I mean, UI gripes are basically the entire reason Pale Moon exists.
1 Like
for me, itās not so much about his view of the world.
itās knowing my money ā in this case ā could go straight to lobbying against lgbt rights. ( itās similar to why ā on a completely different front ā back when i owned a car, i didnāt use aaa: because they have a history of lobbying against public transit. )
i agree whole-heartedly. thereās lots of folks who use money i have given them to lobby against the rights and issues i hold dear. thatās part of why i believe in campaign finance and political lobbying reform. money in politics needs to be limited, and transparent.
Well, money that he receives as his salary, perhaps. It isnāt like his company will be doing lobbying like that.
I agree. I will point out that transparency laws are how we found out he donated Prop 8 money in the first place, since his name had to be listed publicly.
1 Like
The great thing about reading the work of dead philosophers and political theorists is that they may have been assholes, but at least they arenāt benefiting from your actions. A good reason, perhaps, for reading the dead ones and ignoring the live ones.
2 Likes
The Windows 8 whatnow?
The whole point of this argument is about whether people should be held accountable in their āprofessionalā life for the āpersonalā choices theyāve made.
You clearly donāt care about the folks who are attempting to make it a personal issue about me being an SJW (and even quote one!), so itās becoming increasingly clear why youāre picking on me in particular, and very relevant if you think homosexuality is unnatural or immoral.
I may be new to commenting (though not to BoingBoing), but I can spot a bully anywhere.
If someone is a bigot, then the public has the right not to patronize their establishment. Thatās very different from a criminal remedy applied by the state.
Being shunned (or unable to work, etc) is the price one pays for having horrible political opinions. Iām more worried about the very real consequences of homophobia on gay folks than I am about bigots who canāt work because they got outed as such. Same goes for homophobic politicians, etc.
It has everything to do with Braveās browser and the legal threats against it. In his last professional role as an executive, Eich was fired. Itās totally reasonable to mention that, and would be bizarre not to mention why. The CEO has a track record of highly-unethical behavior. It would be irresponsible for a reporter not to mention the history of Gurbaksh Chahal, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Guido Barilla, etc. if they launched a new venture. Why not Eich?
4 Likes
Iād suggest you not put words in my mouth (or thoughts in my head, as it were). I didnāt call you anything and it isnāt my job to argue to other people for you.
You really donāt know me, my thinking on things (since you havenāt actually looked at my history here or otherwise) or even my family. Letās be clear, I was raised by a single queer mom. My daughter is queer. Hell, my spouse identifies as queer, as have most of my partners. Iām surrounded by queer friends and family so, please, get off your high horse about telling me what I think of queer folks. You really donāt know.
There you made it all personal. I assume youāre happy to get an emotional response.
Iām not āpickingā on you at all. Iām having a civil discussion in an online forum. I understand that this is a rare experience in many places and while folks donāt always manage it here, I think people have done pretty well by it in this thread up until now.
Uh huh. Well, I guess Iām done here then with any discussion with you. Ta!
Oh, I canāt let this one remark go though. He wasnāt fired. I know this categorically as I worked at his company (and have for almost a decade) and know the board, the other executives, etc. He chose to leave. He really did. It was clear he wasnāt going to continue as CEO (clear to him even) but he had other things he could have stayed and done. He chose to leave for the good of the project and the company (and, I suspect, because he was tired of the fight and the ongoing PR and Press cycle).
Please donāt speak of things which you really donāt know anything about.
Well, except he wasnāt firedā¦so it would be a lie to āmentionā that.
4 Likes
That is exactly what happened to a lot of entertainment industry workers in the '40s and '50s. āHorribleā is in the eye of the beholder.
3 Likes
I donāt agree with the tactics of Brave. Itās one thing to block ads, itās another to replace them, effectively laying ads on someone elseās content and making money while depriving them of a revenue stream. This seems very similar to āframingā which was a practice, back in the early days of the commercialized internet, where websites would ādeep linkā to articles/content on other sites, and effectively create a browser within a browser for that content, keeping their own ads on top. That was found to be a copyright violation IIRC, and rightly so. Itās just not the right thing to do.
1 Like
And, āthe customer is always right.ā
So, if we have āfree speechā it includes the right to talk about businesses that weād rather not patronize.
Eich earned his reputation. I appreciate the intimate perspective that enso presents as having known and worked with Eich as a person, and that softens my heart. But, again, Eich has earned a reputation as an enemy of freedom to love. That doesnāt wash off easily.
1 Like
Thatās just not true.
The House Un-American Activities Committee (the State) colluded with industry leaders to get people blacklisted for their political beliefs, not their sexual behavior (though there was obviously rampant homophobia in the industry). But that couldnāt be further from a consumer boycott.
If you think homosexuality and bigotry are equivalent, then thereās nothing I can say to convince you that bigotry is wrong.
4 Likes
I most uselessely lament the bygone times when the internet was largely below the radar of corporate shitbags, and that goes out to both parties in this argument.
5 Likes
Mod note: Stay on topic and stop personal attacks.
6 Likes
if i have to see adverts. i want them to be relevant !
commercial tracking does not bother me.
if i donāt buy i will not be waterboarded or worse !
the spooks that is quite a different matter.
the two are confabulated to minimise the threat
to freedom ! why should you worry when shops have your information
already ? cause it is NOT the same !
Well, as someone who is writing history today, thatās generally not an option to only read the dead ones! 
2 Likes
I was exaggerating for effect. So many academics seem less than satisfactory in their attitude to other human beings, especially women (Russell, A J Ayer, to mention the first two that spring to mind) that it becomes difficulty to work out where censorship based on social desirability should start. At one end you have the former Soviet Union, using perceived-by-the-rƩgime social desirability, at the other you get the US. Is there a way of discriminating which serves social ends?
1 Like
I got ya.
I think in general, regarding academics, most would argue they are for academic freedom and against censorship - but there are cases where some have used the structure of the academy to silence voices they donāt like. Iām sure a fair amount of leftist scholars in the United States were silenced in various ways (denial of tenure, not finding a job where research and writing were a key part of their work, as opposed to teaching, etc). Even today, there are some people who donāt manage to find a place to do their work, free from administrative or colleagial animosity. Obvious, it pales in comparison to the Soviet Union, where scholars could disappear on a whim, with the majority of that happening under Stalin - but itās not insignificant here in the US, having certain voices, not silenced, maybe, but certainly dismissed and belittled (or heard and mocked). Itās the Orwell vs. Huxley conundrum, no?
But again - my point to @enso was not to say we should silence this guy, but rather knowing his role in Prop 8 allows people who DO NOT want to give to someone who actively worked against their CIVIL RIGHTS is not in any meaningful way, censorship. If I donāt buy or use his product because I donāt like it, Iām not censoring him either. Iām just choosing to not give him my money/time. As a consumer I have ever right to make that choice. He has no right to my money or time. He needs to earn it and if him being homophobic means I donāt want to give him my money/time, thatās my right to decide. It isnāt censorship. That would be the government not allowing him to speak, arresting him for being homophobic, or put him to death for being homophobic. I am not a government. if you think me thinking the guy is homophobic is censorship, then I donāt know what else to say here. I would also not like to give my money or time to racists or sexists, and thatās not censorship either.
6 Likes
Is there any difference between this guy and his company, composed the of many people?
Sure. My point was never that itās the same - but others may not agree. My point was that knowing about his political activities allows people to make choices based on their ethics and morals. If someone decides that doing business with a buy who they find homophobic, thatās their choice. But if people donāt know his background, they donāt get to make that choice.
2 Likes
