Brave is showing up in my newsfeeds again, so

Periodic reminder that Brendan Eich, the CEO of Brave Software, is a homophobe who donates to anti-LGBT organizations.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't use the browser. But you should probably be wary of any monetization attempts, since we know where that money will go.

@alexl @SwooshyCueb It's not fake news.

Brendan Eich's contributions are well documented by many major news sites.

There's a detailed page @ geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Br which cites numerous sources, all with links to verify.

@garrett @alexl @SwooshyCueb

It's fake news because you can't prove those are homophobic organizations. I had no doubt you don't even think those could be tags assigned to slander.

Follow

@alexl @SwooshyCueb Prop 8 in California was some of the most obvious anti-LGBT legislation possible. It was about defining marriage as being between *only* a man and woman.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_C

Brendan Eich donated money in favor of that bill. It's on record.

projects.latimes.com/prop8/don

While Brendan might or might not personally attack people for their way of life, He definitely donates against them, made clear by the prop 8 donation, among other similar donations.

ยท ยท Tusky ยท 1 ยท 1 ยท 2

@garrett

Obviously for who? And why did you change the term from homophobic to an ambiguous "anti-LGBT"? Ha, I know, I made you doubt!

I will paste here the definition I just found about being homophobic: "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

You'll have a hard time trying to link this with "he donated to organization X".

@alexl Acting against LGBT is being "homophobic".

(Technically, the phobic suffix means "fear of", but people who are homophobic aren't really afraid of gay people like they're afraid of spiders or heights or any other "phobic" words.)

But you're splitting hairs here.

The terms anti-LBGT or homophobic both do apply toward a vote to a proposed law to forbid non-straight people from having the right to marry.

Eich publically spent his cash to forbid non-straight people from marrying.

@alexl (Also, I'm replying from my phone, where I don't see the toot I'm replying to. Therefore, I'm using a summation of the ideas in the tweet to reply to, not the exact quoted words. I'm not "doubting" anything.)

@alexl I'm also not saying to stop using Brave or that Eich may have changed.

I boosted that toot because Eich has donated his money *several times* to causes and candidates that do have a homophobic, anti-gay, anti-LGBT stance and people should make an informed decision of what they want to support.

If people support Brave, then Eich will get money which he will probably (if past behavior is repeated) donate to causes that hurt the LGBT community.

@alexl However, how many other organizations and companies do we support that directly (through the organization itself) or indirectly (through prominent members) do bad things?

It's probably impossible to escape.

But this is one of those less murky times, especially when there are alternatives that are clearer.

(Google Chrome not being one of those alternatives, of course. ๐Ÿ˜‰ I'm talking about Firefox & WebKit browsers. Most Chromium forks are almost all too Google-y.)

@garrett Sorry but you miss big pieces of the story. "anti-LGBT" is very different from homophobic.

One can fight the gender ideology without being homophobic, even thinking this ideology is hurting homosexuals and transsexuals. Some, with reasons, include the term LGBT in the gender ideology.

It would be the same with capitalists defining Free Software "communist" with an offensive sense. The next step would be defining FOSS supporters criminals and it's exactly what they do with "homophobic"

@garrett

Paradoxically, the rhetoric of hate based on labels is exactly what has damaged homosexuals and transsexuals for centuries. And now we're still here doing the inquisition to other people for their ideas, which despite the moralist propaganda of these days they are still legitimate. The discussions should take place in the dialectical field, not trying to label the opinion of others as immoral.

@alexl People shouldn't restrict the rights of other people, regardless of reason (especially for inherent characteristics of a person), if the people aren't hurting others in any way.

@alexl Circling back:

Eich is on public record and is unapologetic about giving his money to forbid people from basic rights.

I'm thankful for his work making JavaScript and during his time at Mozilla. And having browsers that aren't 100% Google-owned is an import thing.

...but *leaders* shouldn't spend effort and money restricting basic freedoms of people.

He might be a nice guy in person, but he has (unapologetically) hurt others indirectly though his donations.

@garrett

Here there is another things I disagree with: being on public record. It's not something you choose to be and you can't even withdraw. It seems like an excuse to save the "everyone can have his own opinions" and continue with moral inquisition of the politically correct speech ideology. See what happened to Stallman for literally nothing, he didn't even express an opinion, he just noticed something that didn't sound politically correct enough. And we should know why he is the target.

@alexl Public record is the history of past actions.

Having an opinion is one thing. Acting out on it is another.

If someone did something wrong, they can apologize and not do that wrong thing in the future.

If they do not apologize and they do not stop doing the wrong thing, then that's an issue.

This is especially even more of an issue for those considered leaders.

@garrett

I think you are not reading carefully enough and perhaps you have never experienced this new inquisition. I don't know what else to add to what I said. For me, the only mistake here was persecuting another person and defining him "homophobic" for his ideas (and consequent actions) concerning a juridical institution instead of just disagreeing. I feel like the Enlightenment thought was never born and the medieval powers only changed the mask.

@alexl I have other reasons to not use Brave as a primary browser, such as:

1. It uses the Google Chrome engine. It's a good engine, but I'm not happy placing the de facto browsing experience for the world in Google's hands. We need people using other browser engines for the health of the Internet.

2. Brave swaps out site ads for their own. It feels a bit scummy. This is debatable and just an opinion, however.

@garrett

For 1. I totally agree and in fact I use Firefox on both desktop and mobile, Brave just for those youtubers I like that promote Brave as a way to fund them.

On 2. I disagree and I think there must be misinformation here: Brave is building a way to fund content creators with ads without the spying network by Google. Did you try Brave for a while?

@alexl I haven't tried Brave in a while.

I did try it out as I am interested in and need to use a lot of different browsers for web development related work. But haven't for a while, as it should render identically to Chromium.

I should probably look at the ad swapping and Etherium crypto-currency they use at some time, just out of interest.

My main browsers are various versions (stable, nightly, and preview for Android) of Firefox on desktop and mobile.

@garrett

Same here, sadly Mozilla doesn't provide an alternative to Chromium Embedded Framework but I read an article that I can't find now that looks promising about Mozilla investing in this area. At least GeckoView is a step in the right direction, powering both Firefox Focus and Preview now.

@alexl Yeah, Mozilla used to be embedable years back. I'm also happy they have GeckoView and Android Components.

Hopefully GeckoView will be used by even more browsers on mobile (non-Mozilla ones) and perhaps even on desktops.

@alexl I don't like an Inquisition, but Eich and Stallman (among several others) were extremely crappy (in different ways) to people multiple times, and never apologized and never tried to change their ways.

If they cannot apologize and change their ways, they simply shouldn't be leaders.

That's what this has been about.

(Although, I'm sure there's been some collateral damage for some people too. ๐Ÿ˜ฃ)

@alexl FWIW: I've been around Stallman in person when he's been crappy toward others. I've witnessed it myself and walked out in bad talks he gave.

I've personally talked with members of the FSF about his behavior too.

This was all years ago, but it happened multiple times and I'm not the only one who has been witnessed it or brought it up, trying to get it changed.

I'm thankful for the work of RMS, but I'm happy he's not in a leadership position finally. He did a lot of damage. ๐Ÿ˜ข

@garrett

I don't see why he should apologize, on the other hands don't you think it's a bit presumptuous in assuming you're right?

Stallman's ideas on Free Software are really dangerous for the capitalist regime and a prickle for the neoliberist ideology. And the resilience of this system tends to isolate people with critical thinking even using pretexts, as is the case with Stallman.

Anyway are you saying you didn't notice the fallacies of the so called politically correct speech ideology?

@alexl Stallman's ideas about Free Software are great.

The problems with Stallman are his extremely sexist views (including comments and weird actions toward women), his ableist slurs, and publicly positing that he thinks it's OK to have sex with minors (and that they could even give consent) โ€” multiple times over the years, even.

The sexism blocked and drove away a lot of women from the free software community and sometimes even from computers altogether.

@garrett

I'm one of those few people who really follows Stallman and everytime I seach for sources of these controversies I alwasy found that people don't understand what Stallman says.

For example: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." 1/2

@garrett

He is not justifying pedophilia or saying it should be illegal. He's just making an argument, an odd one, but this doesn't justify the accusations against him.

On the other hands do you know that major LGBT thinkers were also supporters of pedophilia? For ex. Mario Mieli, that in Italy is considered a guru in LGBT movement with organizations named after him, supported pedophilia and if you read his words you would be very disgusted, in comparison what Stallman wrote is nothing. 2/2

@alexl Just like with Free Software, LGBT has nothing to do with underage and/or unconsentual sex, even if a couple people associated with either might also hold weird/odd/wrong opinions.

@garrett

Sorry it may surprise you but gender ideology has LGBT movements at its surface and pedophilia at its core. I have tons of material on this, but you can start by looking for Mario Mieli thoughts.

@garrett

While I don't see why one wouldn't want homosexual marriage it's also true that marriage is a juridical institution, not some sort of natural right, so people can have different opinions on it and the discussion should happen without tagging the other side with offensive terms like "homophobic". Even worse Eich is somehow persecuted by this sort of modern inquisition that literally labels opinions as immoral. This is way more dangerous than any "homophobic" movement.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!