The Intercept’s reporting reflected perspectives common in media coverage on the left, such as pro-union, pro-progressive, pro-labor, pro-democracy, pro-LGBTQ/social justice, and was sympathetic to Palestine, critical of Israel, and in general critical of figures in power, like the Biden Administration, major corporations, and other key U.S. government officials.
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
Overall, we rate The Intercept progressive Left Biased based on story selection that routinely favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to previous fabricated work and censorship of writers.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Stanislav Shakirov, the chief technical officer of Roskomsvoboda, a Russian open internet group, said he hoped it was a rash decision by Mozilla that will be more carefully examined.
“It’s a kind of unpleasant surprise because we thought the values of this corporation were very clear in terms of access to information, and its policy was somewhat different,” Shakirov said.
Developers of digital tools designed to get around censorship began noticing recently that their Firefox add-ons were no longer available in Russia.
Roskomnadzor is responsible for “control and supervision in telecommunications, information technology, and mass communications,” according to the Russia’s federal censorship agency’s English-language page.
In March, the New York Times reported that Roskomnadzor was increasing its operations to restrict access to censorship circumvention technologies such as VPNs.
“For the last few months, Roskomnadzor (after the adoption of the law in Russia that prohibits the promotion of tools for bypassing blockings) has been sending such complaints about content to everyone.”
The original article contains 703 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The add-ons were blocked at the request of Russia’s federal censorship agency, Roskomnadzor — the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media — according to a statement by Mozilla to The Intercept.
“Following recent regulatory changes in Russia, we received persistent requests from Roskomnadzor demanding that five add-ons be removed from the Mozilla add-on store,” a Mozilla spokesperson told The Intercept in response to a request for comment. “After careful consideration, we’ve temporarily restricted their availability within Russia. Recognizing the implications of these actions, we are closely evaluating our next steps while keeping in mind our local community.”
Mozilla is bending the knee to Russia? Is this real life? Have we stepped into an alternate timeline? Whats going to happen to all the psycho FireFox users when they find out this happened, will they stop screaming at everyone to use FireFox?
I'm not sure what you expect to happen. If they don't do this, Russia will ban Firefox. And I do think, it's better for the Russian people to have Firefox available, even if it bends its knee in certain situations. Because I'd wager the alternatives proactively stick their tongue up Putin's.
I know it says the extension is not available from the Firefox addon site if using Russian IPs, but I wonder if they have also gone so far as to make the browser itself not be able to install them in other ways. I would guess they have not, since that would mean a complicated setup in terms of the signatures, like they would have to have a separate FF version and set of signatures per country, or use a central server to authenticate things rather than client validation of signatures. In that case it would be easier to find the addon file somewhere other than the store and install it, since using unsigned addons requires installing a whole separate version of Firefox.
Even if that's how it is this whole thing still illustrates that prohibiting unsigned addons from being installed is user-hostile, because on an ideological level Mozilla probably would use that power to advance state censorship if it came down to it.
Ah yeah, true, getting just the signed XPI should work as well.
And well, it is tricky. The signing requirement allows them to block malicious add-ons, which could also be used for state censorship.
I think, offering a separate path for people to install unsigned extensions, if they need it, while blocking them for the majority and therefore making them inviable for malware to target, that's in principle a smart compromise.
Also, side-note: Folks who are on Linux likely don't need to install a separate version of Firefox. Linux distros tend to compile with the unsigned extension support enabled (just need to toggle the flag in about:config).
I guess in this case the malware angle means it's probably better to require signing, since maybe Russia could successfully distribute malicious fake versions of these extensions otherwise. Still, the centralization here is worrying.
theintercept.com
Oldest