Wouldn’t that be nice, for a major corporation to denounce and actively deny a platform for a predatory industry that exists solely to take advantage of people’s addiction. I’d respect that
Exactly. Hell I’ll take a quick warning even that I can opt in/opt out. But I literally have a blocklist of gaming sites available I turn on with little snitch mini if I really want to. Point being it’s opt-in.
I get that ending the “prohibition” on gambling is good optics for the economy, it’s like legalizing pot. All the shady aspects of the industry are nearly eliminated, and assures a standard of quality.
I guess I view gambling differently cuz… with pot or alcohol, you at least know what you’re going to get. And when working through addiction, its a lot more tangible of a thing to deal with.
With gambling, you’re pouring money into something you’re not even guaranteed to get at all.
And for some reason, Alberta loves to push gambling advertising really heavily.
I get what you’re saying, and agree that the gambling industry is predatory on its face, but isn’t the preference for Firefox over Chromium(amongst tech people on the fediverse) largely driven by the idea that the web should be an open platform with open standards that renders and functions the same on different rendering engines?
True, sticking with foss morals definitely widens appeal and encourages firefoxes growth overall.
I just thought it odd to accommodate for a service/industry that could completely care less, and isn’t generally something I thought the open source community would be interested in in the first place?
They aren’t accommodating the gambling industry. It’s a bug fix for a media player issue. The text in the changelog comes from the bug report title. The bug isn’t specific to that site, and neither is the fix.
They’ll just go to edge or chrome to get their fix. We already have the rising Y’all Queda to be the morality police, we don’t need Firefox copying that mentality
It doesn’t exist solely for that however. People use online gaming for entertainment. They don’t actually expect to win big. Of course a few people gets addicted, but is there a difference to alcohol, hookers, games or whatever else people get addicted to?
That being said, they are intentionally trying to get people addicted by using graphics, animations and sounds that feels satisfactory and fun to humans. Just like any game, they are manipulating emotions.
Wouldn’t that be nice, for a major corporation to denounce and actively deny a platform for a predatory industry that exists solely to take advantage of people’s addiction. I’d respect that
Super anti-gambling industry but I don’t want my browser blocking me off from sites by default.
once a browser starts choosing to block sites for you as some stand in moral compass, things can only go downhill from there
Exactly. Hell I’ll take a quick warning even that I can opt in/opt out. But I literally have a blocklist of gaming sites available I turn on with little snitch mini if I really want to. Point being it’s opt-in.
I think that would be nice but I think it would also raise a lot of eyebrows if Mozilla unilaterally decided to parental control your access to the Internet. It’s governance that’s the issue. Consider this https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/sports-betting-ncaa-supreme-court/index.html
I get that ending the “prohibition” on gambling is good optics for the economy, it’s like legalizing pot. All the shady aspects of the industry are nearly eliminated, and assures a standard of quality.
I guess I view gambling differently cuz… with pot or alcohol, you at least know what you’re going to get. And when working through addiction, its a lot more tangible of a thing to deal with.
With gambling, you’re pouring money into something you’re not even guaranteed to get at all.
And for some reason, Alberta loves to push gambling advertising really heavily.
I get what you’re saying, and agree that the gambling industry is predatory on its face, but isn’t the preference for Firefox over Chromium(amongst tech people on the fediverse) largely driven by the idea that the web should be an open platform with open standards that renders and functions the same on different rendering engines?
True, sticking with foss morals definitely widens appeal and encourages firefoxes growth overall.
I just thought it odd to accommodate for a service/industry that could completely care less, and isn’t generally something I thought the open source community would be interested in in the first place?
Maybe i’m wrong
They aren’t accommodating the gambling industry. It’s a bug fix for a media player issue. The text in the changelog comes from the bug report title. The bug isn’t specific to that site, and neither is the fix.
They’ll just go to edge or chrome to get their fix. We already have the rising Y’all Queda to be the morality police, we don’t need Firefox copying that mentality
It doesn’t exist solely for that however. People use online gaming for entertainment. They don’t actually expect to win big. Of course a few people gets addicted, but is there a difference to alcohol, hookers, games or whatever else people get addicted to?
That being said, they are intentionally trying to get people addicted by using graphics, animations and sounds that feels satisfactory and fun to humans. Just like any game, they are manipulating emotions.