At least both the extension(tst) and the browser (firefox) are open-source. And you can use firefox on any desktop platform including BSDs while arc is limited to MacOS and Windows
> Brave is run by a homophobic, anti-vax crypto clown. I won’t dignify it here with a link.
Brave is a decent browser, I don't understand why would you care who created it. Attacking author's persona and not the technology itself really reeks of bias
> I don't understand why would you care who created it.
I mean Brendan Eich is pretty bad, but their kerfuffle with Tom Scott[0] is what scared me off for good. I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending software that manipulates the likeness of a third-party to promote a product.
> Attacking author's persona and not the technology itself really reeks of bias
Some people can separate creation from creator, and some people feel it's the fruit of a poisonous tree. I'm personally not sure I'm convinced which is the better view. Since it's their personal blog … I think they're entitled to express that view, there? They still listed that browser, and it's inherently Googleable…
Regardless, "bias" doesn't seem to me to be the right word here. (To describe the blogger, given that their remarks appear based on observed evidence, not prejudice.)
Author engages in identity politics [1] which can be described as an exercise in labelling everything, attaching value statements - positive and negative - to those labels and thereby reducing every possible question to a simple calculation.
[1] a utopian socialist variant of 'scientific socialism' in which economic values have been replaced by social ones. Like its counterpart any attempt at implementing these ideas in the real world end up in failure since the inhabitants of the real world do not behave according to how the models predict they should - neither Homo Sovieticus nor Homo Arcopluvius exist in the real world.
> For those that like Chromium but want to remove any integration with Google, there's Ungoogled Chromium
I already use Chromium rather than Chrome (with FF as my main browser).
What are the real world effects of using Ungoogled Chromium rather than Chromium? Am I going to run into problems with DRM or signing in to website? Or installing extensions?
For extensions you basically install Chrome Web Store extension (via Load Unpacked), and then you can use that to install and update other extensions. It's explained in the GitHub page AFAIK.
Signing in to websites will work fine since it doesn't depend on Google.
Regarding DRM: I never really used anything that required it so I don't know, but you can go to Issues on the GitHub page and search for "Widevine", "DRM" etc
Depending on where you get Chromium from, it might actually be closer to Ungoogled Chromium IIUC. From Debian for instance. At least in its default settings.
> I don't understand why would you care who created it
The question of separating the artist from the person is not new. Let's try anyway. Not speaking for Brave / Eich, but more generally (because I want my point to be general, not specific to Brave / Eich and I don't want this specific instance to weaken my more general point).
Say you support cause C. Say someone S makes useful product P. You know S hurts cause C (or pushes shitty thing !C), personally. And you know product P brings income to S (since it's their business), making S more powerful. You may think using P hurts cause C, thus you may want to avoid P. Or you may want to avoid P to make a point, symbolically. If only to discourage other people to act the same way.
Let's take Picasso for instance. He was an asshole [1]. He was atrocious with one or several of his friends. He broke the lives of many people including his numerous partners and raped them. Should you separate the artist from the person? You may already be convinced this is enough to want to avoid promoting Picasso or his art so you don't glorify the horrible stuff he could get away with, so future artists are not encouraged in such bad behavior for instance. Or you may not, thinking that the art exists now, and somewhat stands for itself. Turns out you actually can't really separate: looking closer, a big part of the art is related to his rapes anyway. Art does not live in a vacuum and is indeed connected to its artist: it's a reflection of the artist's life.
There might be something in how Product P works or is done that still could indirectly hurt cause C, in addition to bringing money to person S which may itself hurt C. In a way, it may be a matter of voting with one's wallet.
This stuff may or may not apply to Brave, I tried to justify why you might (want to) care where some product comes from more generally.
Of course there are many products where someone working on it is an asshole in their personal life and you just don't know about it. You might even have someone helping cause C working on product P. Now, if S notoriously hurts C, maybe there are people for C avoiding working for S (on P) and this can create a weird culture around P. Things can be a bit complicated.
Moreover, in a way, unlike your average person you may not know about, Eich chose to be public about some of the stuff he gets criticism for and so far never backtracked on this to my knowledge (because he could have). This also puts it to the next level for some.
[1] I can't vouch for any specific English source, but looking up "Picasso asshole" seems to yield numerous results. French speakers may like this video from "C'est une autre histoire": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsuLpUTs50c
> But (Safari is) the only option here that’s unsupported outside one manufacturer’s hardware.
You can use WebKit on Linux via GNOME Web (WebKitGTK), it's maintained by Igalia. Though that won't get you cross-device syncing, which is the main reason people want support on alternate hardware.
> Brave is run by a homophobic, anti-vax crypto clown. I won’t dignify it here with a link.
And their business model is based on replacing other ads with their ads. Privacy is just a troy horse for expansion, given that their other “””features””” are not really such.
Don't forget Tor Browser https://www.torproject.org: the Tor Project modified version of Firefox. It aims to make all users look the same, making it difficult for you to be fingerprinted based on your browser and device information.
Mullvad Browser https://mullvad.net/en/browser: developed in collaboration between Mullvad VPN and the Tor Project, based on Tor Browser but meant to be used with a VPN instead of the Tor network.
> Barack Obama ran for president on the platform that marriage was between a man and a woman. Is he homophobic?
No, his administration ratified nationwide gay marriage. He's a straight person too, that doesn't stop him from empathizing with the gay community and promoting marriage equality.
> Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has spoken out against vaccine-related policies. Is he anti-vax?
Vaccine-related policies are not vaccines. So you could say he's anti-vaccine politics I guess. I've never heard of the guy before though, so I can't really say for sure where he lies.
> I come to Hacker News to avoid this kind of divisive rhetoric.
I'm sorry to hear that you're disappointed by the curation of a user-moderated forum.
> Brave is run by a homophobic, anti-vax crypto clown. I won’t dignify it here with a link.
I don't know Brave, I don't know anything about its author (nor do I care to).
But this strikes me as unserious.. It's an article about the browser, Hitlers eviller clone could be building it for all I care, is the browser and the way the browser behaves good ?
I'm going to say this is a fact: The quality of someones work is separate from the quality of their values.
You can be the bestest, nicest, warmest, most just and fair person in the world, but if what you build is crap, I don't give a f*ck about it, except I want it (not you) to die and go away.
Arguments against same-sex marriage are often framed in terms of defending traditional or religious values. This is common refrain in anti-gay hate groups^1 and is used to push homophoic agendas.
"Rules"? LOL! The interpretation of the rules vary so much that there are Christians who think Catholicism (and Unitarianism!) are not Christian faiths.
The repeal of Prohibition was not anti-Muslim, despite it re-legalizing alcohol.
Laws regulating the production of pork for human consumption are not anti-Muslim either.
The repeal of adultery laws was not anti-Christian, despite the Bible firmly prohibiting adultery.
The repeal of Sunday closing laws was not anti-Christian, despite another Biblical prohibition of working on the Sabbath. (And it isn't like Christians are 100% in agreement about when the Sabbath actually is.)
Laws allowing divorce are not anti-Christian, despite how some people interpret Jesus's statement in Matthew "what God has joined together, let no one separate" as meaning that a Christian marriage does not allow divorce.
Just like none of those are anti-Christian, a low allowing homosexual marriage is also not anti-Christian. Millions of Christians find no disagreement between the rules of Christianity and the legalization of homosexual marriage just like millions of divorced Christians find no disagreement between the rules of Christianity and their divorce.
If you think homosexual marriage is against God's will, don't marry someone of your sex. If you think it's against God's will to work on Sunday, don't do it. If you think it's against God's will to commit adultery, don't do it. If you think it's against God's will to wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread, as stated in Leviticus, don't do it.
I’m not here to debate theology. I’m here to point out that using epithets like homophobe to attack someone for his religious beliefs is inappropriate.
You said it was specifically anti-Christian, not this broader claim of "religious belief".
Allowing secular homosexual marriage is no more anti-Christian than allowing secular divorce.
We do not give carte blanche to religious viewpoints.
People can hold religious beliefs which are sexist, racist, or homophobic, as you surely must know. Others are free to call them out for their sexism, racism, and homophobia.
Are you going to attack a Christian whose religious belief is that his faith supports homosexual marriage? Are you going to deny that Christian his liberty to tell a homophobic Christian that those homophobic views are not Christ-like?
If I have the strongly held religious belief that I must proselytize my faith, even at work during break time, and a co-worker objects and does not want to listen to my proselytizing, then under US Title VII Civil rights law my employer must stop me, even if I think it's an attack against my Christian faith, because in our secular system the religious rights of one do not override the religious rights of another.
Since millions of Christians support homosexual marriage, it makes no sense to say that support for secular homosexual marriage, and opposition to those against it, is anti-Christian.
The United Church of Canada, which is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, is not anti-Christian.
The Episcopal Church is not anti-Christian.
The Church of Denmark, which is Denmark's state religion, is not anti-Christian.
All of them support homosexual marriage not just in the secular sense but sanctified within church practices.
You are free to say they don't actually follow God's Word, as clearly expressed in the Bible, but then it's more like yet another doctrinal disagreement between the Dutch Reformed Churches, which you've mistaken as a mass anti-Christian attack.
And I say that using Christianity as a get-out-of-jail-free card for any bigoted belief is wrong.
I never used the epithet "homophobe". I said "Using Brave helps put money into the clown's pocket. Money that could be used to, for example, to fund homophobic initiatives."
If that's anti-Christian, then you think Episcopals and millions of others are anti-Christian, which places you in the category of street preachers who insist their view of Christianity are the only true ones.
Is it only "homophobe" you are concerned about? Are there epithets you think we can use to attack a specific Christian for a specific belief?
Can we agree that it's okay to use the epithet "racist" about a Christian holding the religious belief that Blacks have the Curse of Cain on them, and that this curse justified their enslavement? Plenty of Christian Americans used to believe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Baptist...
Christians disagree with each other about their beliefs all the freaking time, even to using epithets like "heretic", "blasphemer", "idol worshiper" and "antichrist" against other Christians.
Since you don't have answers to any of these issues, I don't think you've thought about the logic behind the argument you are trying to make.
I didn’t accuse you of using the term homophobe (though, now you’re calling him a bigot in the same vain). I was speaking about the how author of this article is using rhetoric is divisive and rude, and how “homophobe” in this context is an anti-Christian slur (Eich is Roman Catholic). That is the argument I’m trying to make. I have not argued the merits of his beliefs.
I have to say I love Arc. Simply because it takes existing OS UI/UX paradigms like Tab/Window switching, Spaces, etc. to browser. This is imo long overdue since the time we started using more webapps than websites.
46 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadLadybird https://ladybird.dev/
Ladybird and Serenity OS are both weirdly heartwarming projects. If you want to catch up on it I think the Changelog podcast was a good starter.
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
> Brave is run by a homophobic, anti-vax crypto clown. I won’t dignify it here with a link.
Brave is a decent browser, I don't understand why would you care who created it. Attacking author's persona and not the technology itself really reeks of bias
I mean Brendan Eich is pretty bad, but their kerfuffle with Tom Scott[0] is what scared me off for good. I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending software that manipulates the likeness of a third-party to promote a product.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
Some people can separate creation from creator, and some people feel it's the fruit of a poisonous tree. I'm personally not sure I'm convinced which is the better view. Since it's their personal blog … I think they're entitled to express that view, there? They still listed that browser, and it's inherently Googleable…
Regardless, "bias" doesn't seem to me to be the right word here. (To describe the blogger, given that their remarks appear based on observed evidence, not prejudice.)
Title says 'browsers are weird'.
Edge is for unopinionated Windows users.
Author writes and thinks in labels. Focuses on emotiions and dramas instead of using science and engineering to compare.
It may be a private blog, but it does not appear to be that interesting in merit.
Author engages in identity politics [1] which can be described as an exercise in labelling everything, attaching value statements - positive and negative - to those labels and thereby reducing every possible question to a simple calculation.
[1] a utopian socialist variant of 'scientific socialism' in which economic values have been replaced by social ones. Like its counterpart any attempt at implementing these ideas in the real world end up in failure since the inhabitants of the real world do not behave according to how the models predict they should - neither Homo Sovieticus nor Homo Arcopluvius exist in the real world.
I already use Chromium rather than Chrome (with FF as my main browser).
What are the real world effects of using Ungoogled Chromium rather than Chromium? Am I going to run into problems with DRM or signing in to website? Or installing extensions?
Signing in to websites will work fine since it doesn't depend on Google.
Regarding DRM: I never really used anything that required it so I don't know, but you can go to Issues on the GitHub page and search for "Widevine", "DRM" etc
Edit: Here's the FAQ https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-wiki...
The question of separating the artist from the person is not new. Let's try anyway. Not speaking for Brave / Eich, but more generally (because I want my point to be general, not specific to Brave / Eich and I don't want this specific instance to weaken my more general point).
Say you support cause C. Say someone S makes useful product P. You know S hurts cause C (or pushes shitty thing !C), personally. And you know product P brings income to S (since it's their business), making S more powerful. You may think using P hurts cause C, thus you may want to avoid P. Or you may want to avoid P to make a point, symbolically. If only to discourage other people to act the same way.
Let's take Picasso for instance. He was an asshole [1]. He was atrocious with one or several of his friends. He broke the lives of many people including his numerous partners and raped them. Should you separate the artist from the person? You may already be convinced this is enough to want to avoid promoting Picasso or his art so you don't glorify the horrible stuff he could get away with, so future artists are not encouraged in such bad behavior for instance. Or you may not, thinking that the art exists now, and somewhat stands for itself. Turns out you actually can't really separate: looking closer, a big part of the art is related to his rapes anyway. Art does not live in a vacuum and is indeed connected to its artist: it's a reflection of the artist's life.
There might be something in how Product P works or is done that still could indirectly hurt cause C, in addition to bringing money to person S which may itself hurt C. In a way, it may be a matter of voting with one's wallet.
This stuff may or may not apply to Brave, I tried to justify why you might (want to) care where some product comes from more generally.
Of course there are many products where someone working on it is an asshole in their personal life and you just don't know about it. You might even have someone helping cause C working on product P. Now, if S notoriously hurts C, maybe there are people for C avoiding working for S (on P) and this can create a weird culture around P. Things can be a bit complicated.
Moreover, in a way, unlike your average person you may not know about, Eich chose to be public about some of the stuff he gets criticism for and so far never backtracked on this to my knowledge (because he could have). This also puts it to the next level for some.
[1] I can't vouch for any specific English source, but looking up "Picasso asshole" seems to yield numerous results. French speakers may like this video from "C'est une autre histoire": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsuLpUTs50c
You can use WebKit on Linux via GNOME Web (WebKitGTK), it's maintained by Igalia. Though that won't get you cross-device syncing, which is the main reason people want support on alternate hardware.
And their business model is based on replacing other ads with their ads. Privacy is just a troy horse for expansion, given that their other “””features””” are not really such.
Mullvad Browser https://mullvad.net/en/browser: developed in collaboration between Mullvad VPN and the Tor Project, based on Tor Browser but meant to be used with a VPN instead of the Tor network.
Barack Obama ran for president on the platform that marriage was between a man and a woman. Is he homophobic?
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has spoken out against vaccine-related policies. Is he anti-vax?
I come to Hacker News to avoid this kind of divisive rhetoric. I'm disappointed to see this on the front page.
No, his administration ratified nationwide gay marriage. He's a straight person too, that doesn't stop him from empathizing with the gay community and promoting marriage equality.
> Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has spoken out against vaccine-related policies. Is he anti-vax?
Vaccine-related policies are not vaccines. So you could say he's anti-vaccine politics I guess. I've never heard of the guy before though, so I can't really say for sure where he lies.
> I come to Hacker News to avoid this kind of divisive rhetoric.
I'm sorry to hear that you're disappointed by the curation of a user-moderated forum.
I'm allowed to be disappointed in the community's choices in what to promote to the front page.
I don't know Brave, I don't know anything about its author (nor do I care to).
But this strikes me as unserious.. It's an article about the browser, Hitlers eviller clone could be building it for all I care, is the browser and the way the browser behaves good ?
I'm going to say this is a fact: The quality of someones work is separate from the quality of their values.
You can be the bestest, nicest, warmest, most just and fair person in the world, but if what you build is crap, I don't give a f*ck about it, except I want it (not you) to die and go away.
Who also invented JavaScript so I assume that the blog author has nothing to do with JS. Nope, there's a whole bunch of it running on their site.
Using Javascript does not.
This distinction is important to many.
1: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/06/traditional-values-poten...
Most of the Christians I know support homosexual marriage. Our biggest local church helps organize the city's yearly Pride festival.
Do you also think it's anti-Christian to require that if a man can lead an invitational prayer then a woman must be able to as well?
The repeal of Prohibition was not anti-Muslim, despite it re-legalizing alcohol.
Laws regulating the production of pork for human consumption are not anti-Muslim either.
The repeal of adultery laws was not anti-Christian, despite the Bible firmly prohibiting adultery.
The repeal of Sunday closing laws was not anti-Christian, despite another Biblical prohibition of working on the Sabbath. (And it isn't like Christians are 100% in agreement about when the Sabbath actually is.)
Laws allowing divorce are not anti-Christian, despite how some people interpret Jesus's statement in Matthew "what God has joined together, let no one separate" as meaning that a Christian marriage does not allow divorce.
Just like none of those are anti-Christian, a low allowing homosexual marriage is also not anti-Christian. Millions of Christians find no disagreement between the rules of Christianity and the legalization of homosexual marriage just like millions of divorced Christians find no disagreement between the rules of Christianity and their divorce.
If you think homosexual marriage is against God's will, don't marry someone of your sex. If you think it's against God's will to work on Sunday, don't do it. If you think it's against God's will to commit adultery, don't do it. If you think it's against God's will to wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread, as stated in Leviticus, don't do it.
Allowing secular homosexual marriage is no more anti-Christian than allowing secular divorce.
We do not give carte blanche to religious viewpoints.
People can hold religious beliefs which are sexist, racist, or homophobic, as you surely must know. Others are free to call them out for their sexism, racism, and homophobia.
Are you going to attack a Christian whose religious belief is that his faith supports homosexual marriage? Are you going to deny that Christian his liberty to tell a homophobic Christian that those homophobic views are not Christ-like?
If I have the strongly held religious belief that I must proselytize my faith, even at work during break time, and a co-worker objects and does not want to listen to my proselytizing, then under US Title VII Civil rights law my employer must stop me, even if I think it's an attack against my Christian faith, because in our secular system the religious rights of one do not override the religious rights of another.
Since millions of Christians support homosexual marriage, it makes no sense to say that support for secular homosexual marriage, and opposition to those against it, is anti-Christian.
The United Church of Canada, which is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, is not anti-Christian.
The Episcopal Church is not anti-Christian.
The Church of Denmark, which is Denmark's state religion, is not anti-Christian.
All of them support homosexual marriage not just in the secular sense but sanctified within church practices.
You are free to say they don't actually follow God's Word, as clearly expressed in the Bible, but then it's more like yet another doctrinal disagreement between the Dutch Reformed Churches, which you've mistaken as a mass anti-Christian attack.
I said using the epithet “homophobe” to attack a Christian for a his beliefs is wrong.
You’re arguing with a strawman.
I never used the epithet "homophobe". I said "Using Brave helps put money into the clown's pocket. Money that could be used to, for example, to fund homophobic initiatives."
If that's anti-Christian, then you think Episcopals and millions of others are anti-Christian, which places you in the category of street preachers who insist their view of Christianity are the only true ones.
Is it only "homophobe" you are concerned about? Are there epithets you think we can use to attack a specific Christian for a specific belief?
Can we agree that it's okay to use the epithet "racist" about a Christian holding the religious belief that Blacks have the Curse of Cain on them, and that this curse justified their enslavement? Plenty of Christian Americans used to believe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Baptist...
Christians disagree with each other about their beliefs all the freaking time, even to using epithets like "heretic", "blasphemer", "idol worshiper" and "antichrist" against other Christians.
Since you don't have answers to any of these issues, I don't think you've thought about the logic behind the argument you are trying to make.
If you want to use web browser created by someone who financially supported the gatekeeping of marriage, go right ahead.