5 ms·

No. What he's calling puritanical is an attitude where you won't touch things made by people who disagree with you on something. What your position on gay marri

No. What he's calling puritanical is an attitude where you won't touch things made by people who disagree with you on something. What your position on gay marriage is is largely irrelevant.

henriquez 5y ago
Exactly.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
I'm sorry, am I not supposed to be able to "vote with my wallet"? If someone says "hey the guy that runs this company doesn't think you should be treated the same as others because of your sexual preference" I should ignore that because "who cares"? I'm just not sure what the counter-argument is here... it sounds like "everything and everyone sucks, and you suck too, so stop paying attention and trying to improve anything"
- soundnote 5y ago
  > I'm sorry, am I not supposed to be able to "vote with my wallet"? Well, yes. But there's another angle as to what you vote for with it. Voting for the creator's politics is one angle, but there's another one. Whether the creator puts politics into their product. One of the main reasons I use Brave is because it doesn't do politics outside what matters for a browser. Eich may think whatever the fuck he wants, his team the same. But they seem very focused on building a privacy-respecting browser and standalone Internet services. I don't get politics outside privacy, user control and independent web services pushed to me by Brave. The politics that are there matter to a browser, and the stuff that's outside that scope is left as the people's own prerogative. The team at Vivaldi definitely has people who disagree with Eich. I like them too, why? Because they also keep browser-making and their politics separate, and "politics" in their context mostly translates to user control and privacy, as it does at Brave. Both teams understand that they're there to make a tool, and that's it. I know I'll disagree on weighty matters by people making both products, but as far the browser matters, we all agree. Mozilla is just the reverse: It's about activism first, a browser second, and they are not shy about inserting their extraneous politics into the browser. We're more and more into a culture where everything under the Sun has to preach some sort of politics, and it usually detracts from making an actually good product, in my experience. I like to support organizations that focus on making good hammers and leave the politics to the parts of life where they belong. Life is far more civil that way.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

No. What he's calling puritanical is an attitude where you won't touch things made by people who disagree with you on something. What your position on gay marriage is is largely irrelevant.

henriquez 5y ago

Exactly.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

I'm sorry, am I not supposed to be able to "vote with my wallet"? If someone says "hey the guy that runs this company doesn't think you should be treated the same as others because of your sexual preference" I should ignore that because "who cares"? I'm just not sure what the counter-argument is here... it sounds like "everything and everyone sucks, and you suck too, so stop paying attention and trying to improve anything"

soundnote 5y ago
> I'm sorry, am I not supposed to be able to "vote with my wallet"? Well, yes. But there's another angle as to what you vote for with it. Voting for the creator's politics is one angle, but there's another one. Whether the creator puts politics into their product. One of the main reasons I use Brave is because it doesn't do politics outside what matters for a browser. Eich may think whatever the fuck he wants, his team the same. But they seem very focused on building a privacy-respecting browser and standalone Internet services. I don't get politics outside privacy, user control and independent web services pushed to me by Brave. The politics that are there matter to a browser, and the stuff that's outside that scope is left as the people's own prerogative. The team at Vivaldi definitely has people who disagree with Eich. I like them too, why? Because they also keep browser-making and their politics separate, and "politics" in their context mostly translates to user control and privacy, as it does at Brave. Both teams understand that they're there to make a tool, and that's it. I know I'll disagree on weighty matters by people making both products, but as far the browser matters, we all agree. Mozilla is just the reverse: It's about activism first, a browser second, and they are not shy about inserting their extraneous politics into the browser. We're more and more into a culture where everything under the Sun has to preach some sort of politics, and it usually detracts from making an actually good product, in my experience. I like to support organizations that focus on making good hammers and leave the politics to the parts of life where they belong. Life is far more civil that way.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]