How is that related to Firefox support?

Sorry, this is not a forum for entertaining a discussion of what is and isn't right about the internet. The tools for blocking objectionable content are out there, it is up to the individual user to use those tools, or not. Bottom line is freedom of choice, and this country defends that for all citizens - pervs included.

I agree, that's what the first amendment is for. If there is an issue you would need to take it up with congress not firefox.

hahaha

so if I think that ultimately a program should protect its users from abusive content and abusive people I need to take the issue up with the government - lol...

I am not that familiar with American politics but I am pretty sure it does not protect sex offenders and murderers based on there first amendment rights - rather they are prosecuted against them.

I believe that as a user I have the right not to be exposed to these people and their exploits on the internet not to mention in society for that matter. So I am responsible for identifying and protecting myself and my loved ones based on a global network that is so extensive the very magnitude of the task is impossible. My point is that if you were to buy content which you effectively do when you browse the internet is and should be more stringently regulated in the interest of safety of its users. However these are requirements for ISPs to protect people who use their services. A person does not have freedom of choice in that respect it is a matter of rights not to be exposed to dangerous material - otherwise you would find that media and retail would be over run with illegal material.

So despite the fact that ISPs are not very pro active in providing protection of users 'rights' - I question why I have to pay for 3rd party programs to block content when it should be ideally blocked by programs that are developed for fundamental use as an internet browser.

So I will restate my question for you - why is the internet not monitored and censored and enforced by software companies based on government regulation and human rights when there is effectively a computer in every home and access to the internet is widespread?

I know that illegal content exists and that it is forbidden from the internet so to claim that people have the right to publish and view the material based on their first ammendment rights is dead wrong...

lol :)

Think what you want, but Mozilla isn't responsible for what you think is wrong with the internet. You ain't paying Mozilla a damn thing for a free open source program like Firefox. Why not blame your ISP? You are paying them for delivering unwanted content in to your home. (If you do a little reading, you'll see how well Australia's nationwide filtering or content control is not working.)

Are you even aware that Microsoft has parental controls in newer versions of Windows than what you are using? You are leaving your family open to the "horrors" of the internet by using WinXP instead of Vista or Win7 - so the first one to blame is yourself. If you spent a little time searching for parental control software, I'm sure you would find a number of free applications and maybe even an open source application.

Mozilla is responsible for what is seen through its product - likewise having parental controls are useless for myself... I fail to realize why it is that I have to argue that I disagree with being able to access objectionable material especially in my home and the home of everyone else is my primary point. I don't agree with how programs are designed and I never will.

That is a good point though that microsoft provide parental controls - however being able to switch on and off these controls myself on my own computer makes it effectively useless for me.

Just because a product is 'free' does not indemnify the authors from the responsibility to provide a user friendly product. Of course when it comes to children - for instance I would certainly make use of content controls on my computer if a child of mine or someone else were to use it. However I use my own computer and find it is useless because it is a matter of toggling on and off the sick twisted and evil world of internet reality. I myself am totally in control of my internet habits. However I present the argument entirely in the interest of people who are at risk to internet addictions etc.

I don't believe that content is managed effectively by companies that provide internet and computer technology. There are several ports of argument that suggest it is a oversight due to marketing interests. I do not believe that having the ability to control content on the internet accessible from my home (for example) is an acceptable reality of internet technology. My explanation for the way I feel is that I look at the internet the same way I would look at the television or libraries etc - video stores. All material is regulated based upon the rights and interests of customers and viewers alike. These regulations are implemented to protect the rights of people as has been addressed against my argument. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding about what illegal content is and how this issue is seriously the responsibility of companies involved in providing technology to the general public.

However my point is why am I supposed to be the one responsible for what is sent to my computer? Certainly as a user I am entitled against having to monitor and regulate material that is accessible from my HOME!...

An internet browser is the same as any computer software - I don't believe that internet technology is developed to protect and serve a users best interests and that my rights are compromised to capitalize on users meanwhile exposing innocent people who will become victims based upon design flaws in a product that would otherwise be subject to consumer law.

Government departments exist that regulate material - why don't these departments and developers protect the rights of users. This compromises a users safety and I can only explain it by further deliberating that it is a matter that is being overlooked but it really should be addressed. I don't believe that after having shelled out thousands of dollars for my computer why I have to start maintaining accounts to use software to protect my safety - why is this not implemented to provide accounts to overide content regulations if you are really inclined to an interest in gross things.

It is a simple argument and I am honestly surprised by how you misinterpret my question and my point of view.

Please refrain from arguing against my interest in why products are not developed to protect users!

Is that too much to ask for?

Sorry that I disagree with your viewpoint about who's responsible (have you even read the EULA for Firefox?) - but you are just plain wrong. I suspect that what you classify as illegal or abusive, is merely objectionable to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html

This whole topic is off-topic IMO, but I ain't gonna lock this thread - we'll just wait for an administrator to view it and take the action that he thinks is proper.

I will not refrain from posting my opinion's on any subject in this or any other forum, this ain't a soapbox for same thinking postings.

Of course I haven't read the EULA - they are redundant and don't give authors the obligation to ignore the wellbeing of there customers paying or not...

I am merely documenting my interest in why content is not more firmly regulated and addressing to to mozilla development. Who cares if I don't pay mozilla a thing - you don't pay mozilla anything either and you are perfectly happy with their service so why post responses to my question in the first place.

I am American so don't even bother pointing out the fact that free content filtering failed after Labor abolished after regaining power. I read extensively and I am about to graduate from an engineering degree from a world reknowned university. My point of view and argument are perfectly justified and correct. My discussion is totally relevent to the mozilla development so stop trying to be so objectionable to my beliefs.

Josh

btw I don't discuss specifically what illegal and abusive content is because it will give impressionable minds ideas... These issues are specifically covered by legislation and ratings departments that I have already discussed. You did not read my posts at all and are merely posting responses to be a nuisance and haven't anwered my question regarding development specifically at all.

This is a user to user support forum for Firefox, it's not a venue that is routinely visited by any of the Mozilla developers, so your voice probably won't be heard by anyone at Mozilla who can do anything about this subject.
The proper avenue for providing feedback directly to Mozilla is here:
http://hendrix.mozilla.org/

IMO, the blocking of content is something that needs to be legislated by a governmental body for their citizens, to their "local standards" and imposed by something "close to home", like your ISP who sells you your internet connection and knows exactly where you reside, and is subject to local regulations - many times at the local community level. From articles I have read on the internet, Germany has effective blocks on material and artifacts related to the Nazi regime of the 1930's and 1940's - they have gone after some of the largest content providers and content hosts to prevent that objectionable material from appearing within Germany, regardless of where that content is hosted. China somewhat effectively blocks what their citizens can view on the internet, as does Iran. Even India has recently blocked certain avenues of electronic communication (IIRC, RIM email), as happened in Egypt recently, too.

I see no point in blocking content at the browser level, why add that overhead to every browser you have installed? I currently have 6 browsers installed, not even counting the 5 versions of Firefox that are on this PC - and that isn't counting the Portable Firefox I have installed on 2 different USB sticks, and the many Linux distro LiveCD's that have a usable web browser. Parental controls at the OS level make more sense - would block every browser on that PC and any plugged into that PC, and with proper Admin controls a password would be needed for access to the settings. But that wouldn't work for a LiveCD that runs its' own Operating System from the CD.

But that isn't going to stop someone from bringing their own PC (like a netbook in a winter coat pocket) into your home and using that to access content that you don't approve of in your home. What about a smart phone that would use a wi-fi access point? They could use your wi-fi connection and bypass the controls on your PC's.

Given those possible scenarios, wouldn't it make more sense to rely upon your ISP to provide those controls, by stopping that content from even entering your home - similar to how TV content is blocked in the US by parental controls provided by TV service providers based upon content ratings, and set by a "parent"?

In conclusion, it doesn't surprise me that you are an advanced level student, your viewpoint about "the world" and "responsibility" reminds me of a group of my customers back in the 70's and 80's who were professors at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL and at Loyola University in Chicago (one of whom became the interim Mayor of Chicago after Harold Washington passed away in 1987 and has been the Cook County clerk since then), when Chicago politics came into a discussion - real world vs. the way it should be or could be in a more perfect world. It took over 30 years of the "Fed's" being involved to make minor changes, and they're are still indicting and convicting alderman and county officials to this day. That's the "real world" where I live.

your reference to germany blocking nazi propaganda is probably my example of illegal content - however 'illegal and objectional' content does not comprise parental blocking of inappropriate classified material.

I feel strongly that content on the internet should be classified and that content that does not meet local/international standards not be accessible. Sometimes I wish I lived in China just so I have a government that actually cares about the sickness of people out there.

So I am guessing this is probably a more local problem I would need to address my ISP. However I still don't understand why the internet is not managed on a global level - this would probably be determined by language and legal gaps. + I believe that every internet user deserves the right not to be able to access material that will compromise their own state of mind and wellbeing. Global management of content can be achieved through effective indexing - hence my motivation to address the mozilla community.

I still believe browser development should be active in user safety - I am an engineer and I understand very well that information is very sensitive and so is a users own state of mind and material such as racism, music, video can be so extreme that a user is disturbed as a result. This refers to extreme material and does not necessarily consider material that can be classified and blocked at a user level - parental controls. The fact of the matter is that websites can compromise security of 3rd party software and so a user can still view a dangerous website with a content filter. If information were to be screened before it can be accessed at the user level it no longer poses any threat if it is subjected to censorship. This does not correspond to social interests on the internet which are themselves managed at the user level - risks exist but are too transperant to law enforcement to correspond to issues of access. However my objection or disinterest in other lifestyles and my wish not to be connected to them (as an ideal) would suggest that my issue does lie in my own hands when I consider social connections on the internet. However this does not correspond to browsing and searching.

My point of view is that unless a website is reviewed and classified and cleared for safe viewing by general public it should not be visible via any web browser. This concept I think totally disects the internet as it exists today however I feel it is appropriate given that the risks that exist would otherwise be 'theoretically' beneficial to all internet users. I think internet search technology esp google is a very thick-headed development. I compare it to research catalogues I use at uni and I think google is just there to point at media which compromises each individual industry.

I feel strongly that internet content management as it exists is not sufficient for general users and needs to be addressed in the interest of well being and personal development. I guess this is a topic that can be based on a huge amount of moral - technical - legal - issues...

I believe that an anti content filter would be more capitalistic - it is in the greater interest of the user to force them to pay to access objectionable content rather than prevent access...

( I'm frustrated