If Firefox is free and open...

[OneBert]

Why do I only get left wing news sources when I open up a new tab, or stories from the side that wants to control the internet? If an entire "global community" won't even allow one alternative source of information, how does an objective person even entertain the notion that it is trustworthy? Please tell how the right is fascist again... 

[miclgael1]

Are you brand new to Firefox? You may be experiencing the phenomenon where starting fresh somewhere new makes you realise you've been caught in a bubble of bias and algorithmic influence. It can be very jarring to realise there are more opinions in the world than just the ones you've been trained on. But fear not, you can still get yourself caught back in the bubble of safety and anger with time and a little elbow grease. Perhaps start with bookmarking some of your favourite fascist news outlets and government websites. Get yourself advertised to. Be sure to log into Facebook. 

[mercury636]

Progressive liberal (left leaning) corporate news has been the default in most of the world for 50 years. So everyone is aware of it on both sides. However, centrist or right leaning news is considered "alternative" and only seen by those on the right for the most part. Those perspectives are never shared in firefox recommended stories, at all. Only stories which favor democrats and attack anything to the right of a centrist libertarian. That's just a fact. So maybe he's not the one in the bubble.

[koavf]

Why are you posting complete misinformation? There are many places in the world where only far right and government-friendly news is the norm (Russia, the Middle East) and in the United States, by far the biggest voices in talk radio, podcasts, and cable news are all right wing and in fact, increasingly far right. Additionally, social media sites disproportionately signal boost right wing and reactionary material. What universe are you living in that there is some left-wing consensus in the world?

[mercury636]

BBC News, The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, Reuters, Associated Press, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, HuffPost, USA Today, Democracy Now!, PBS NewsHour, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, BBC America, CBC News, etc on and on.

These are the major left leaning outlets in the US and all of them have been featured on Firefox recommended stories consistently. Most of them dominate the headlines. Now, do right leaning sources dominate the alternative media that the vast majority of people over 50 or 60 never see? Podcasts which boomers don't even know exist and don't even know how to listen to? Or other alternatives? In some areas. Although NYTimes is #1 on apple podcasts right now, Dateline NBC is #3

[koavf]

Many of these are not major American outlets (CBC News? BBC? The Guardian?) and many of them are barely left-leaning (Iraq War apologists and consistent transgender-hating The New York Times? Thoroughly corporate news outlets like ABC or CBS?) if at all. It's pretty wild how you just ignored your obviously untrue claim that the news industry has been universally progressive for decades to say "Well, Firefox gets news from ABC". Crazy stuff. Please do tell me which right-wing sources they should be using for news and how that would be an improvement.

Also, "people over 50 and 60" are exactly the audience who made Fox News! Unbelievable that you think they are getting a steady stream of progressive news. It's completely insane that anyone would believe that.

[mercury636]

Let's be real, objectively speaking every mainstream outlet I mentioned has carried water for the democrats in the US and posted blueanon conspiracy theories. You seem perturbed by my perspective. So I would guess it never crossed your mind that the left winning the culture war has had the effect of dominating the mainstream media since probably around the 1960s or 70s in the US. The default is mainstream left leaning progressive liberalism in mainstream media. With the lone outlet of Fox being contrary to that. As you point out that's recently been challenged successfully by the right in alternative media and social media where it's become more popular. 

[koavf]

I'm perturbed by your bad faith. You don't want to answer any real questions, move goalposts, and spout talking points that have no basis in reality. Please do show me when CBC News posted "bluanon conspiracy theories". Still waiting for you to actually answer the questions I asked.

[mercury636]

Hearing a lot hyperbole from you which isn't a good faith tactic. These are my honest unvarnished perspectives. Most of your questions from previous replies are clearly hyperbole and rhetorical questions. Neither of which are used in good faith. So is it dishonesty or projection? :shrug: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, one more time.

> Why are you posting complete misinformation?
That's a rhetorical question. I've clearly stated what I believe.

>What universe are you living in that there is some left-wing consensus in the world?
Rhetorical question, clearly.

> Please do show me when CBC News posted "bluanon conspiracy theories". 
They propped up the "Fine people" hoax, for starters. But, I refuse to get into the weeds with you about this. That will lead nowhere, you know how this works on forums like this. Easy enough to find plenty of evidence of that bias if you're unbiased enough to dig into it.

> Many of these are not major American outlets (CBC News? BBC? The Guardian?) and many of them are barely left-leaning (Iraq War apologists and consistent transgender-hating The New York Times? Thoroughly corporate news outlets like ABC or CBS?) if at all.

One of only two non-rhetorical questions. I'll assume you meant this as a question, though it sounds rhetorical since the answer is obvious.  Some of these are more or less biased than the others. They all regularly post misinformation about the right while praising democrats. Examples; Hillary projected to win 90%, Trump mocked a disabled man,  Suckers and losers, Fine people hoax, Lab Leak theory is a hoax (hoax), Inject bleach hoax, hospitals are so overwhelmed with ivermectin victims that gunshot victims can't be treated hoax, the vaccine stops the spread hoax, Russian collusion hoax, J6 "Big lie" & "insurrection" hoax, Trump tried to grab control of the Beast hoax, Charlie Kirk assassin was maga, etc.

The Guardian rated as left https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

CBC rated as left https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbc-news-canadian-broadcasting/ 

NYTimes rated as left  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

BBC rated as centrist https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/ 

BBC recently published then retracted misinformation about Trump so there's that. Though everyone involved did all resign, which stands somewhat in their favor as centrist.  https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/09/uk/bbc-leaders-resign-amid-scandal-over-trump-speech-latam-intl

CBS rated as left https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbs-news/

NPR rated as left https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

Feel free to check the rest of the ones I cited. 

> Please do tell me which right-wing sources they should be using for news and how that would be an improvement.
The tacit admission in this question is that you understand there's a bias in recommended stories which excludes anything right of center. So I think we're done here since that was all it was about. It's settled then. The OPs point stands. The bias is obvious and real.

[koavf]

"They propped up the "Fine people" hoax, for starters. But, I refuse to get into the weeds with you about this. That will lead nowhere, you know how this works on forums like this. Easy enough to find plenty of evidence of that bias if you're unbiased enough to dig into it."

Ah yes, the old "the burden of proof to prove my wild claims is on *you*". Clearly, you are using logic and facts and acting in good faith.

"They all regularly post misinformation about the right while praising democrats. Examples; Hillary projected to win 90%, Trump mocked a disabled man,  Suckers and losers, Fine people hoax, Lab Leak theory is a hoax (hoax), Inject bleach hoax, hospitals are so overwhelmed with ivermectin victims that gunshot victims can't be treated hoax, the vaccine stops the spread hoax, Russian collusion hoax, J6 "Big lie" & "insurrection" hoax, Trump tried to grab control of the Beast hoax, Charlie Kirk assassin was maga, etc."

Literally none of what you wrote was an example of "misinformation about the right". Instead of Gish galloping a bunch of complete nonsense, how about you do one of two things: either choose a specific incident of an article online that purportedly does what you claim or you do the much more meaningful job of neither using anecdote nor your subjective perception and hurt feelings and instead point to actual data to prove your claim. You won't do either, of course, but if you wanted to not waste others' time, you would either of these as a bare minimum.

Note also that you clearly dissimulated above with your long list of media bias checks, such as when you said that CBS News was "rated left" when it's rated as "center-left". But "center-left" doesn't fit the narrative that you want us to believe which is that they are progressive liberals. Of course, again, the goalposts change.

"The tacit admission in this question is that you understand there's a bias in recommended stories which excludes anything right of center. So I think we're done here since that was all it was about. It's settled then. The OPs point stands. The bias is obvious and real."

lol, I knew it. You can't even come up with a single source that should be included. You know for a fact that right-wing sources are overwhelmingly not fact-based so you can't even come up with one that should be promoted for your purported balance. And, no, I did not accept your claim. I accepted your claim for the purpose of you substantiating your claim with an actual example. Were *I* to make a claim, I would argue that the sources are excessively *conservative* and don't represent any actual progressive and left-wing perspectives.

[mercury636]

You just want to argue and have no interest in challenging your very clear bias. Not a single wild claim was made. I provided more than ample evidence and did nothing to deceive you. I said they were all left sources then proved that. You've even agreed with that claim. So we're done and I've won that debate. I could care less if it's center left or far left. My point stands, they are all left leaning sources. You've disproved nothing
The rest of this is just cope. 

> Ah yes, the old "the burden of proof to prove my wild claims is on *you*". Clearly, you are using logic and facts and acting in good faith.
Here's an example of CBC spreading the fine people hoax btw. Since you mentioned that one. I have examples of every claim I made. My point in saying I'm not getting into the weeds with you is because I don't want to spend hours on the mozilla connect forums debating very trivial and easy to prove claims that reccomended stories is biased. All the hoaxes are verified and trivial to fact check, clearly you've never even though about challenging your bias and doing so https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-charlottesville-confederate-monument-protests-1.4250556

> Literally none of what you wrote was an example of "misinformation about the right". 
Everyone one of those things has been cleanly debunked. Many of them by CNN.

[koavf]

*You* brought it up. And then when given even the mildest challenge, you get scared. It's okay to admit that you just made up stuff, have no proof, and you apologize for wasting others' time. It's fine. I forgive you.

And what is the purported "hoax" in this article? What is the thing that they claim which is untrue or what is the framing of true facts that is misleading?

Still waiting on that great right-wing sources that everyone should be reading.

[koavf]

Also, I love the "you just want to argue" and then two seconds later "I won the debate" gambit. Hilarious stuff, buddy.

[mercury636]

> Also, I love the "you just want to argue" and then two seconds later "I won the debate" gambit. Hilarious stuff, buddy.
I proved my claim that the sources are all left leaning. That's settled. Not sure what you're on about. Cope harder.

[koavf]

I'm on about how you whine about someone else "wanting to argue" but you clearly want to argue. lol, a grown person writing "cope harder". Genuinely hilarious stuff, buddy.

[koavf]

Still waiting for answers to my questions.

[mercury636]

Your concerns about RU and other places is valid, I agree. My concern is less with that and more with how Firefox recommendations shows very clearly left leaning stories and not balanced news, at least from what I see on a fresh install. Not sure if those stories are based on geolocation data and unique to me. It seems like we all see the same stories based on this description https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommendations-firefox-new-tab#w_are-these-stories-on-the-new-...

[koavf]

What kind of answer do you want to this post?