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.
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.
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.
If you had to fight for your right to equality, would you not find it unacceptable that someone in such a prominent position profited from the work of others and invested it into a hate group? Why not simply let people be? Gay marriage hurts nobody.
My argument is that opposition to gay marriage isn't intrinsically hateful. The ancient Greeks had no notion of gay marriage, for example, and they weren't exactly averse to gay sex or to men who enjoyed it.
Your system of values, beliefs, and definitions may create a tunnel vision which makes it look like opposing views can only be motivated by hatred or bigotry. But the reality is, other people have different views because they hold different values, beliefs, and definitions. If you cared more about the preservation of traditional culture, and not so much about the peculiar way that homosexuality is expressed in modern western societies, then your views would presumably be in line with those of Eich.
> 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.
Spitfire Audio. Ableist and transphobic remarks. The ableist remarks are regarding autism.
Calling it a "mental state" isn't correct either, it is a neurodevelopmental condition.
Whilst you don't think you need to answer "yes" to have an opinion, you degrade the signal-to-noise ratio with your words when there are the voices of others who need to be heard.
If you don't have anything supportive or constructive to say, then it is the time to sit, listen, read and learn.
Of course, the cishet white dude doesn't understand bigotry and the concept of fighting for the right to exist because you have never been marginalized.
> Spitfire Audio. Ableist and transphobic remarks. The ableist remarks are regarding autism.
Thanks for the clarification. I'll look into it.
> Calling it a "mental state" isn't correct either, it is a neurodevelopmental condition.
In other words, a 'mental illness.' Got it.
> Whilst you don't think you need to answer "yes" to have an opinion, you degrade the signal-to-noise ratio with your words when there are the voices of others who need to be heard.
I disagree. I don't believe you have to be one of the affected parties to be able to form an effective opinion. I'm capable of looking at the world around me and deducing my own conclusions - when it comes to homosexuality, it is particularly close to me, as I have a sister and a close friend who are both gay. Of course, neither of them base their software decisions around the opinions of those who hold some kind of leadership position for the software in question.
> If you don't have anything supportive or constructive to say, then it is the time to sit, listen, read and learn.
Thanks for the tip. I put myself in the shoes of those who might be more disenfranchised than me every day - I have a nice roster of friends and family from all walks of life - different races, sexual orientations, and gender identities. Doesn't change the point of the argument.
> Of course, the cishet white dude doesn't understand bigotry and the concept of fighting for the right to exist because you have never been marginalized.
You don't know a thing about me. How do you know how my life has unfolded? There are more marginalized classes in the world than just skin colour, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
If you think anyone who has ever had a gay (or other minority) friend or family member espousing their empathy is really veiled phobia, then you have more issues than I could have imagined. Your link didn't help you any, unfortunately.
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
