No.3744
>Gab Dissenter (or simply Dissenter) is a social news aggregation and discussion service. Dissenter was created to allow commenting on any Web page in an associated third-party forum outside of the site owner's control. The platform includes a website and a browser extension.
>Dissenter was developed as a response to multiple social media platforms' and online news sites' moderation practices, which involve removal of individual comments or deleting or disabling comment sections altogether.I'm interested in this addon, but as pointed out in a video by Eli the Computer Guy (
https://youtu.be/vLANvsjTFDQ?t=474), you're voluntarily submitting your browsing habits to a database controlled by Gab, which has many adversaries trying to compromise it, and can you really trust Gab?
Use good OPSEC.
Firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dissenter-extension/ No.3745
Stop advertising your nazi soykaf here.
No.3746
>>3745this
>>3744please go away gab is terrible
No.3747
I know little about the gab bullsoykaf and I do not care much for politics. Adding comments to sites that have comments disabled sounds interesting.
No.3748
This thread as been reported. To be fair i'm really not sure this is worth deleting seems like there is a genuinely effort to spark a conversation. I don't really see this as an ad either OP is questioning the integrity of the addon.
I like the idea, but not the way they've done it. If you need to trust a company to use a product that's already a red flag for not using said product.
No.3750
I'm not too familiar with extensions but I poked around the source. Here are some things that might interest you:
1. As far as I can tell, URLs are only sent to the remote service when the extension is clicked.
2. The remote service visits whatever URL it receives. This can be used to identify users of the extension and of Gab.
3. You don't need an account to see the Youtube-tier comments. In fact, here are some comments for a Pewdiepie video:
https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qov0ypksviU>>3747>Adding comments to sites that have comments disabled sounds interesting.It's neither interesting nor new.
No.3751
Leaving aside this particular implementation, the core idea fits right in these days that no body converses on your random home page but rather flock around some agregator.
Now running this very thing in a distributed fashion rather than yet another web site would pretty schway. Put in onto a dht, with maybe some analogy of trackers for moderation and what not, sprinkle with some tags and you don't need reddit anymore.
No.3752
Cyberpunk LARPers calling different technology nazi soykaf lol
As far as I can see, it's just an browser extension version of Disquis that uses Gab services, no?
I think if the service wasn't tied to Gab super heavily it would be a bit better. Like others said, the idea isn't new or interesting but having a more free alternative to Disquis could be useful.
Would be neat to see this idea expanded upon without the Gab database holding it back.
No.3753
a question that I ask myself is: why ? Do we really need more comment sections ? I understand that there are people who love to discuss or 'have a conversation' about quite everything but it's not a service that I would ever use
No.3756
If gab is so free speech why won't they release any of the soykaf they call their code to the public so lains can audit it together? it's just normalfags trying to collect your info for profit.
turn away.
No.3757
>>3748it's a topic of genuine interest but even mentioning it seems like they've just made a poor mashup of xml and rss and now they're trying to remarket same soykaf as disqus but with speech related claims, we certainly don't think that it would be well received in its current implementation when most of us could do better.
No.3774
If this were distributed it'd be much cooler, but besides that, Gab is reinventing the wheel. GNU Social and similar software already exists; why create a new closed-source platform?
No.3783
Lmao who would want that trash
No.3793
>>3774well I would say they have probably have a larger userbase than GNU social and hope it catches on, I just think it's stupid though
No.3872
>>3774Gab's only purpose is to be an alt-right twitter clone. Actual Freedom was never planned.
No.3923
>>3872Only if you equate "alt right" with "actual freedom", as many seem to do. You're welcome to your liberal soykafposts just as much as your conservative soykafposts.
"We won't delete it unless it's literally illegal" is maximum freedom.
No.3925
>"We won't delete it unless it's literally illegal" is maximum freedom.
so, they let anyone bully and ruin the community, while also bowing down to the law.
Sounds pretty unfree to me.
No.3926
No one is going to use anything populated by cretins.
No.3929
>>3926Case in point: voat. Nice clean site design. Nice noble goal of freedom of speech.
But my god, what a soykafshow of a community.
No.3931
>>3925>>"We won't delete it unless it's literally illegal" is maximum freedom.>so, they let anyone bully and ruin the community>Sounds pretty unfree to me.This is an idea I wish was more widely spread: Every (well connected) community necessarily excludes some people.
In a tightly-moderated community people who don't contribute will get derezzed. In a highly-political community discussions will descend into tribe-fights, and one tribe will push all the others out. In a lightly-moderated community trolls and soykafposters will drive everyone else out, before turning on each other. "Good moderation" in my opinoin is as much about deciding WHO your community is intended for as WHAT people will be allowed to do.
This is one of the reasons why I think that a diverse web is such a big deal: With only a handful of massive websites, either their communities end up so weakly connected that they can barely be called "communities", or a lot of people end up with very few places they can fit in.
No.3933
nazi soykaf
