9 ms·

He gave $1000 donation to support a ban on gay marriage, to be clear.

by neom 10mo ago

4gotunameagain 10mo ago
Oh yes, totally worth it to risk THE FREE INTERNET because of that.
- joshstrange 10mo ago
  > risk THE FREE INTERNET because of that Come off it, as if he is the only one who can save us. Spare me.
- philipwhiuk 10mo ago
  He's not defending "THE FREE INTERNET" at his new place. (Which for the record, is less important than physical freedom).
  - LunaSea 10mo ago
    Maybe that has to do with Brave not getting a free check to the tune iof $500M Google every year. That makes it more difficult to create "free internet" type projects.
    - Orygin 10mo ago
      Probably comes from the Crypto scam integrated into the browser. I find it funny some people shit on Firefox for adding Pocket, but defend Brave for adding crypto scams to the browser.
      - LunaSea 10mo ago
        I don't defend Brave adding this feature or believe that it is even a good idea but how does this constitute a scam?
        Orygin 10mo ago
        > I don't defend Brave Maybe not, but you spend quite some time spitting on Mozilla for taking money from Google.
        LunaSea 10mo ago
        Yes, because (1) they spent that money badly as can be seen from the non-Google revenue numbers of Mozilla and Firefox's market share and (2) people are comparing practices of a company that gets $500M for free and a practices of a company that is essentially bootstrapped, which makes no sense.
cies 10mo ago
[flagged]
ecshafer 10mo ago
And people don't have to all agree on the same things. People can get together to work towards cause X and then individually believe in mutually exclusive causes alpha, beta, gamma.
- lalaland1125 10mo ago
  It's not really possible to do that when the opposing beliefs are so fundamental. Mozilla had, and has, a lot of LGBT staff. How could you expect those staff to work under and trust a CEO opposed to their very existence as equal members of society?
  - 0x000xca0xfe 10mo ago
    What's so fundamental about marriage? I don't think childless couples (of any gender) should get any societal advantages yet I have no problem working with people that disagree. Why has everything to be black-or-white, left-or-right, with us or against us? That's not a productive way to think about others.
    - dpkirchner 10mo ago
      It has to be us vs against us because that's what law is all about -- outlawing certain actions. It's one thing to believe as you do, it's quite another to push for legislation that would (in your example) deny childless couples societal advantages, whatever that actually means. If you're not in favor of a-or-b arguments the answer is to allow a and b, eh?
    - joshgachnang 10mo ago
      Your thinking applies equally to all people. His donation tries to take away a right from a minority group. They're quite different.
    - lalaland1125 10mo ago
      What unjust "advantages" do you think childless couples get that you would want to get rid? Pretty much all of the legal benefits of marriage are contractual, not financial, and come at no cost to the public. Things like spousal medical rights, a joint estate, etc don't come at the expense of anybody else.
sunaookami 10mo ago
A ban that was supported by the majority at the time and the donation was six years old at the time he became CEO. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44461541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44461541
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  To Godwin a little, sometimes the right thing is not the majority thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser
  - bigstrat2003 10mo ago
    The point was not "whatever the majority wants is therefore good". The point is that if you were to apply the "you get fired from your job for this" standard evenly, the majority of the country would've had to get fired from their jobs. That is a pretty unreasonable standard to apply, imo. Also, come on man. It's in really bad taste to compare stuff to the Holocaust. Nobody was being murdered here, it's not remotely the same.
    - ceejayoz 10mo ago
      > The point is that if you were to apply the "you get fired from your job for this" standard evenly, the majority of the country would've had to get fired from their jobs. Standards should be higher for folks with more power. The cashier at the grocery store expressing bigoted beliefs won't harm me much; my boss doing it is more serious. > Nobody was being murdered here, it's not remotely the same. I assure you, homophobia has its murder victims. (Including a good number of Holocaust ones.)
      - RobotToaster 10mo ago
        > Standards should be higher for folks with more power. Joe Biden voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act", Yet many LGBT people supported him becoming president.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
sunshine-o 10mo ago
Brendan Eich is a rich nerd who probably got cornered in a party by someone smart and signed $1000 check. It is like blaming me for giving $10 to an bump without checking what he was gonna do with it.
- sfink 10mo ago
  No part of this is true, fwiw. His salary at Mozilla was not high and he was a strong advocate of keeping executive compensation low (and as supporting evidence, that compensation shot up soon after he left). He may have made more from Brave, but that was obviously well after the donation. He also never backed down from his donation and the directly implied opposition to gay marriage, only stating that it comes from his personal beliefs and that he refused to discuss those openly. (I disagree with his position on gay marriage, or at least the position that I can infer from his donation, but I agree with his right and decision to keep it a private matter.) I had... complex but mostly positive feelings about Eich in the time I worked for him (indirectly), but I can state unequivocally that he's not someone who would bend his principles as a result of getting cornered at a party.
  - sunshine-o 10mo ago
    What I meant is he is a guy who have evolved in the center of the tech revolution in the 90s and 2000s. If he is not horribly bad with money he probably made a lot at least in various investments. So I would guess $1000 was almost nothing to him. He is not really supporting anything by donating $1000. I listened to him in a interview once, he really feel like a nice guy.
RobotToaster 10mo ago
In political terms $1000 is basically nothing.
dabockster 10mo ago
In 2014, which is over a decade ago now. Wikipedia also says he's Catholic. From what I understand, the Church's positions on such things have evolved at least somewhat since then. His views could have totally changed or evolved since then (can't find anything publicly myself).

He gave $1000 donation to support a ban on gay marriage, to be clear.

by neom 10mo ago

He gave $1000 donation to support a ban on gay marriage, to be clear.

4gotunameagain 10mo ago

Oh yes, totally worth it to risk THE FREE INTERNET because of that.

joshstrange 10mo ago
> risk THE FREE INTERNET because of that Come off it, as if he is the only one who can save us. Spare me.
philipwhiuk 10mo ago
He's not defending "THE FREE INTERNET" at his new place. (Which for the record, is less important than physical freedom).
- LunaSea 10mo ago
  Maybe that has to do with Brave not getting a free check to the tune iof $500M Google every year. That makes it more difficult to create "free internet" type projects.
  - Orygin 10mo ago
    Probably comes from the Crypto scam integrated into the browser. I find it funny some people shit on Firefox for adding Pocket, but defend Brave for adding crypto scams to the browser.
    - LunaSea 10mo ago
      I don't defend Brave adding this feature or believe that it is even a good idea but how does this constitute a scam?
      - Orygin 10mo ago
        > I don't defend Brave Maybe not, but you spend quite some time spitting on Mozilla for taking money from Google.
        LunaSea 10mo ago
        Yes, because (1) they spent that money badly as can be seen from the non-Google revenue numbers of Mozilla and Firefox's market share and (2) people are comparing practices of a company that gets $500M for free and a practices of a company that is essentially bootstrapped, which makes no sense.

cies 10mo ago

[flagged]

ecshafer 10mo ago

And people don't have to all agree on the same things. People can get together to work towards cause X and then individually believe in mutually exclusive causes alpha, beta, gamma.

lalaland1125 10mo ago
It's not really possible to do that when the opposing beliefs are so fundamental. Mozilla had, and has, a lot of LGBT staff. How could you expect those staff to work under and trust a CEO opposed to their very existence as equal members of society?
- 0x000xca0xfe 10mo ago
  What's so fundamental about marriage? I don't think childless couples (of any gender) should get any societal advantages yet I have no problem working with people that disagree. Why has everything to be black-or-white, left-or-right, with us or against us? That's not a productive way to think about others.
  - dpkirchner 10mo ago
    It has to be us vs against us because that's what law is all about -- outlawing certain actions. It's one thing to believe as you do, it's quite another to push for legislation that would (in your example) deny childless couples societal advantages, whatever that actually means. If you're not in favor of a-or-b arguments the answer is to allow a and b, eh?
  - joshgachnang 10mo ago
    Your thinking applies equally to all people. His donation tries to take away a right from a minority group. They're quite different.
  - lalaland1125 10mo ago
    What unjust "advantages" do you think childless couples get that you would want to get rid? Pretty much all of the legal benefits of marriage are contractual, not financial, and come at no cost to the public. Things like spousal medical rights, a joint estate, etc don't come at the expense of anybody else.

sunaookami 10mo ago

A ban that was supported by the majority at the time and the donation was six years old at the time he became CEO. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44461541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44461541

ceejayoz 10mo ago
To Godwin a little, sometimes the right thing is not the majority thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser
- bigstrat2003 10mo ago
  The point was not "whatever the majority wants is therefore good". The point is that if you were to apply the "you get fired from your job for this" standard evenly, the majority of the country would've had to get fired from their jobs. That is a pretty unreasonable standard to apply, imo. Also, come on man. It's in really bad taste to compare stuff to the Holocaust. Nobody was being murdered here, it's not remotely the same.
  - ceejayoz 10mo ago
    > The point is that if you were to apply the "you get fired from your job for this" standard evenly, the majority of the country would've had to get fired from their jobs. Standards should be higher for folks with more power. The cashier at the grocery store expressing bigoted beliefs won't harm me much; my boss doing it is more serious. > Nobody was being murdered here, it's not remotely the same. I assure you, homophobia has its murder victims. (Including a good number of Holocaust ones.)
    - RobotToaster 10mo ago
      > Standards should be higher for folks with more power. Joe Biden voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act", Yet many LGBT people supported him becoming president.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

sunshine-o 10mo ago

Brendan Eich is a rich nerd who probably got cornered in a party by someone smart and signed $1000 check. It is like blaming me for giving $10 to an bump without checking what he was gonna do with it.

sfink 10mo ago
No part of this is true, fwiw. His salary at Mozilla was not high and he was a strong advocate of keeping executive compensation low (and as supporting evidence, that compensation shot up soon after he left). He may have made more from Brave, but that was obviously well after the donation. He also never backed down from his donation and the directly implied opposition to gay marriage, only stating that it comes from his personal beliefs and that he refused to discuss those openly. (I disagree with his position on gay marriage, or at least the position that I can infer from his donation, but I agree with his right and decision to keep it a private matter.) I had... complex but mostly positive feelings about Eich in the time I worked for him (indirectly), but I can state unequivocally that he's not someone who would bend his principles as a result of getting cornered at a party.
- sunshine-o 10mo ago
  What I meant is he is a guy who have evolved in the center of the tech revolution in the 90s and 2000s. If he is not horribly bad with money he probably made a lot at least in various investments. So I would guess $1000 was almost nothing to him. He is not really supporting anything by donating $1000. I listened to him in a interview once, he really feel like a nice guy.

RobotToaster 10mo ago

In political terms $1000 is basically nothing.

dabockster 10mo ago

In 2014, which is over a decade ago now. Wikipedia also says he's Catholic. From what I understand, the Church's positions on such things have evolved at least somewhat since then. His views could have totally changed or evolved since then (can't find anything publicly myself).