4 ms·

And what do Brendan Eich's personal views have to do with the software or how it functions? If you refuse to use anything with any connection to Mr. Eich, don'

And what do Brendan Eich's personal views have to do with the software or how it functions? If you refuse to use anything with any connection to Mr. Eich, don't use JavaScript at all - he wrote it. I have never been able to understand this sort of take- I don't agree with everything Richard Stallman has said, but I follow him for his views on free software, not his political stances.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
He profits directly from Brave. It isn't possible to compare it to JavaScript. Me using JavaScript isn't putting money in his pocket.
- rav3ndust 4y ago
  Sure, except your initial post said nothing about profits. It read like: "Mr. Eich has some involvement with Brave, so F Brave." It's a good browser built by a team of people, and you discount it because of one man's involvement that you don't like. I ask you, do you refuse any involvement with any software whose "leadership" has opinions you disagree with? I'm not trying to be rude. I've just never understood this mentality.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Surely it is implied? If I can help it, I don't buy the products or services from which the proceeds go into supporting outright hate groups. Christian Henson made transphobic/ableist remarks on Twitter, now I won't be buying any Spitfire Audio products. Sure, they're great, yes, there's a team of people behind them, but so what? There's plenty of other great options out there, why would I want to indirectly fund hatred? Same goes for companies that fund racial hatred. Likewise for misogyny. Are you gay? Are you trans? Are you autistic? Are you non-white? Are you a woman? If you can't answer "yes" to any of those questions, then why are you having an opinion on these matters? Ultimately, yes, we agree that a product or service should just be a product or service, and that bigots should stop with the bigotry, but using their product or service to fund bigotry should be inexcusable.
    - rav3ndust 4y ago
      > If I can help it, I don't buy the products or services from which the proceeds go into supporting outright hate groups. Unless I've missed a post somewhere, I have not heard that anyone inside of Brave shares Mr. Eich's religious/political beliefs. Maybe some of them do - and that is their right in the United States to practice the beliefs they choose, so long as they are not doing something illegal. While I disagree with Mr. Eich's stance on homosexuality, it is his American right to hold that opinion, and my right to have my own. > Christian Henson made transphobic/ableist remarks on Twitter, now I won't be buying any Spitfire Audio products. Sure, they're great, yes, there's a team of people behind them, but so what? There's plenty of other great options out there, why would I want to indirectly fund hatred? Your right to do so. But again, you're lambasting an entire company when public remarks have only been made by one person. An aside, Brave is free and open-source software, unlike Chrome. I'm sure some people at Google also have opinions I disagree with (in fact, I know they do when it comes to how some of their internals are handled). But their political stances? That belongs to the humans who form those opinions, not the software. And in the case of Brave, it is a great, FOSS web browser with sane defaults "out of the box", enabling me to use a browser I enjoy with good privacy defaults, why do I care about the political opinions of the "leadership?" Every single company is going to have someone within their ranks whose opinions you surely disagree with. Might as well stop using technology. > Same goes for companies that fund racial hatred. Likewise for misogyny. Which companies are funding these things? I've yet to hear of it. > Are you gay? Are you trans? Are you autistic? Are you non-white? Are you a woman? If you can't answer "yes" to any of those questions, then why are you having an opinion on these matters? "No" to all of the above. But that doesn't matter - like everyone else, I'm allowed an opinion, regardless of my race/sexual orientation/mental state (when did any tech company insult autistic people?). You don't have to fall into one of these classes to have an opinion. > Ultimately, yes, we agree that a product or service should just be a product or service, and that bigots should stop with the bigotry, but using their product or service to fund bigotry should be inexcusable. You're free to do as you please. But, for me, Brave is a great piece of software that I barely have to configure out of the box, and it is one of the only browsers in existence that makes privacy the default. You'll excuse me if I value this fact over the fact that Mr. Eich has some opinions that I might disagree with.
- rising-sky 4y ago
  So, you using JavaScript, just like millions of other users, raises the language's profile by usage. He definitely is able to profit indirectly from JavaScript by virtue of being the author of the most used programming language, he can leverage that association to be invited to paid conferences and talks, write books, sit on boards, or any other avenues via association he chooses to employ for economic gain. Making the nuance of direct vs indirect is a false dichotomy

hammyhavoc 4y ago

He profits directly from Brave. It isn't possible to compare it to JavaScript. Me using JavaScript isn't putting money in his pocket.

rav3ndust 4y ago
Sure, except your initial post said nothing about profits. It read like: "Mr. Eich has some involvement with Brave, so F Brave." It's a good browser built by a team of people, and you discount it because of one man's involvement that you don't like. I ask you, do you refuse any involvement with any software whose "leadership" has opinions you disagree with? I'm not trying to be rude. I've just never understood this mentality.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Surely it is implied? If I can help it, I don't buy the products or services from which the proceeds go into supporting outright hate groups. Christian Henson made transphobic/ableist remarks on Twitter, now I won't be buying any Spitfire Audio products. Sure, they're great, yes, there's a team of people behind them, but so what? There's plenty of other great options out there, why would I want to indirectly fund hatred? Same goes for companies that fund racial hatred. Likewise for misogyny. Are you gay? Are you trans? Are you autistic? Are you non-white? Are you a woman? If you can't answer "yes" to any of those questions, then why are you having an opinion on these matters? Ultimately, yes, we agree that a product or service should just be a product or service, and that bigots should stop with the bigotry, but using their product or service to fund bigotry should be inexcusable.
  - rav3ndust 4y ago
    > If I can help it, I don't buy the products or services from which the proceeds go into supporting outright hate groups. Unless I've missed a post somewhere, I have not heard that anyone inside of Brave shares Mr. Eich's religious/political beliefs. Maybe some of them do - and that is their right in the United States to practice the beliefs they choose, so long as they are not doing something illegal. While I disagree with Mr. Eich's stance on homosexuality, it is his American right to hold that opinion, and my right to have my own. > Christian Henson made transphobic/ableist remarks on Twitter, now I won't be buying any Spitfire Audio products. Sure, they're great, yes, there's a team of people behind them, but so what? There's plenty of other great options out there, why would I want to indirectly fund hatred? Your right to do so. But again, you're lambasting an entire company when public remarks have only been made by one person. An aside, Brave is free and open-source software, unlike Chrome. I'm sure some people at Google also have opinions I disagree with (in fact, I know they do when it comes to how some of their internals are handled). But their political stances? That belongs to the humans who form those opinions, not the software. And in the case of Brave, it is a great, FOSS web browser with sane defaults "out of the box", enabling me to use a browser I enjoy with good privacy defaults, why do I care about the political opinions of the "leadership?" Every single company is going to have someone within their ranks whose opinions you surely disagree with. Might as well stop using technology. > Same goes for companies that fund racial hatred. Likewise for misogyny. Which companies are funding these things? I've yet to hear of it. > Are you gay? Are you trans? Are you autistic? Are you non-white? Are you a woman? If you can't answer "yes" to any of those questions, then why are you having an opinion on these matters? "No" to all of the above. But that doesn't matter - like everyone else, I'm allowed an opinion, regardless of my race/sexual orientation/mental state (when did any tech company insult autistic people?). You don't have to fall into one of these classes to have an opinion. > Ultimately, yes, we agree that a product or service should just be a product or service, and that bigots should stop with the bigotry, but using their product or service to fund bigotry should be inexcusable. You're free to do as you please. But, for me, Brave is a great piece of software that I barely have to configure out of the box, and it is one of the only browsers in existence that makes privacy the default. You'll excuse me if I value this fact over the fact that Mr. Eich has some opinions that I might disagree with.
rising-sky 4y ago
So, you using JavaScript, just like millions of other users, raises the language's profile by usage. He definitely is able to profit indirectly from JavaScript by virtue of being the author of the most used programming language, he can leverage that association to be invited to paid conferences and talks, write books, sit on boards, or any other avenues via association he chooses to employ for economic gain. Making the nuance of direct vs indirect is a false dichotomy