3 ms·

Yep, I don't trust Brave. A web browser holds so much power over your digital life that it cannot be entrusted to a company that consistently and egregiously co

by gr_norm 2mo ago

Yep, I don't trust Brave. A web browser holds so much power over your digital life that it cannot be entrusted to a company that consistently and egregiously compromises its ethics for profit. Most of these examples border on scam behaviour... par for the course for the cryptocurrency space! For all their faults, Mozilla has never done anything that holds a candle to the kinds of stunts Brave keeps pulling.

wolvoleo 2mo ago
Which is even more noteworthy because Brave is led by an ex-CEO and influential top exec of Mozilla's. I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  He was kicked out of Mozilla for being homophobic. No joke.
  - travoc 2mo ago
    Wrong and defamatory. Ouch for your wallet.
  - paimapi 2mo ago
    more specifically, it was for donating to homophobic political groups trying to pass Prop 8 which made gay marriage illegal in California [0] the measure passed by 5% [1] - people were fairly incensed that Mozilla Foundation money (paid to him via his salary) might go to future donations of the same kind I'm sure people will say things about 'well of course he's legally free to do as he wants with this money' but then so too is the desire by employees to not want to be working under someone who has done something ideologically abhorrent to them. and given the multiple controversies that crop up about Brave seemingly every year where they push some combination of crypto, browser AI, etc, it's probably for the best [0] https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich-steps-down-twitter-campaign.html https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
    - jimmygrapes 2mo ago
      And yet the democratic process was subverted by the measure being overruled. Moot point.
      - HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
        That's actually incorrect. Democracy doesn't mean allowing mob rule (or manufactured "consent") to trample fundamental human rights.
      - throw101010 2mo ago
        The judicial branch is part of the US democracy, this was not subversion of the democratic process. Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).
      - paimapi 2mo ago
        would love to live in a society where past harms and mistakes could simply be forgotten because the law has moved forward. I imagine a lot of low-level drug possession charges would be forgiven under that ethical conceit but since we're a long ways from that reality, the least we can do is to look for accountability from influential people with the same strictness we have for the poorest and least powerful
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    Well no he quit after a few days. He wasn't fired. That said I do think the uproar was mostly justified. Mozilla is a very progressive organisation and the foundation is basically an NGO. The CEO should fully stand behind its values. At many companies these things aren't core values but at Mozilla they are. They're not just an employee, they're a figurehead. It's part of the job. Nobody complains if an individual contributor is doing something like this. And really, if a CEO at a conservative company or foundation would go and join the pride parade I'm sure they would find themselves in trouble too.

by gr_norm 2mo ago

wolvoleo 2mo ago

Which is even more noteworthy because Brave is led by an ex-CEO and influential top exec of Mozilla's. I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.

inigyou 2mo ago
He was kicked out of Mozilla for being homophobic. No joke.
- travoc 2mo ago
  Wrong and defamatory. Ouch for your wallet.
- paimapi 2mo ago
  more specifically, it was for donating to homophobic political groups trying to pass Prop 8 which made gay marriage illegal in California [0] the measure passed by 5% [1] - people were fairly incensed that Mozilla Foundation money (paid to him via his salary) might go to future donations of the same kind I'm sure people will say things about 'well of course he's legally free to do as he wants with this money' but then so too is the desire by employees to not want to be working under someone who has done something ideologically abhorrent to them. and given the multiple controversies that crop up about Brave seemingly every year where they push some combination of crypto, browser AI, etc, it's probably for the best [0] https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich-steps-down-twitter-campaign.html https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
  - jimmygrapes 2mo ago
    And yet the democratic process was subverted by the measure being overruled. Moot point.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
      That's actually incorrect. Democracy doesn't mean allowing mob rule (or manufactured "consent") to trample fundamental human rights.
    - throw101010 2mo ago
      The judicial branch is part of the US democracy, this was not subversion of the democratic process. Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).
    - paimapi 2mo ago
      would love to live in a society where past harms and mistakes could simply be forgotten because the law has moved forward. I imagine a lot of low-level drug possession charges would be forgiven under that ethical conceit but since we're a long ways from that reality, the least we can do is to look for accountability from influential people with the same strictness we have for the poorest and least powerful
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  Well no he quit after a few days. He wasn't fired. That said I do think the uproar was mostly justified. Mozilla is a very progressive organisation and the foundation is basically an NGO. The CEO should fully stand behind its values. At many companies these things aren't core values but at Mozilla they are. They're not just an employee, they're a figurehead. It's part of the job. Nobody complains if an individual contributor is doing something like this. And really, if a CEO at a conservative company or foundation would go and join the pride parade I'm sure they would find themselves in trouble too.