New Firefox 3.5 and Google Block MassResistance.org

Google ^ | 07-28-09 | FreepShop1

[FreepShop1]

The new update to Firefox, 3.5 is blocking access to the critical anti-homosexual activist site MassResistance.org...

UPDATE: Google is now also blocking access, warning "Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this website may harm your computer."

MassResistance folks told me that Google started doing this leading up to a recent vote on a Transgender Bill in Mass., in an obvious attempt to shut down dissent. There were not aware that the new Firefox is also censoring them.

This is an illegal violation of the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment and Digital Millenium Act. We need to get to our Representatives on this ASAP.

[asformeandformyhouse]

Seven words - Good Night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

[MediaMole]

Reading the diagnostic page for the malicious software warning, the site was officially blocked because some of the pages they linked to (probably gay porn sites) had malware hosted on them. It’s going to be a problem when you link to the type of sites they are using to illustrate the depravity they see around them.

The Blogspot warning was clearly the result of complaints from the gay lobby. That shouldn’t happen, but that is why you should pay for your hosting.

[Terpfen]

You wrote three words, I wrote four in response. The counting error is on your end.

Safari on Windows is still better than Opera on Windows. Opera’s chronic inability to compete has led them to file lawsuits in Europe attempting to force Microsoft to ship Windows 7 with Opera included.

[FreepShop1]

The Blogspot warning was clearly the result of complaints from the gay lobby. That shouldn’t happen, but that is why you should pay for your hosting.

They pay for their hosting at their main website. The blogger site is an old site they maintain for visibility.

[JRios1968]

Blocked here with FF 3.5.1

It may be geographically-oriented

[max americana]

Hmm, thanks for the tip. I thought IE was the browser with those constant, annoying updates..

[justa-hairyape]

Websites can get minor hacks or hijacks where just external links are inserted into their code, typically index.php files will have external links added from a hacker. Firefox can actually bar entrance to a website just because the index.php file has an external link to a known spyware site. As soon as all the index.php files are restored, firefox will let you in immediately.

[asformeandformyhouse]

Whoa there fanboy. The truth is that the Windows 7 (and XP and Vista via an update) will allow for the selection of one of 10 different browsers commonly used in Europe. This is the result of an EU lawsuit, not specifically an Opera lawsuit. I think choice is a good thing. Linux has allowed it since the beginning.

But when you’re in the dominant position, people take notice. Maybe someday they’ll get around to noticing Apple.

[Terpfen]

The truth is that the Windows 7 (and XP and Vista via an update) will allow for the selection of one of 10 different browsers commonly used in Europe. This is the result of an EU lawsuit, not specifically an Opera lawsuit.

You really need to brush up on your facts. Opera filed an antitrust complaint with the EU Commission claiming that Microsoft was violating the law by not including Opera with Windows. The EU Commission ruled in favor of Opera, which is based in Norway. Microsoft then said they would not include any web browser, not even IE, with European copies of Windows 7. They recently relented and offered to present users with a screen that lets the user select a web browser to download. Opera got half of what they wanted, which is a vehicle to increase their market share without actually competing, something they have been notoriously poor at.

Maybe someday they’ll get around to noticing Apple.

I would hope for the sake of legal sanity and common sense, they don't. But I suspect Opera is considering filing suit against Apple. It must really burn them up that Safari has a bigger market share than Opera's own browser.

[asformeandformyhouse]

No. The lawsuit was by the EU, not Opera. The anti-trust complaint that initiated the lawsuit was initially filed by Opera but others signed on to the complaint. Filing an antitrust complaint is roughly the equivalent of reporting a crime. Opera reported what it perceived to be illegal activity to the EU - the EU has agreed. The motives of Opera are irrelevant in this situation - illegal is illegal. The same thing was done with Media Player in 2004.

Granted, some would consider this a distinction without a difference, but from a legal perspective it is what it is.

Opera is a leader in the mobile browser market and one of their assertions was that if they had been allowed to compete fairly they would have been in the PC browser market as well - and the EU agrees.

As to how they feel concerning market share and Safari, I have yet to hear. But since they are a EU country, and the law consistently agrees with them, we may soon see.

[Terpfen]

The lawsuit was by the EU, not Opera.

False. Opera filed the initial complaint with the EU Commission. You can believe me or you can believe their own press release on the matter. The EU Commission investigated Opera's claim and began legal proceedings against Microsoft.

The motives of Opera are irrelevant in this situation - illegal is illegal.

The notion that Microsoft violated any reasonable law simply by including a web browser with their operating system is absurd.

Opera is a leader in the mobile browser market and one of their assertions was that if they had been allowed to compete fairly they would have been in the PC browser market as well - and the EU agrees.

Opera has been around for over a decade, a longer period of time than Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox, the reincarnation of Netscape, K-Meleon, the Webkit project, and numerous other browsers. The idea that the only thing holding Opera back from greater market share was Microsoft flies in the face of reality: Firefox, despite being many years younger than Opera, has nearly a 20% market share in Europe alone. Chrome has a greater market share. Safari has a greater market share. Opera is not the victim of anticompetitive behavior on the part of Microsoft: Opera is the victim of its own incompetence.

It is very telling that Opera had been around for years prior to the release of Firefox, yet Firefox is credited with re-igniting the browser wars. It is also very telling that Opera is attempting to litigate its way into market share, rather than competing its way into market share. I suppose it's fitting, since they've already failed in the open market, that they pull an Al Gore and attempt to litigate a desired result.

[asformeandformyhouse]

After reading your last post more closely, I think it’s likely that our differences in the understanding of the EU lawsuit is more a matter of semantics. It appears that I gave you background info that you had already stated as true - my mistake.

[asformeandformyhouse]

“The notion that Microsoft violated any reasonable law simply by including a web browser with their operating system is absurd.”

Actually the notion is not that ‘simply including a browser’ is a violation of law, but rather the collusion to exclude any others browsers being included by the OEMs. Otherwise MS could not satisfy the lawsuit with their browser ‘ballot’ screen.

And thank you for your well thought-out opinion on Opera’s competitiveness. But you know what they say - everybody has one.

Apparently the EU court differs with your legal opinion.

[Terpfen]

Actually the notion is not that ‘simply including a browser’ is a violation of law, but rather the collusion to exclude any others browsers being included by the OEMs.

Which is not what Opera alleged in its complaint. Opera alleged that the inclusion of IE with Windows itself was a violation of the law. Opera did not allege that Microsoft was using its OS market share to exclude competitors in the web browser market. It simply said that the fact that there is an Internet Explorer shortcut on your desktop by default when you install Windows is a violation of law. What Opera wanted was unreasonable access to the Windows installation and setup process, sort of like Honda attempting to use litigation to get their cars sold on Toyota lots next to Toyota's own cars.

I'm 99% sure you're confusing what Opera complained about with the popular misconception of what the Clinton DoJ went after Microsoft for.

[asformeandformyhouse]

“I’m 99% sure you’re confusing what Opera complained about with the popular misconception of what the Clinton DoJ went after Microsoft for.”

That’s not how I remember it, but I will check on that.

[mountainbunny]

This is an illegal violation of the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment and Digital Millenium Act. We need to get to our Representatives on this ASAP.

How so?

Please explain.

In detail.

[Terpfen]

Just to be clear:

The Clinton DoJ alleged that Microsoft was a monopoly which abused said monopoly on the operating system market to threaten OEMs that shipped computers with Netscape pre-loaded. In this particular instance, Microsoft was charging OEMs a higher price for Windows licenses if they shipped Netscape, and gave them a discount if they only shipped with Internet Explorer.

Opera alleged that the mere inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows is anticompetitive and illegal, as opposed to Microsoft using its leverage in the operating system market to exclude competition in the web browser market.

These are separate and wildly different cases, and people generally misunderstand and misremember the Clinton DoJ’s case against Microsoft as being some kind of indictment of the inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows. It was not.