reminder for everyone who may have missed it the last few times

the only reason that brave browser exists is because its ceo was kicked from mozilla for being a homophobe & transphobe

by contuing to use that software you are activity supporting and promoting a company that not only hates lgbtqia+ people but was born out of that bigotry

brave browser is also filled with many not very cool things everything from cryptocurrency scams to link redirection to so much more

there are tones of other chromium , webkit , or firefox based browsers that do can do most everything that brave browser can do or more in terms of "privacy" and just as much or more on terms of useability

please i urge anyone who cares enough about these things to have installed brave in the first place to migrate form brave to something better

heres some good alternatives to try

firefox , chromium , librewolf , ungoogled-chromium , gnone web, kde falkon , qutebrowser , tor browser, thats just a few tho id mostly suggest one of either ff, ch, lw, unch

@julia_ @julia_ Okay, just stop.

I don't even use Brave, and the amount of BS regarding this kind of stuff is getting out of hand.

First off, a simple Google search shows he wasn't kicked at all from Mozilla: they wanted to keep him, but due to the controversy with a donation from 2008 (6 years before he left), he stepped down himself and ignored Mozilla's pleas to remain on. Bear in mind, half the board also left in response. Take that as you will.

(1/3)

@flamesoulis it's fascinating that in this time and age they're are still gobshites who think that brendan eich needs to be defended.

@julia_

@mawhrin I'm not defending him specifically. I mean, let's be real: the donations done were a real thing, and looking into it made me question some of Mozilla's own leadership when half the board walked with them.

But at the same notion, it was a petty amount compared to others and if you are going to call someone out, try calling them out the right way and not twist the narrative.

I'm just so tired of seeing these anger rally posts on birdsite. Can we keep them there, please?

@flamesoulis he was always a scoundrel, yes, but he wasn't ceo, there's a different optics when you're the face of the company; when he was named ceo, scrutiny was applied, pressure followed, and he stopped being ceo, which was a good. (he should have been fired earlier, but that's a separate story.)

and brave's approach to crypto and other practices are definitely shady (the tokens were one thing, there was another case when brave was caught hi-jacking links and inserting their own affiliate codes); similarly, their search bot cannot be identified by user-agent (and they decline to change this behaviour), and there's this latest ai-related shadiness.

frankly, i'd recommend anything over brave at this stage.

The shady world of Brave selling copyrighted data for AI training

I'm fairly certain that I was not the only person in the world who thought to himself, "Did they just yoink the entire Internet and bundle it together into a

Stack Diary

@mawhrin Ooof. Reminds me back when many Youtube channels got sponsored by Brave.

Had no idea about the affiliate code thing, and I can easily see that being a bigger issue when they were trying to push their tokens as an alternative to avoiding ads. Guess that's how they gave them some value... thanks for clearing that up.

Weird they have the gall to call Google out, when their own provided services are equally questionable.

@flamesoulis @mawhrin but if you read your sources than do that correctly please. You say half the board stepped with him (brave CEO). Well no they stepped down *against* him as a protest: “The Wall Street Journal initially reported that, in protest against his coming appointment, half of Mozilla's board (Gary Kovacs, John Lilly, and Ellen Siminoff) stepped down”.

@flamesoulis @mawhrin and no they apparently did not pledge to stay him on board. They tried to keep him in the company, in a different role, that different role matters.

All from wikipedia en.

@rugk @mawhrin I'm not going to argue semantics. If anything, that means the Wikipedia article might need to better specify some details. I dont' care about the topic, but I am tired of "Let's begin hating on X because of Y."

The larger point was against rallying a anger mob over petty things like SOFTWARE. It's not going to threaten you or harm your safety (under normal conditions). We have greater concerns of this world, and that isn't one of them.

@flamesoulis @mawhrin you quoted wikipedia as your source and I cited wikipedia to say you may have misunderstand sth. If "let's change the wikipedia entry" is your answer you'd have to provide a new source.
@flamesoulis @rugk this wasn't “rallying a mob over petty things like SOFTWARE”, this was protesting the fact that a person who wanted to harm other people enough to pay their personal monies for the politicians to do it became a public face of a social software company producing an application platform for communication.

@mawhrin @rugk

I went ahead and re-read the article again, as in actually read it instead of quick drafting. I remembered the "Appointment to CEO and resignation" segment to be shorter, and I can see I misread that part regarding the protest half the board did.

Also, "an application platform for communication." It's a WEB BROWSER. It has no social features, no direct communication features other than handling a TCP stream. What kind of stretch are you trying?

@flamesoulis @mawhrin thanks for rereading and honestly noticing/admitting a mistake! So rare nowadays… 🤝
@flamesoulis @rugk web browser is the application platform of our times, with access to the most intimate details of people lives. the trust is important.