I switched to Brave last year after 22 years of Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox.
This was purely for Chromium performance reasons (although it seems Firefox has made some major improvements recently). I didn't like leaving behind a unique browser engine, which needs to remain a significant player.
I don't understand a lot of the hate for Brave. If you don't like the crypto integration, the ads, etc you can just disable them. I feel the original intent, to be able to contribute directly back to page authors, was a noble one. It may not have played out as intended, but it wasn't a scam.
One year in, I've had no issues I can think of. And now they have their own search engine, another net plus to the ecosystem. Outside of things like Tor Browser, the privacy is about as good as you're going to get from a client. In fact, you can open a new window using Tor directly in the browser. I don't use their VPN but that's available also (Mullvad?).
I spend enough daily time in it that I would notice UI/UX/perf. problems ... I really haven't seen any.
>I don't understand a lot of the hate for Brave. If you don't like the crypto integration, the ads, etc...
...and the redirection of the URLs of other cryptocurrency exchange websites...and the time it inserted affiliate referral codes when users navigate to Binance. Yes, you can turn off the crypto BS, and they stopped doing the redirects. But I can't trust a browser company that _may_ do such shenanigans again in the future. They "fixed" or removed that stuff, but that doesn't mean they won't do it again. I just don't trust them, at all. That right there is enough to not use the browser. Not to mention Brendan Eich and his views.
If you still don't understand, then I don't know what to tell you.
It's funny, when Brave the organization's politics are pretty narrow and what you'd want out of a browser: Privacy and user control.
Meanwhile Mozilla the organization boots people for politics, wants "more than deplatforming" and uses as one of their examples organizations deciding what I should see on the Internet - preferring outlets that Mozilla themselves like, naturally. They publish stuff with the gist of "did you encounter other politics on YouTube, how scary".
Meanwhile the organization spends money on getting a sneaker designer to make time-limited color themes for their browser and writes a pile of copy about how cool it is that a sneaker designer painted the browser blue.
Meanwhile, Brave releases a user-customizable filtering function for their search engine so you, not someone else, can decide from what POV you see the Internet and added native vertical tabs to the browser.
One organization is blatantly political, the other just makes a good browser.
But if you want people you like to decide what I see (at least easily) on the 'net, that's good, I guess.
I'm not going to defend mozilla, since I think deciding which organization we hate more is counterproductive. But I will say that as a user of a browser, I don't really care that much what anyone publishes or who they boot from their organization (sounds flippant I know but at the end of the day I just want a browser that works). Brave putting garbage in their browser like crypto mining and redirecting links affects _the product_, which is the only thing I care about. Firefox has made blunders, but nothing like this.
Which is why they were silently filling in affiliate links without user consent right? Or why they were collecting tips for users with no affiliation to the company that runs brave.
Or that using a single wallet built into your web browser for crypto stuff nicely ties all your transactions to that one wallet in a way that completely removes all "privacy" aspects
I would be fine with it if it were opt-in for users who want to support the browser in that way, but silently injecting them across the board is just a scummy thing to do and also likely a violation of any sane affiliate program's terms. A company that's willing to do that loses an unrecoverable amount of credibility and trust in my eyes.
I am with you. Their past actions irreversibly tainted their reputation, and they are no longer worthy of our trust.
I think society has largely adopted a victim
mentality with abusive software these days. We are so used to being betrayed and hurt that we now accept it as normal. It started off innocuously enough, but now we are effectively being hurt on the regular. We have learned helplessness, and that will not end well.
> We are so used to being betrayed and hurt that we now accept it as normal. It started off innocuously enough, but now we are effectively being hurt on the regular. We have learned helplessness, and that will not end well.
> Their past actions irreversibly tainted their reputation, and they are no longer worthy of our trust.
This is closer to something you might hear from someone with a victim mentality. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is evidence of such, but certainly this rigidity of thought around being a victim to another's actions contributes to such.
It's more that we are so absurdly petty, pathetic, and entitled that we refuse a tiny, minuscule amount of pain for the greater good. Maybe back in 2010 the difference in speed between the browsers mattered but I've used Firefox since version two and as long as you had an ad blocker the speed was NEVER an issue.
So now we've given a hostile ad agency control of the internet to save 100ms on certain web site loads. Good job everyone.
They absolutely do, and using the chromium code base, regardless of what you supposedly patch into or out of it, pushes forwards GOOGLE'S goals, not the open web's goals.
> I feel the original intent, to be able to contribute directly back to page authors, was a noble one. It may not have played out as intended, but it wasn't a scam.
The original intent was absolutely a scam. They wanted to hide the ads that were already on websites, replace them with their own, then give a fraction of the revenue they just effectively stole from those websites back to them (but only if they knew to ask for it).
Also they were going to take over all the third-party tracking data for their own, while branding it as “privacy” — so much hand waving about "we don't run a MiTM proxy" (while hoping we didn’t notice it’s because they don’t need to be in the middle when they control the browser itself).
Absolutely brazen, and they kept changing their story in real time whenever people started to notice hey wtf is this. Happened to be able to find this in my posting history for example; in hindsight I wish I hadn't been so cowed by the fact that I was arguing with Brendan Eich Himself, because man what a load of horsepuckey he and his guy were delivering: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14464518#14465271
The parts that could most safely be described as "scam", to my point of view, are
* lying to users about protecting their privacy, while gathering and reselling more information than was possible with existing 3rd party trackers
* lying about "giving back to publishers", while actually coopting those publishers' revenue streams
Your "Websites are not entitled to showing ads" statement gave me a moment of thought, I have to admit: I don't see anything wrong with ad blockers, but I do think the ethics of ad replacers is pretty problematic. At best it makes Brave a parasitic entity feeding off revenue that would have otherwise gone to the content creators.
I'll reluctantly agree that that part on its own doesn't rise to the level of "scam" but I certainly don't think it's admirable.
I think letting an advertising company have any control over content distribution or display is inherently a problem, so Brave signalling that they want to do advertising is pretty clear to me that they cannot be trusted.
Like, do Brave think google is just evil and that if someone else becomes the advertising behemoth things will be just rosy?
For sure. And their overall shiftiness whenever anyone calls attention to their plans ("oh, that FAQ's out of date," "oh that's a future feature," "oh that's not what we planned, even though it's exactly what we said," etc) doesn't exactly help make them seem like a trustworthy partner.
> I don't understand a lot of the hate for Brave. If you don't like the crypto integration, the ads, etc you can just disable them. I feel the original intent, to be able to contribute directly back to page authors, was a noble one. It may not have played out as intended, but it wasn't a scam.
The presence of ads and/or crypto is a strong signal that you're working with an untrustworthy entity, whose objectives will not be aligned with your own.
Maybe Brave the browser isn't outright a "scam," but the willingness of the company to dip into scam-enabling technologies like crypto makes the brand toxic, and anything by the company is immediately suspect.
The same is true for Signal, for what it's worth, as it still supports Moxie's pet shitcoin.
It's easy enough to opt out of Brave because Firefox exists, but there's still sadly no better alternative to Signal.
> The presence of ads and/or crypto is a strong signal that you're working with an untrustworthy entity, whose objectives will not be aligned with your own.
Decentralized wealth is crypto. Sure, there are scams, but the point is to pay people for viewing ads (wealth re-distribution in a decentralized fashion). No one else is paying you to view ads; they are just taking your engagement data, your face and eye gaze data, your mouse trajectory data, etc. Brave is the first to try to pay you a portion of its ads revenue in a way that you the end user can flip into whatever currency you want, including USD. I've never been cut a check from Google, Amazon, Facebook, or the like. But I've received BAT, which I can flip into ETH/BTC, and earn more money.
> Maybe Brave the browser isn't outright a "scam," but the willingness of the company to dip into scam-enabling technologies like crypto makes the brand toxic, and anything by the company is immediately suspect.
Do you use any resource owned/operated by Google? Amazon? JPMorgan Chase? Facebook? Bank of America? Wells Fargo? (to name a few) All of these companies "dip into scam-enabling technologies like crypto."
Unlike browsers, which can (for now) still be swapped out solely on individual preference, the network effects are real for messaging platforms. This means that currently Signal is more broadly useful than Matrix clients.
Hopefully this can change some day, and Matrix (or something like it) will become ubiquitous. But it was a slog for Signal to gain even its small market share, despite its better usability and lower barriers to entry.
For lack of a better alternative, we "standardized" on Signal as the de-facto secure messaging system that is outside of the control of ad companies, and it will take time to rectify that.
I certainly don't hate Brave. I use it. I also don't like Brave, I put up with it. It's just that there aren't any great browsers out there, and Brave sucks less than most.
I agree with you, but it sometimes feels like a 'great browser' is supposed to be free, bleeding-edge while also backwards compatible, tracking-free, ad-free, and somehow altruistic and for the good of the open web.
Where are we getting these absolutely unattainable ideals from? Who can possibly support and fund such a project besides an enterprise?
You should check out History Trends Unlimited! I also wanted an unlimited history and since no browser supports it, someone made an extension. It even automatically backs up your history for you in a neat litte zip file!
The text input spelling checker is really terrible; late 80s spell checks were better.
Forgot which, but had a 12 letter word that I misspelled one letter of, Brave underlined it in red with no replacements in right-click menu, I fixed it by googling the spelling and underline went away.
In often happens that it has no or even very wrong suggestions.
Personally, I don’t like the inability to turn off the update mechanism, which is annoying on my macos 10.13 computer that has a warning bar every time I run the brave browser application. I suppose this means there is telemetry built in that can’t be removed
Yeah, that's actually been irritating me a lot lately. Brave has taken to constantly nagging me about not being able to update itself. I know! That's on purpose! Stop bugging me.
The UI, mostly. But the point isn't that I'm not in love with Brave. The point is that I use it because it's the least bad option, and I wish there were an option that I would actively like.
> I feel the original intent, to be able to contribute directly back to page authors, was a noble one
The intent is to circumvent how authors have themselves chosen to monetize their own content, insert themselves as the man in the middle, display their own ads and "pay" people in a currency they print. They're actually replacing the direct compensation the author would receive with an indirect one. Traditionally this kind of scheme is known as a protection racket. Also of course this means that Brave is simply an advertisement company, like the ones they are supposed to protect you from.
When someone visits your page through Brave the ads you would have been compensated for are being blocked, Brave earns actual money for the ads they put in their place, and then users get the chance to tip you in 'attention tokens', which they wisely pre-mined. That's not noble, it's like the mafia combined with a Nigerian prince currency scam.
> That's the one and only real reason why they hate brave
Cause Mozilla did him dirty? When Obama ran in 2008 he opposed gay marriage. Hell proposition 8 passed. California's constitution still has text banning gay marriage in it.
I agree, it's a great browser and the BAT was at least an attempt to change some of the bad incentives of the modern web. Doesn't seem like it worked, but kudos for trying something new!
> I don't understand a lot of the hate for Brave. If you don't like the crypto integration, the ads, etc you can just disable them.
If you buy fruits from a shop that also sells scummy lottery tickets, you at least should accept that other people will bring criticism and skepticism to that shop.
Do you think the shop should not sell something that some people want because other people don't like it? AFAIK the BAT token hasn't done any material harm to anyone besides maybe some speculators that bought at the peak
I think that the people who don't like it might not shop at that store, and the business should take that into account.
That "should" shit, however, is inviting other people to make a value judgement just so you can attack them for not being libertarian or something, nobody cares. They should do what is best for their business if they want to be successful. They thought that was crypto, and who am I to second guess? As long as they're doing it, or strange advertising shell games, I'm not even their customer, so I don't get a say. I don't think they did anything remotely fraudulent...
How dare someone expect more from their fellow citizens than "shamelessly and with zero morals make as much money as I can through any means". What's with HNs wants so bad to be free from judgement for doing business that can hurt people.
No one complains anymore because in general states regulated that the tickets need to be behind a counter (or behind glass) and entirely unavailable to minors and a portion of sales need to go to remediation tools (addiction PSAs, addiction counseling services) and/or education funds and other taxes.
They have a new api where they’re happy to sell copyrighted website data (like mine) to third parties to train ai with (without copyright holders permission). This sort of soured me on the company. I was a fan until then
The hate for Brave is well earned. They launched with a totally scummy scheme of hiding ads on people's sites and collecting money "on their behalf" but they needed to then know to reach out to Brave to get it. They have done some not great stuff since then as well.
PSA: They held the tips for a while to see if the creator signed up, and if not sent the crypto back to the user. If it even was the user's, they put up a pool of the stuff out of their own pocket to jumpstart the tipping service and the whole thing might just be over the allocation of that pool, I don't remember the specifics.
In any case no one lost their stuff, bad UX was critiqued and bad UX was fixed.
A lot of people are leery about crypto and have read a FUD article or two about the browser and put it in the hate bucket. Next to none of the common complaints are modern missteps. One of the most common complaints was a bug that got fixed within a day of being reported, in a feature that Firefox is doing TODAY yet people aren't demanding Firefox devs' heads on a plate.
No, not FUD in terms of Brave implementing crypto things within the browser. That much is obvious and they take pride in it.
What I mean is that year in, year out you'll see the same things about a bug in their Firefox Suggest-esque feature that got fixed within one day of being reported, the bad Rewards UI which got fixed without anyone losing their cryptocurrency in response to eg. Tom Scott's feedback being treated as a scam where Brave stole it from people and so on.
They're basically criticisms of first iterations of new things and assume maximum malice on part of the Brave team. The integrating crypto into the browser side is mostly unrelated, nobody denies it and few think it's unequivocally good.
As the guy who released all those Phoenix and Firebird and Firefox versions, I can tell you with some certainty that it hasn't been 22 years yet.
First builds were spring of 2002 and you probably didn't have those because they were still called "browser" or "m/b" back then and not made terribly discoverable. You probably mean you got with it in 2003, summer or fall, which would be 20 years ago, not 22.
> As the guy who released all those Phoenix and Firebird and Firefox versions, I can tell you with some certainty that it hasn't been 22 years yet.
Yes, I was off by a year or so, I'm not making anything up. Two decades is a long time to remember details.
All I know is I'd FTP to grab the latest and unzip it into a folder.
By this point I was running a couple major websites and had a "5-star CNET Award" for an internet-centered software product so I was on top of anything in that sphere.
But how can you oppose same sex marriage unless you think same sex couples are not deserving of the same legal status as straight couples. There's no religious grounds for opposing it because marriage is a legal matter. The ceremony that many churches do that they call marriage has no legal standing, and is not generally recognized (on it's own) by the government.
Your two options to oppose gay marriage then are either believing the United States should base it's tax and property laws on specifically christian religions (plenty others have no problem with gay marriage), or that gay couples should not be "valid" in the eyes of the law.
"There's no religious grounds for opposing it because marriage is a legal matter."
No, it isn't. For some it's strictly a legal matter, for others it's both a legal matter and a religious matter. That's why you can legally marry in 5 minutes by placing a signature, and separately marry "for church".
"The ceremony that many churches do that they call marriage has no legal standing"
The distinction is irrelevant. Whether or not you consider Eich's contribution to be offensive, the inciting action was strictly related to the legal aspect.
Plus, even if this was a strictly religious belief, that doesn't protect him from the criticism of peers. That's the cost of picking people to make your enemy. Eich resigned after the reaction.
If that is the cost (cheap pile-ons to go after someone's job) would you apply the same method to any of your moslim colleagues? Or is that "different"?
Again: do you equally call for the removal of your Muslim co-workers, based on their believes, which on this matter are on average far more..."restrictive"?
You cannot participate in (or plainly accept..."tough luck") the criticism on Brendan if you're not also willing to apply the same criticism to pretty much every muslim worldwide.
When a muslim coworker donates $1000 to support overturning marriage equality, yes, I would absolutely tell them that's fucked up and if they were in a C level position I would voice an opinion that they do not uphold our company's explicit core value to be inclusive.
I absolutely do not give a fuck about what someone PRIVATELY believes. The problem is not religious people believing in something, the problem is religious people FORCING their beliefs into law.
When muslim people do that, it's called Sharia law and I am against that, same as I am against laws based on christian beliefs.
Marriage is a legal institution in the United States. If you call for discriminatory access to a legal asset, you should be ready for the scrutiny.
Had the shoe been on the other foot and we were funding a proposition to limit the recognition of Christian marriage, Christians would call it an opposition to their existence too. And rightfully so! The backlash makes sense on a logical, emotional and authoritative level. I don't see how you could possibly interpret it otherwise.
Of course it is bigoted and discriminatory. The point is that discrimination is itself a scale, and "you're not allowed to exist" is a very far end of that scale - much further than opposing same-sex marriage.
This must be in regards to his donating $1,000 to Proposition 8, which sought to ban same-sex marriage in California [0]. This was the genesis event that led to his resignation from Mozilla back in 2014.
I'm unclear if his views have changed either positively or negatively in the intervening decade.
so, he was forced out of mozilla for his private constitutionally protected political activity.
how exactly is that evidence that he believes "people don't have a right to exist?"
it seems like some people think people with his beliefs don't have a right to exist. maybe they are just projecting the hate in their own hearts onto their enemies/victims?
It's actually not protected. In fact, only very few states even have laws that protect political activity from being used for workplace terminations. And even states like NY and California make a vague exception for "political activity that interferes with the functioning of the business."
The only ones constitutionally protected are government employees since the government cannot fire someone for 1st amendment speech (but companies can because the 1st amendment does not apply to private entities)
Now you’re reacting to hyperbole with more hyperbole.
It’s more like OP just wants to use rhetoric to have you ignore and silence Brendan Eich. Which I still think is going too far, even if I disagree with his (apparent) private political views.
This comparison is beyond facile, so much so that it reads as basically a bad faith attempt to jam up the conversation with nonsense tangents.
Trying to take away someone's civil rights is fundamentally different from outlawing a crime. Wanting someone to be a literal second-class citizen is, in fact, a negation of the validity of their identity. Revoking same-sex marriage is absolutely an effort to push the LGBTQ+ community back into the shadows; it is transparently the tip of the spear of a movement that seeks to roll back some of the biggest civil rights gains of the last few decades. That is what OP means when they say "don't want me to exist".
No. It isn't fundamentally different. You view it as morally different because that is your political view. While you are entitled to your political views, you are not allowed to make them "fundamental" for everyone else.
Conflating a good faith policy debate with not wanting someone to exist is patently dishonest. It is a dishonorable bad faith form of political extremism, and should get you banned from HN.
No. It is fundamentally different. You don't view it as morally different because you don't respect the civil rights of people who who are LGBTQ+. While you are entitled to your moral view, you are not allowed to conflate it with a policy discussion.
Conflating a civil rights issue with a policy debate is patently bad-faith. It is a dishonorable form of political extremism, and should get you banned from HN.
> You don't view it as morally different because you don't respect the civil rights of people who who are LGBTQ+.
I understand that you're new here and probably think this is someplace where you can make assumptions about people, like on certain other social media sites. But I am actually a gay judge advocate (military attorney) who helped write the Obama policy allowing transgender service for the first time in U.S. history.
The fact that I believe reasoned, accurate, and earnest political discussion is important does not give you, or anyone else prone to hysterics, any basis to conclude what exactly my policy positions are.
Instead, what it demonstrates is this: in my experience, respecting people who disagree with me—even when the disagreement is something I'm emotional about and affects me personally—has allowed me to win more hearts and minds. And what's more is, it's the right thing to do. Making false accusations against people you are mad at is not virtuous under any circumstances.
It's my sincere hope that you take this teachable moment and reflect on how to be a better participant, both here on HN and in our nation's policy-making machinery.
I can only respond to your stated positions, as I did here. Regardless of who you are, if you want to regard this as a policy debate that's fine but to me that's a clear lack of respect for what is a civil rights issue, and is obviously fundamentally different from eg. shoplifting. Just the same as if someone wanted to claim that segregation was a "policy debate" and worthy of respect or consideration. I have made no false accusations that I am aware of. You are welcome to respect whoever you want, I personally do not truck with bad faith strawmanning of an issue that is quite close to my heart. If someone wants to chat about eg. tax policy or urban planning I will give them as much time and respect as I have available. If someone wants to debate the fundamental rights of myself and others I will give them my exact evaluation of them and their positions.
edit: I recognize and appreciate that HN has a pretty strict commenting policy. I think that this entire subthread has gotten quite far afield of the original post, which was regarding Brave. Even the topic of the comment we are replying under was rather different from where we have gotten to now. I think that I have made my position abundant clear, which is that denying someone a right based on their identity is sufficiently close to "not wanting them to be allowed to exist" that OP's comment was not a gross mischaracterization of Eich's (possibly past) beliefs. I don't think further discussion is going to change anyone else's mind about this, and at best is going to continue degrading into a "how dare you"-fest, so I'm leaving this here. I appreciate the work you did in support of trans people in the military, and I authentically hope you have a good day.
The problem with that type of conversational exaggeration is that it leaves no more room to describe actual genocidal people and groups. How would you describe those, then? "'A person who really actually literally doesn't want me to exist'?"
I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity."
That's nit-picky, contrarian drivel and this whole discussion is like 10^-6 in terms of actual relevance compared to the original topic. You are literally using the language one could use to distinguish between the two: "Eich doesn't want me to exist" versus "Eich is a proponent of genocide". The English language is flexible, playful, and inventive. There are many ways to clarify what someone's position is, and OP is not wrong. Eich wanting someone to have less rights is an expression that they are deserving of less, that their existence is not okay and they should be punished for it. Absolutely "doesn't want them to exist".
The original wording wasn't "doesn't want me to", it was "shouldn't be allowed to", the first of which is the same as any opinion we might have - there are lots of things I wouldn't want to be the case. "Shouldn't be allowed to" implies use of force and active action against the thing.
IDK how you feel about using legal force to strip someone of a civil right, but that seems pretty active to me. It's certainly less of a stretch than characterizing OP as "blatant lies", but I guess your standards for precision of language only flow one way. Have a good one!
With your standards, people are allowed to claim that others think "they shouldn't be allowed to exist", and people wanting to distinguish it from actual totalitarian/genocidal policy are left doing the linguistic precision thing. There's a simple, clear way to describe what he did and thought and maybe thinks still, which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Very clear, no hyperbole.
>which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal.
Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.
> Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all.
No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at?
No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?
I have acquaintances who spout stuff like "all Christians should be killed" (would mean at least a dozen of my friends getting killed :) ) and openly go like "guys, have you thought that if we just started killing rich people, the world would become a better place and we wouldn't even have to kill all that many people". One person who was both trans and a furry complained about how people considered their existence a political matter and how that was sad. Two weeks later and they were (completely unsurprisingly) wishing for a communist revolution.
Which, as we all know, are peaceful affairs where people's freaking lives definitely aren't a political matter.
Somehow the mods of the place are ok with that but if I dissented from their politics I'd be considered less than human pretty much then and there.
> I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity."
Too much of a mouthful. It's enough to say "I can't use a product built by people who hate me". Just as true, just as impactful...
> Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine:
Are you seriously disputing that it is rational to hold the view "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal" and "People Objecting to Gay Marriage Are Not Calling For The Cessation Of Existence Of Gays"?
Because it sure looks, to the average reader, that you are incapable of understanding that many people can hold two non-conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time.
Aren't you able to hold two thoughts at the same time without having a neural meltdown? Why do you think others can't?
> Trying to take away someone's civil rights is fundamentally different from outlawing a crime.
Nitpick; anything that is outlawed is a crime. This is why I chose a crime as my example.
> Wanting someone to be a literal second-class citizen is, in fact, a negation of the validity of their identity. Revoking same-sex marriage is absolutely an effort to push the LGBTQ+ community back into the shadows; it is transparently the tip of the spear of a movement that seeks to roll back some of the biggest civil rights gains of the last few decades.
I agree, but comparing a supporter of some legislative lobby to genocide is pure hyperbole.
You're trivialising genocide when you claim that someone wanting to stop you doing what you do is the same as ethnic cleansing.
> That is what OP means when they say "don't want me to exist".
There is no wiggle room for interpretation there; "don't want those people to exist" has always meant pure genocide.
It's said for drama and for pure emotional impact, while trivialising real "don't want those people to exist" history.
I have no idea why all of you settled on "OP was equating taking their civil rights to genocide" but the reading seems clearly bad. "Trivialising genocide" is quite a take and one which I think is clearly silly. The same movement which would take away same-sex marriage is openly salivating about using legal force to commit violent reprisals against the LGBGTQ communities, and lawyering about the precise wording of a comment is stooge work. Have a good one
> I have no idea why all of you settled on "OP was equating taking their civil rights to genocide" but the reading seems clearly bad. "Trivialising genocide" is quite a take and one which I think is clearly silly. The same movement which would take away same-sex marriage is openly salivating about using legal force to commit violent reprisals against the LGBGTQ communities, and lawyering about the precise wording of a comment is stooge work.
From your first response to me you have been unnecessarily rude. "Facile"? "Bad-faith"? "Stooge"?
Just because a large number of people don't believe that preventing same-sex marriage is the same as the holocaust doesn't mean we are acting in bad faith.
FWIW, I get the same response from ideologically pure believers when I nitpick their use of phrases like "stare-rape".
I’m simply trying to be as accurate in my descriptions as possible. I apologize that you find it rude, but I don’t want to be misunderstood. Shoehorning the holocaust into this is extremely derailing, and again reads as bad faith strawmanning.
> The only one bringing genocide AND THE LITERAL HOLOCAUST into this discussion are you. The parent said "Doesn't want people like me to exist" FFS
No, he said "Thinks people like me shouldn't exist", which is genocide.
Hitler wanted the Jews to stop existing. Now we have someone complaining that them being prevented from marriage to a partner of their choice is the same thing.
It's not. The original lobbying effort didn't make the argument that homosexual people shouldn't exist. It's an argument purely in the mind of the OP.
We live in a world where hyperbole is the order of the day. If you don't like gay marriage you're a proponent of genocide. If you suggest not letting people starve to death in the street you're a Satan-worshipping communist. Personally I've found that applying a purity test to the makers of everything I use results in me not being able to use anything.
"Doesn't want people like me to exist" is also not equivalent to restricting marriage rights. Conflating these two is an expression of toxic victimhood, and not a good starting point for well-reasoned debate.
Blatant misinformation and character assassination, as Brave's CEO never said such a thing. His former Mozilla colleagues confirmed that throughout his many years there he's never shared a single word that one might interpret as homophobic.
You second lie is your supposed inability to use products by someone that would actually be homophobic. You use such products every single day, unless you completely opted out of modernity.
> Blatant misinformation and character assassination, as Brave's CEO never said such a thing. His former Mozilla colleagues confirmed that throughout his many years there he's never shared a single word that one might interpret as homophobic.
So it doesn't count… because he paid others a significant sum to say it for him and obscure his involvement? That's… an interesting set of ethics. I wonder what you think about people who hire hitmen.
> You second lie is your supposed inability to use products by someone that would actually be homophobic. You use such products every single day, unless you completely opted out of modernity.
The world isn't black and white, and we can't read people's minds. That also doesn't mean that people's public behaviour doesn't affect others' perception of them.
You're changing the subject. The OP claimed that the CEO doesn't want people like him to exist. Such a thing was never expressed, so it's made up. A blatant lie. Be precise with criticism and accusations if you want to be taken serious.
My second point was regarding hypocrisy and hollow principles. You can't use a browser out of moral principle but happily use stuff from countries where there's a death penalty for being LGBTQ+.
> You can't use a browser out of moral principle but happily use stuff from countries where there's a death penalty for being LGBTQ+.
You should tell iPhone owners this. Certainly, they would put down their phone made by slave labor to focus on something more important than fifth wave feminism or eating vegan.
This was purely for Chromium performance reasons (although it seems Firefox has made some major improvements recently). I didn't like leaving behind a unique browser engine, which needs to remain a significant player.
I don't understand a lot of the hate for Brave. If you don't like the crypto integration, the ads, etc you can just disable them. I feel the original intent, to be able to contribute directly back to page authors, was a noble one. It may not have played out as intended, but it wasn't a scam.
One year in, I've had no issues I can think of. And now they have their own search engine, another net plus to the ecosystem. Outside of things like Tor Browser, the privacy is about as good as you're going to get from a client. In fact, you can open a new window using Tor directly in the browser. I don't use their VPN but that's available also (Mullvad?).
I spend enough daily time in it that I would notice UI/UX/perf. problems ... I really haven't seen any.
YMMV