilla moves. They seem to be away from decentralized and distributed models, towards centralized ones.

You ask why not improve opensearch markup, just like I have asked why not improve RSS. I am quite convinced that the RSS model has a lot of untapped potential for a distributed internet, but it also thwarts central control, surveillance, tracking etc.

And yet, here you are, validating the very criticism of your heavy handed authoritarian nature. You make the very same kind of authoritarian claims of "evidence" (where is it, show it and provided it for public scrutiny and audit then) and you weigh that "evidence" against arbitrary (yet comically inline with your own self-interest) measure against ambiguous rules. It's the authoritarians' playbook 101, regardless of whether the authoritarians are competent enough to recognize it, let alone self-are enough. (pro tip: you guys never are … never)

Just try to reflect on the authoritarian and supremacist mentality you have with language like "It isn't a good use of resources to patiently coax them to improve or even to reply to their posts at all"; yet your expend resources to censor and control and rule with an iron fist anything that is not to our liking.

No one is talking about obvious spam or any kind of illegal language like credible threats of violence or stalking or bulling, but if you were at least honest with yourself you would acknowledge that it has nothing at all to do with "good use of resource" and all to do with control. Because it is irrefutably true that if it were about "good use of resources" you would wholeheartedly avoid censorship of legal language and not violate what what has been deemed a human right, free speech.

You types, people with the authoritarian supremacist mentality you clearly have, are always quite to rationalize why it is fine that you be the arbiter of right and wrongthink, but it never avails you of the inherent evil exhibited by controlling speech and expression, no matter how much beneath you or inferior and unworthy you decree that speech to be.

It strikes me as rather odd that Mozilla would be involved in such a dystopia extending enterprise. I realize that it is unlikely that not doing this work would not prevent it from being done at some point, but it seems like a worthwhile choice not to engage in it even if it just delays things long enough until regulations, laws, countermeasures, or even technology solutions can emerge, can catch up, or be developed.

I think you may be underestimating this issue. It is leading to one of the most heinous and vile things someone can do on an internet forum, shadow banning, akin to putting them in an isolation cell; only worse worse, basically transporting them there without even letting them know they are/were put there and users keep commenting and contributing while being essentially locked away and lost in an authoritarian prison cell where no one can hear them. It's downright sick and depraved and one of the worst practices of the tech sector today for which there is zero justification regardless of what unapproved things were said.

There is a real sickness on the net today where "moderators" have come to think of themselves as the thought police, but even worse, not just thought police of an authoritarian regime, but a kind of self-anointed little dictator that rules over the user rabble at will and upon whim.

If you want to silence people, at least have the spine of any other run of the mill authoritarian and tell users their fundamental human right to speech and expression was taken from them … don't just silently transport them to digital purgatory. Again, it is a vile act that only the most depraved people would excuse, let alone endorse, no matter what unapproved things were thought and said … which are only words/characters on a screen that can be dismissed and ignored.

Ok, I've said my peace. It's a sick and depraved practice and I cannot stand by just not say something when the topic comes up while digital regimes like HN, reddit have, what are essentially digital version of hellish totalitarian regime isolation cells that "mods" disappear people/accounts to.