Even if I accept their claims face value, what was the arbitrary line in the sand that was supposedly too far? These were both hate sites on Day 1. I'd love to hear the articulation of where their...
Even if I accept their claims face value, what was the arbitrary line in the sand that was supposedly too far?
These were both hate sites on Day 1. I'd love to hear the articulation of where their fringe hate-site exceeded the threshold of "fringe hatefulness" where they couldn't take it any longer. There's a reason TheDonald and Parler were made instead of a subreddit or Facebook group: the content they wanted to play host to was so beyond the pale, so hateful, that even Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter wouldn't have them. It seems to me that whats actually going on is that these guys noticed a shift in public perception about their projects, and decided backtracking from running an active hate site might be the best optics for them.
This is one thing that I've noticed about the right; there is absolutely no solidarity. They worship the virtues of individuality and selfishness. The moment these dudes felt like they'd benefit from betraying and destroying the communities they built, they did. A rightist will never stick their neck out for you unless they stand to gain from doing so.
I think this applies the most to a few specific types of right-wingers: Economically focused conservatives, particularly the socially unconcerned or liberal kinds People who just like it when...
A rightist will never stick their neck out for you unless they stand to gain from doing so.
I think this applies the most to a few specific types of right-wingers:
Economically focused conservatives, particularly the socially unconcerned or liberal kinds
People who just like it when corporations can do whatever they want (usually because it helps or doesn't hurt them)
Rich people with class conscience
Right-wing CEOs and other very rich people
Right-wing politicians
(These obviously overlap with eachother very heavily)
Thing is, this isn't most right-wingers. Most right-wingers are social conservatives or -ists and -phobes, conspiratorial people and deeply ideological (not that being ideological is bad), and do support the virtues of community (particularly if they're religious), they just don't think you/"us" are part of it. And the online right in particular is in no small part a backlash to and politicization of their personal loneliness. Those kinds of people are really not the kind of people who are going to be selfish, at least to their ingroup. Lastly, there is the moderate (which, yes, is even rarer and more common in less politicized, less polarized societies), which a bunch of other people have already talked about.
I don't really care for the generalization. There's plenty of people on the political right that are kind and courteous to others. The same is true of people on the left. Demonizing entire groups...
A rightist will never stick their neck out for you unless they stand to gain from doing so.
I don't really care for the generalization. There's plenty of people on the political right that are kind and courteous to others. The same is true of people on the left. Demonizing entire groups like this just leads to more tribalism and increasing tensions.
TheDonald is made up of extremists, loners, and other casts of people. But they don't meaningfully represent "the right" any more than Tumblr (or whatever else) meaningfully represents "the left". It's a spectrum, and most people don't sit at the extremes. Focusing on just those extremes and judging everybody for it isn't intellectually honest or fair.
Full disclosure: I think we are straying a little off topic here (and not really discussing the interesting questions here,) but I don't mind providing my perspective on this "both sides" retort....
Full disclosure: I think we are straying a little off topic here (and not really discussing the interesting questions here,) but I don't mind providing my perspective on this "both sides" retort.
There's plenty of people on the political right that are kind and courteous to others.
Maybe if they are centrist or center-right moderate, not folks I'd consider rightists. Rightist, by the definition of their politics, aren't "kind" to most folks, for example:
Trans folks, the undocumented, the food insecure, those unable to afford housing or healthcare, etc.
If you are someone who supports trans liberation, supports full rights for the undocumented, demands protection of the environment and climate for all, and stands for gender and racial equality, you aren't a rightist. If you don't, I wouldn't characterize you as kind (well, maybe kind to white cis people.)
This isn't unique, if we turn the clocks back to the 50s, once again being a rightist definitionally means you aren't kind. If you were one that supported full de-segregation, gender and racial equality, you weren't a rightist. If you didn't, you weren't kind. "Both sides" aren't mutually respectable; the issue throughout history hasn't been division, it's the failure of the left to win social justice gains quickly enough. We didn't win gay marriage, interracial marriage, women's suffrage, or the defeat of slavery and segregation through moderation or coming together, but the overcoming of and defeat of rightists of the time.
Point of clarification: I didn't make a "both sides" argument. I'm not claiming that both sides are to blame, or even that we need to meet somewhere in the middle. No, I'm specifically calling out...
I don't mind providing my perspective on this "both sides" retort.
Point of clarification: I didn't make a "both sides" argument. I'm not claiming that both sides are to blame, or even that we need to meet somewhere in the middle. No, I'm specifically calling out over-generalizations and vilification of people. I see far more of this in extreme rightwing communities like TheDonald, but they use "leftist" as an insult whereas you used "rightist".
Maybe if they are centrist or center-right moderate, not folks I'd consider rightists.
This is the problem with using entire groups as insults. You have some specific meaning in mind, and wrote paragraphs to define it, but your original comment had none of that context. You just made a pejorative statement which seemingly attacked all people on the political right (with the understanding that "left and right" have different meanings globally).
If you'd laid that out from the beginning (eg. "those against trans rights are self-serving"), then fine, I think that's reasonable. But I don't think we should ever look at TheDonald's style of discourse and say "Yes, let's copy that".
Honestly, this really isn't related to the more interesting discussion that can be had about these fringe rightist site operators. Let's make this easy, do you think rightists support trans...
You have some specific meaning in mind, and wrote paragraphs to define it, but your original comment had none of that context.
Honestly, this really isn't related to the more interesting discussion that can be had about these fringe rightist site operators.
Let's make this easy, do you think rightists support trans liberation, climate justice, and gender and racial equality? Do you think someone who doesn't agree with these ends can be "kind?"
The point I'm making, correctly, is that these two notions are irreconcilable.To claim that pointing this out is "copying TheDonald's style of discourse" is incredibly dishonest.
Not him, but jumping in here. Depends what you consider "rightist." My parents are both republicans, but they support trans rights, gender and racial quality, I haven't chatted with Mom about the...
Let's make this easy, do you think rightists support trans liberation, climate justice, and gender and racial equality? Do you think someone who doesn't agree with these ends can be "kind?"
Not him, but jumping in here.
Depends what you consider "rightist." My parents are both republicans, but they support trans rights, gender and racial quality, I haven't chatted with Mom about the climate but Dad is a firm believer that we have a duty to care for the planet. Politically, they are right. But that doesn't mean they subscribe to every idea that has become the stereotypical rightist position.
I can understand RND's perspective though. You can say we have a duty to protect the planet, but if you vote for people who push EPA deregulation and extraction contracts in protected areas...
I can understand RND's perspective though. You can say we have a duty to protect the planet, but if you vote for people who push EPA deregulation and extraction contracts in protected areas then... do you actually believe that? Or similarly many traditionally conservative groups push the pro-life mantra while simultaneously banning sex education (and with it how pregnancy occurs), barring access to contraception, and cutting funding for local reproductive health centers.
I don't think everyone on the right is some inhuman person, but it always rubs me wrong when their vocal support runs counter to the policies they choose to support. It just feels like "I believe in this until it costs me something".
For the sake of brevity, let's just look at their supposed "support" for trans rights. It's really difficult to take one's position seriously for trans liberation when they deliberately empower...
For the sake of brevity, let's just look at their supposed "support" for trans rights. It's really difficult to take one's position seriously for trans liberation when they deliberately empower the party that enacts the policies that trans folks need liberation from.
Feel free to use this format for any of the other stated positions: like supporting the party that is the primary exporter of climate change denial, the party that separates immigrant children from their parents then fosters them out across the country, etc.
Edit: DM me if you'd like to discuss this further. While I think this subject is worth chatting about, it isn't related to the above post. Or we can move it to a new post.
This feels so reductive. Someone might stand for racial and gender equality but not want to defund the police, does it help to define them as rightist and irredeemable? In my experience there are...
This feels so reductive. Someone might stand for racial and gender equality but not want to defund the police, does it help to define them as rightist and irredeemable?
In my experience there are people who see themselves as “right” but don’t fit your definition. What makes your definition more correct than theirs?
I'm fairly certain the majority of liberals aren't even demanding defunding police (much less defining what that looks like,) so to answer your question plainly, no. I think there is a reason you...
Someone might stand for racial and gender equality but not want to defund the police, does it help to define them as rightist and irredeemable?
I'm fairly certain the majority of liberals aren't even demanding defunding police (much less defining what that looks like,) so to answer your question plainly, no. I think there is a reason you chose that position though; you are intuitively aware that on most issues of consequence, you can't defend rightists even in the abstract and be taken seriously. There's a reason you didn't use bathroom bills, climate change denial, or any of a whole host of issues that actually affect folks' lives.
Edit: DM me if you'd like to discuss this further. While I think this subject is worth chatting about, it isn't related to the above post. Or we can move it to a new post.
Sorry for the late reply, but I feel it’s worth a reply as I don’t feel I’ve expressed myself clearly to you. In your post, you again use your personal definitions and make generalizations on what...
Sorry for the late reply, but I feel it’s worth a reply as I don’t feel I’ve expressed myself clearly to you.
In your post, you again use your personal definitions and make generalizations on what I must be thinking. This is my issue. These broad generalizations and assumptions.
As to your other examples: I know someone who is deathly afraid of climate change but for the so-called bathroom bills. Since they check one box, I guess you might say this person is a “rightist” and therefore not worth any kind of consideration, even though they may be “leftist” on the climate side. Meanwhile, I find this person to be a loyal and intelligent friend. So if I had your worldview, I would not only be robbing myself of a great friend but also be further polarizing society for (imo) no good reason.
Generalizations are useful to save time, but they have limits.
I was checking thedonald.win a lot after the election and during the leadup to the inauguration. There didn't appear to be any coordination going on, at least not on the surface, but the comments...
I was checking thedonald.win a lot after the election and during the leadup to the inauguration. There didn't appear to be any coordination going on, at least not on the surface, but the comments section of every post was strewn with racist and violent remarks. After the insurrection, they appeared to be more careful about their speech, but there was still a lot of troubling content across the site. I haven't checked the successor site patriot.win in a while. It appears to be offline - anyone know what happened to it?
Might it be plural, patriots.win? That domain resolves for me. I didn't realize thedonald.win has been taken down. I wonder if they lost a lot of members in the migration. edit: I regret looking...
Might it be plural, patriots.win? That domain resolves for me.
I didn't realize thedonald.win has been taken down. I wonder if they lost a lot of members in the migration.
edit: I regret looking at that site. Woof, that's bad.
For reference (racism, sexism, 'nationalism', "anticommunism")
I regret looking at that site. Woof, that's bad.
For reference (racism, sexism, 'nationalism', "anticommunism")
The republic is officially DEAD (started its steady demise in 1913 when the Fed was created and was further accelerated in 1971 when Nixon took us off the gold standard).
My vote doesn't count -- it's simply reallocated to the preferred globalist choice by Dominion or shredded by some low IQ jogger counting the ballots.
Millions of browns flooding in every year bringing in crime, commie votes, and breeding generations of Marxist state-loving hooligans.
Money means nothing. We limp along, crushed by a system of satanic usury while our women are indoctrinated into entering the workforce while letting the state raise our children. This soul-crushing rat race is created to line bureaucrats' pockets and to pay for Jamie Dimonds next yacht.
Incessant gaslighting by the mockingbird media industrial complex and academia completely controlled by psychotic Bolshevists' indoctrinating entire generations of youth to worship the state.
A populace castrated and feminized by pharmaceuticals, resin and formaldehyde soaked masks, toxic foods/air, and rampant EM wave and estrogen mimetic plastic poisoning.
/r/SelfAwarewolves. Also: Guarantee you the person is idiotically referring to all the reputable news orgs that called the election for Biden/Harris, while at the same time they believe everything...
Incessant gaslighting by the mockingbird media industrial complex
Guarantee you the person is idiotically referring to all the reputable news orgs that called the election for Biden/Harris, while at the same time they believe everything coming from NewsMax, OANN, and Breitbart without question.
Sometimes I feel like it's good to read things like this as a way to anchor your own beliefs in reality. The idea that the media and academia are indoctrinating kids into worshipping the state is...
Sometimes I feel like it's good to read things like this as a way to anchor your own beliefs in reality. The idea that the media and academia are indoctrinating kids into worshipping the state is laughable. And it's especially laughable that they're being indoctrinated to worship some sort of socialist manifestation of the state.
I remember a period where the liberals were accused of teaching kids to hate America by teaching them the true history of stuff like Vietnam, MK Ultra, Native genocide etc. Regardless of that, studies show more people than ever before, including the youth are skeptical of corporate and government institutions.
That's the right site. There's a guy I went to high school with who's pretty active on it. Since the election I've been monitoring his account on thedonald/patriots. It's been pretty depressing to...
That's the right site.
There's a guy I went to high school with who's pretty active on it. Since the election I've been monitoring his account on thedonald/patriots. It's been pretty depressing to see his change.
In case of paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20210205234608if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/05/why-thedonald-moderator-left/?itid=mr_technology_1
Firefox reader view (F9) also works to get around it. If after reader view loads it only shows a portion of the article, just refresh (F5) the reader window and it should load the rest.
Firefox reader view (F9) also works to get around it. If after reader view loads it only shows a portion of the article, just refresh (F5) the reader window and it should load the rest.
it does not really, as you can only enter reader view when the site is fully loaded, i wonder why they did that... firefox just gets more and more userunfriendly :-/
it does not really, as you can only enter reader view when the site is fully loaded, i wonder why they did that... firefox just gets more and more userunfriendly :-/
That's a pretty big assumption, IMO. Firefox on iOS is forced to use the WebKit engine by Apple, and Firefox on Android uses GeckoView (a paired down, decoupled Gecko), which are both very...
so they can do it.
That's a pretty big assumption, IMO. Firefox on iOS is forced to use the WebKit engine by Apple, and Firefox on Android uses GeckoView (a paired down, decoupled Gecko), which are both very different than the full Gecko engine used by Firefox on desktop. And given that Mozilla Readability and Readability-readerable rely on DOM parsing and modification, it's not surprising to me that it needs to work slightly differently on each of those platforms/engines.
I don't think so, actually. I actually use readability in one of my own projects which doesn't even involve an actual browser, just a plain get request to get page source then running it through...
I don't think so, actually. I actually use readability in one of my own projects which doesn't even involve an actual browser, just a plain get request to get page source then running it through the library to extract the contents.
For the JS version, I believe it uses jsdom and for the python version it uses lxml.
I can't imagine it being particularly difficult to run on any platform, but as we all know Mozilla is not particularly well staffed right now.
That's not what I was saying at all. It can obviously run on each platform/engine, but how it runs on them is going to depend on how each engine handles loading and rendering DOM objects, and...
I can't imagine it being particularly difficult to run on any platform, but as we all know Mozilla is not particularly well staffed right now.
That's not what I was saying at all. It can obviously run on each platform/engine, but how it runs on them is going to depend on how each engine handles loading and rendering DOM objects, and when/how readability is given access to that information to parse/modify. @Don_Camillo assumes that since you can activate Reader view on Desktop before the page fully loads that the same should be true on mobile... but I don't think that's true.
It shouldn't; readability only uses the standard DOM api to do its processing; as said, you can even use a lightweight DOM emulator like JSDom as is officially described in the docs. There is no...
It shouldn't; readability only uses the standard DOM api to do its processing; as said, you can even use a lightweight DOM emulator like JSDom as is officially described in the docs. There is no documented differences between Chrome's DOM, Firefox's DOM, or JSDom, so I think there's little reason to believe it behaves any differently.
Even if WebKit doesn't play nice, all you need is to get the source of the page and then use JSDom. Like I have it running on a headless python script. It's very easy to just slap in place and unless WebKit doesn't let you have access to the page source there shouldn't be any reason you'd have to change its behavior.
I buy this guy's excuses about as much as I buy Parler CEO's claim that he was fired because he tried to stop the neo-nazis.
Even if I accept their claims face value, what was the arbitrary line in the sand that was supposedly too far?
These were both hate sites on Day 1. I'd love to hear the articulation of where their fringe hate-site exceeded the threshold of "fringe hatefulness" where they couldn't take it any longer. There's a reason TheDonald and Parler were made instead of a subreddit or Facebook group: the content they wanted to play host to was so beyond the pale, so hateful, that even Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter wouldn't have them. It seems to me that whats actually going on is that these guys noticed a shift in public perception about their projects, and decided backtracking from running an active hate site might be the best optics for them.
This is one thing that I've noticed about the right; there is absolutely no solidarity. They worship the virtues of individuality and selfishness. The moment these dudes felt like they'd benefit from betraying and destroying the communities they built, they did. A rightist will never stick their neck out for you unless they stand to gain from doing so.
I think this applies the most to a few specific types of right-wingers:
Economically focused conservatives, particularly the socially unconcerned or liberal kinds
People who just like it when corporations can do whatever they want (usually because it helps or doesn't hurt them)
Rich people with class conscience
Right-wing CEOs and other very rich people
Right-wing politicians
(These obviously overlap with eachother very heavily)
Thing is, this isn't most right-wingers. Most right-wingers are social conservatives or -ists and -phobes, conspiratorial people and deeply ideological (not that being ideological is bad), and do support the virtues of community (particularly if they're religious), they just don't think you/"us" are part of it. And the online right in particular is in no small part a backlash to and politicization of their personal loneliness. Those kinds of people are really not the kind of people who are going to be selfish, at least to their ingroup. Lastly, there is the moderate (which, yes, is even rarer and more common in less politicized, less polarized societies), which a bunch of other people have already talked about.
I don't really care for the generalization. There's plenty of people on the political right that are kind and courteous to others. The same is true of people on the left. Demonizing entire groups like this just leads to more tribalism and increasing tensions.
TheDonald is made up of extremists, loners, and other casts of people. But they don't meaningfully represent "the right" any more than Tumblr (or whatever else) meaningfully represents "the left". It's a spectrum, and most people don't sit at the extremes. Focusing on just those extremes and judging everybody for it isn't intellectually honest or fair.
Full disclosure: I think we are straying a little off topic here (and not really discussing the interesting questions here,) but I don't mind providing my perspective on this "both sides" retort.
Maybe if they are centrist or center-right moderate, not folks I'd consider rightists. Rightist, by the definition of their politics, aren't "kind" to most folks, for example:
Trans folks, the undocumented, the food insecure, those unable to afford housing or healthcare, etc.
If you are someone who supports trans liberation, supports full rights for the undocumented, demands protection of the environment and climate for all, and stands for gender and racial equality, you aren't a rightist. If you don't, I wouldn't characterize you as kind (well, maybe kind to white cis people.)
This isn't unique, if we turn the clocks back to the 50s, once again being a rightist definitionally means you aren't kind. If you were one that supported full de-segregation, gender and racial equality, you weren't a rightist. If you didn't, you weren't kind. "Both sides" aren't mutually respectable; the issue throughout history hasn't been division, it's the failure of the left to win social justice gains quickly enough. We didn't win gay marriage, interracial marriage, women's suffrage, or the defeat of slavery and segregation through moderation or coming together, but the overcoming of and defeat of rightists of the time.
Point of clarification: I didn't make a "both sides" argument. I'm not claiming that both sides are to blame, or even that we need to meet somewhere in the middle. No, I'm specifically calling out over-generalizations and vilification of people. I see far more of this in extreme rightwing communities like TheDonald, but they use "leftist" as an insult whereas you used "rightist".
This is the problem with using entire groups as insults. You have some specific meaning in mind, and wrote paragraphs to define it, but your original comment had none of that context. You just made a pejorative statement which seemingly attacked all people on the political right (with the understanding that "left and right" have different meanings globally).
If you'd laid that out from the beginning (eg. "those against trans rights are self-serving"), then fine, I think that's reasonable. But I don't think we should ever look at TheDonald's style of discourse and say "Yes, let's copy that".
Honestly, this really isn't related to the more interesting discussion that can be had about these fringe rightist site operators.
Let's make this easy, do you think rightists support trans liberation, climate justice, and gender and racial equality? Do you think someone who doesn't agree with these ends can be "kind?"
The point I'm making, correctly, is that these two notions are irreconcilable.To claim that pointing this out is "copying TheDonald's style of discourse" is incredibly dishonest.
Not him, but jumping in here.
Depends what you consider "rightist." My parents are both republicans, but they support trans rights, gender and racial quality, I haven't chatted with Mom about the climate but Dad is a firm believer that we have a duty to care for the planet. Politically, they are right. But that doesn't mean they subscribe to every idea that has become the stereotypical rightist position.
I can understand RND's perspective though. You can say we have a duty to protect the planet, but if you vote for people who push EPA deregulation and extraction contracts in protected areas then... do you actually believe that? Or similarly many traditionally conservative groups push the pro-life mantra while simultaneously banning sex education (and with it how pregnancy occurs), barring access to contraception, and cutting funding for local reproductive health centers.
I don't think everyone on the right is some inhuman person, but it always rubs me wrong when their vocal support runs counter to the policies they choose to support. It just feels like "I believe in this until it costs me something".
For the sake of brevity, let's just look at their supposed "support" for trans rights. It's really difficult to take one's position seriously for trans liberation when they deliberately empower the party that enacts the policies that trans folks need liberation from.
Feel free to use this format for any of the other stated positions: like supporting the party that is the primary exporter of climate change denial, the party that separates immigrant children from their parents then fosters them out across the country, etc.
Edit: DM me if you'd like to discuss this further. While I think this subject is worth chatting about, it isn't related to the above post. Or we can move it to a new post.
This feels so reductive. Someone might stand for racial and gender equality but not want to defund the police, does it help to define them as rightist and irredeemable?
In my experience there are people who see themselves as “right” but don’t fit your definition. What makes your definition more correct than theirs?
I'm fairly certain the majority of liberals aren't even demanding defunding police (much less defining what that looks like,) so to answer your question plainly, no. I think there is a reason you chose that position though; you are intuitively aware that on most issues of consequence, you can't defend rightists even in the abstract and be taken seriously. There's a reason you didn't use bathroom bills, climate change denial, or any of a whole host of issues that actually affect folks' lives.
Edit: DM me if you'd like to discuss this further. While I think this subject is worth chatting about, it isn't related to the above post. Or we can move it to a new post.
Sorry for the late reply, but I feel it’s worth a reply as I don’t feel I’ve expressed myself clearly to you.
In your post, you again use your personal definitions and make generalizations on what I must be thinking. This is my issue. These broad generalizations and assumptions.
As to your other examples: I know someone who is deathly afraid of climate change but for the so-called bathroom bills. Since they check one box, I guess you might say this person is a “rightist” and therefore not worth any kind of consideration, even though they may be “leftist” on the climate side. Meanwhile, I find this person to be a loyal and intelligent friend. So if I had your worldview, I would not only be robbing myself of a great friend but also be further polarizing society for (imo) no good reason.
Generalizations are useful to save time, but they have limits.
I was checking thedonald.win a lot after the election and during the leadup to the inauguration. There didn't appear to be any coordination going on, at least not on the surface, but the comments section of every post was strewn with racist and violent remarks. After the insurrection, they appeared to be more careful about their speech, but there was still a lot of troubling content across the site. I haven't checked the successor site patriot.win in a while. It appears to be offline - anyone know what happened to it?
Might it be plural, patriots.win? That domain resolves for me.
I didn't realize thedonald.win has been taken down. I wonder if they lost a lot of members in the migration.
edit: I regret looking at that site. Woof, that's bad.
For reference (racism, sexism, 'nationalism', "anticommunism")
Wasn’t their literal website name TheDonald?
/r/SelfAwarewolves. Also:
Guarantee you the person is idiotically referring to all the reputable news orgs that called the election for Biden/Harris, while at the same time they believe everything coming from NewsMax, OANN, and Breitbart without question.
Sometimes I feel like it's good to read things like this as a way to anchor your own beliefs in reality. The idea that the media and academia are indoctrinating kids into worshipping the state is laughable. And it's especially laughable that they're being indoctrinated to worship some sort of socialist manifestation of the state.
I remember a period where the liberals were accused of teaching kids to hate America by teaching them the true history of stuff like Vietnam, MK Ultra, Native genocide etc. Regardless of that, studies show more people than ever before, including the youth are skeptical of corporate and government institutions.
That's the right site.
There's a guy I went to high school with who's pretty active on it. Since the election I've been monitoring his account on thedonald/patriots. It's been pretty depressing to see his change.
In case of paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20210205234608if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/05/why-thedonald-moderator-left/?itid=mr_technology_1
Firefox reader view (F9) also works to get around it. If after reader view loads it only shows a portion of the article, just refresh (F5) the reader window and it should load the rest.
I'm not sure this works on mobile.
it does not really, as you can only enter reader view when the site is fully loaded, i wonder why they did that... firefox just gets more and more userunfriendly :-/
Showing the reader button before the site is loaded would require showing it on every webpage, unnecessarily taking up limited address bar space.
it appears on desktop earlier, only on pages that "support" it, so they can do it.
That's a pretty big assumption, IMO. Firefox on iOS is forced to use the WebKit engine by Apple, and Firefox on Android uses GeckoView (a paired down, decoupled Gecko), which are both very different than the full Gecko engine used by Firefox on desktop. And given that Mozilla Readability and Readability-readerable rely on DOM parsing and modification, it's not surprising to me that it needs to work slightly differently on each of those platforms/engines.
p.s. https://github.com/mozilla/readability
I don't think so, actually. I actually use readability in one of my own projects which doesn't even involve an actual browser, just a plain get request to get page source then running it through the library to extract the contents.
For the JS version, I believe it uses jsdom and for the python version it uses lxml.
I can't imagine it being particularly difficult to run on any platform, but as we all know Mozilla is not particularly well staffed right now.
That's not what I was saying at all. It can obviously run on each platform/engine, but how it runs on them is going to depend on how each engine handles loading and rendering DOM objects, and when/how readability is given access to that information to parse/modify. @Don_Camillo assumes that since you can activate Reader view on Desktop before the page fully loads that the same should be true on mobile... but I don't think that's true.
It shouldn't; readability only uses the standard DOM api to do its processing; as said, you can even use a lightweight DOM emulator like JSDom as is officially described in the docs. There is no documented differences between Chrome's DOM, Firefox's DOM, or JSDom, so I think there's little reason to believe it behaves any differently.
Even if WebKit doesn't play nice, all you need is to get the source of the page and then use JSDom. Like I have it running on a headless python script. It's very easy to just slap in place and unless WebKit doesn't let you have access to the page source there shouldn't be any reason you'd have to change its behavior.
Fair enough... you sound like you're probably far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am.