dantheclammanWhy you shouldn't use Brave Browser
mo_ztt ✅Why was appointing Eich as CEO so controversial? It’s because he donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California’s state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
I want to try a thought experiment. Imagine that you observe this comment in reaction to the above:
I just don’t get why the author is so pissed about their political contributions. Guess what, people who are involved in big business are usually right-wing and support right-wing organizations. Shocking. Who could have known. I don’t even want to imagine how the author comes to the conclusion that this is some big conspiracy but I think we all know what political spectrum that guy belongs to.
What I just wrote is a mirror-image version of the top rated comment on that article from a few days ago about the Mozilla foundation funding left-wing organizations. Do you agree with one of those statements and not the other? If so, why?
It is one-sided to say that someone involved in Brave should only be “allowed” to do so if he doesn’t support anything conservative. Just as would be one-sided and wrong to say that Mozilla shouldn’t be “allowed” to support left-wing organizations. Flipping it around, and looking at the reaction when it’s the other way around, is an easy way to analyze your own internal reactions on it.
(Generally, I’m in agreement with the idea that you shouldn’t use Brave because of all these other shady things; just this one part jumped out at me as one thing that’s not like the others.)
Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla - Lemmy.world
TLDR: The Mozilla Corporation claims to run on user donations, while official records prove they actually make so much money from web search defaults that if all user donations stopped, they’d be fine. The Mozilla Corporation spends it’s money on political activism companies or vague and shadowy companies that very little public information can be found on.
BaroqueInMindYour argument has no merit because one side of the political aisle is actively endorsing a piece of shit draft-dodging criminal and encouraging states to strip the rights of a minority population as well as the bodily autonomy of women, and the other side wants to charge you more money on taxes to support social programs and help people. (I own many guns and live in a red state btw, I have a bias.)
Why don't you take a guess on which side is being disingenuous?
You’re not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.
I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn’t mean someone who’s on the other side suddenly shouldn’t be an executive of anything.
Heresy_generatorGay rights are human rights and no one who can't respect human rights should ever be put in charge of an organization full of humans.
Human rights are not a political issue, they're a moral and ethical issue.
Gay rights are human rights
Yes, I agree with you 100%. That’s a moral and ethical judgement though. It’s a moral and ethical judgement I agree with, but it’s still a statement of someone’s individual morals.
Put it another way – how about if I rephrased it to:
Christian values are human values and no one who can’t respect Christian values should ever be put in charge of an organization full of humans.
Or:
Islamic values are human values and no one who can’t respect Muslim values should ever be put in charger of an organization full of humans.
Would you still agree with that? There are millions and millions of Muslims who believe every bit as deeply in their way of looking at the world as you believe deeply that gay marriage needs to be enshrined in law. Should they be writing articles about how the CEO of some organization gave $1,000 to an organization with anti-Islamic values and so you shouldn’t use that organization’s web browser?
ponfriendThere were slave owners who believed they were morally right too, and your argument says they should have been left alone. We’re smart enough to know they were wrong and that your Christians and Muslims are wrong. We should be writing articles and making choices accordingly.
My argument doesn’t say they should have been “left alone” though. I’m just saying everyone should have a voice and a right to believe what they believe.
Basically, I believe in the old-school left: The ACLU defending the KKK’s right to have rallies, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death” etc. As far as I can see, having the election and the debate in the public sphere about whether gay marriage should be allowed is a good thing. I just don’t think it’s a good thing once it goes into the territory of saying, you’re not allowed to say that, because we’re smart enough to know that you’re wrong. If you say the wrong thing, I’ll try to take your job. If you contribute to the wrong side of the issue, I’ll try to take your job.
I mean, I do get what you’re saying – if someone used to support slavery, and we’re using that as an argument for why now after the war they shouldn’t run a newspaper (or why I shouldn’t buy that newspaper), is that okay? If you put it that way to me, it sounds fine, so on that count maybe I agree with you. How about this, do you think the KKK should be allowed to hold rallies, if racism is what they believe?
This isn’t about what Eich used to believe. This is about a law that he helped pass and still supports. I wouldn’t give my money to somebody who helped pass a law to bring back slavery and still supports it. We know that this is wrong.
Eich and the KKK can continue to advocate for the wrong side. We should continue to argue against them and not give them our support.