this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
861 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
68244 readers
4743 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That makes absolutely no sense. You would advocate for and even donate to political reform for something you don't personally believe in?
No, it isn't.
Nothing says more about who a person is than their political donations.
Yes. I believe in personal freedom, so I'll support the freedom to do things that I believe are harmful like drug use, gambling, or prostitution. You doing those things doesn't impact me or anyone else so it should 100% be your right to do it. In short, I believe principles should carry the day.
I may not agree with you doing something I believe to be bad, but I'll defend your right to do it.
In the same vein, I believe governments should be as small as possible, and no smaller. The role of government is to protect me from you, and vice versa. It's not to ensure I'm making good choices, in fact it shouldn't be in the business of deciding what's "good" or "bad," it should merely enforce laws that protect people from eachother.
Does the government deciding which marriages are valid protect me from you? Not really, all it does is determine who can take advantage of certain benefits. That sounds exclusionary with no particular purpose, so the government shouldn't decide that.
So I really can't speak to why Eich donated to the prop 8 fund (or whatever it was). Was it because he hates gay people? Or because he thinks same sex marriage goes counter to the reason marriage exists as a government institution? Or something else? I don't know, nor do I really care, provided it doesn't get in the way of doing his job.
First of all, @Ulrich@feddit.org , thanks for calling out the bullshit of this professional far right fire hydrant apologist. You've stayed on track with the main issue of their argument despite them wanting to hide attention away from it.
The reason their propaganda sounds reasonable is because it pretends to be rational and sounds calm, when in reality it's ignoring extremely glaring issues. In one of these cases for example, it's pretending that funding intolerance isn't intolerance. Another is ignoring details, such as how the crypto scam was essentially malware, and did cause performance hits to devices using Brave (part of the reason why it was caught).
Second of all, for everyone following along this far, I just want to point out the false equivalency between something like hard drugs and gambling - things that literally statistically bring literal harm - to marriage.
And finally, we're done entertaining, bullshit in the tea - that's why Teslas are burning. Remember that when shit hits the fan.
I was pretty confused when reading because it sounded like you were thanking me for calling our far right BS from the person was talking to, but I was calling our far left BS instead.
But after a couple paragraphs, I realized it was me you were talking about. So thank you for giving me a chance to see this and respond.
Everything here is incorrect. I'm not being paid, I'm not far right (I hate Trump and voted for Biden in 2020), and I call out far right BS all the time (had an argument w/ my boss the other day who supported Trump's tariff and immigration policy).
I've tried to cover all of them, but my posts get long as is, so I try to combine a few. I don't follow Brave news much, so I'll miss some things.
If I donated to an intolerant PAC or something, sure, I'd get that. If I bought products from a corporation that openly funds intolerant PACs with a large chunk of profits, I'd get that as well.
But if the CEO uses their personal money on it, I have more trouble connecting that with the company. As long as they keep personal opinions personal and don't drag the company into it, I'm fine. The VP seems worse than him honestly (from the article).
A CEO is not the company, and if you disable ads, don't use their search engine, and don't engage with their crypto nonsense, you're not giving them any money. I do all of that for the handful of minutes each day I use it.
I use Firefox as my main browser, and that's what I recommend to others. I use Brave as my backup browser, because I need something that runs on the Chromium engine that doesn't have ads. I think people are overreacting about Eich. I disagree with his politics, but as long as he keeps that outside the company, I'm okay with it.
I assume you're talking about the referral link thing? Yeah, that was bad, and I think I mentioned that. At least they quickly reversed course.
I can see an argument for them thinking it wasn't that bad, so I'm willing to chalk it up to naïveté. It wasn't quite as bad as Honey, which removed other referral codes. It's still bad.
I didn't hear that it caused performance issues though.
I never claimed they were equivalent. I merely pointed to them as fairly unpopular things that I support, and gave reasons for it.
And I agree, they can absolutely cause problems in marriage, as well as non-married people (addiction is real), hence why I said they are "bad." But "bad" doesn't necessarily have to mean "illegal."
I have never used drugs, gambled, or hired a prostitute, and I don't think anyone else should, but I will absolutely support legalizing them. In fact, I'm quite religious, and those things are 100% against my religion, but I believe personal morality shouldn't really impact politics. My religion and moral code is for me, and I'm not going to force that on anyone.
In short, I support these probably for the same reason you oppose Eich: I believe in freedom. I guess I define that a bit more liberally than you do.
Teslas are burning as a symbol of opposition to Musk and DOGE. And I completely respect that, I also don't like Musk and DOGE.
That said, this isn't going to change anything. Musk has enough money that even if Tesla disappears, he'll still be filthy rich. He does seem to care about the "richest man in the world" title, so I guess it will hurt his ego a little.
The ones that'll suffer more are regular people who bought a Tesla years ago and are getting caught in the crossfire. Some idiots will burn privately owned Teslas, insurance coverage will get dropped, etc. That's not worth it IMO.
Protest at Tesla dealerships, or better yet your state capital. I might even join you. But wanton destruction isn't the way.
I know you fake mofos are the type to always need to get the last word because it makes it seem to other dumdums that getting the last say is somehow "winning", but I'm leaving this link here for anyone who remotely might believe your take is a good one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I'm not trying to win any argument, I'm trying to have a discussion. It seems to me that you're not interested in that, so I'll leave some links to relevant logical fallacies in a hope that someone going this far down the thread will make up their own mind using reason instead of emotion.
The link in the post above me is also great, I highly recommend reading it, especially the following from the person who wrote about it:
To be clear, I am not arguing that Eich's intolerant beliefs be tolerated, I'm arguing that they're irrelevant to the discussion about Brave browser (i.e. the Association Fallacy). By all means, protest against intolerance, be loud, and above all, completely discredit it through rational argument, and I'll join you in that. But don't become the thing you claim to hate by refusing rational argument. Articulate why his personal actions matter at all to the products his company makes, and why those can't be evaluated on their own merits.
It's not an association fallacy or poisoning the well if those things are actually being done, which has already been covered in the previous comments. Goggles is another current example of that.
You can go on and have your last word now, I'm done with your bad faith argument. I think there's enough evidence in this comment thread by now for others to see you're being disingenuous.