I've read the article via Firefox, with NoScript enabled. Am I doing this right?
Technology
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
No
Fuck Mozilla too
Why was appointing Eich as CEO so controversial? It's because he donated $1,000 in support of California's Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California's state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
I want to try a thought experiment. Imagine that you observe this comment in reaction to the above:
I just don’t get why the author is so pissed about their political contributions. Guess what, people who are involved in big business are usually right-wing and support right-wing organizations. Shocking. Who could have known. I don’t even want to imagine how the author comes to the conclusion that this is some big conspiracy but I think we all know what political spectrum that guy belongs to.
What I just wrote is a mirror-image version of the top rated comment on that article from a few days ago about the Mozilla foundation funding left-wing organizations. Do you agree with one of those statements and not the other? If so, why?
It is one-sided to say that someone involved in Brave should only be "allowed" to do so if he doesn't support anything conservative. Just as would be one-sided and wrong to say that Mozilla shouldn't be "allowed" to support left-wing organizations. Flipping it around, and looking at the reaction when it's the other way around, is an easy way to analyze your own internal reactions on it.
(Generally, I'm in agreement with the idea that you shouldn't use Brave because of all these other shady things; just this one part jumped out at me as one thing that's not like the others.)
I can't think of a reason why anyone would use a browser other than Firefox and its forks.
I just use Firefox and DuckDuckGo
You might want to explore librewolf. It's built on Firefox but with more privacy features.
DDG with their Microsoft agreements and subpar search results isn't the answer for me.
Qwant and Startpage fit it better
I ditched Brave ages ago when the ad and crypto bullshit really ramped up, and finding out Peter Thiel was involved and Brendan Eich was a bigot, were more than enough to keep me away from Brave.
I currently use Arc on desktop because it makes my life as a busy dev much easier to organize, and Safari on iOS because every browser on there is just Safari anyway. iOS Safari + custom DNS to block ads. Works for me.
I’d use Firefox but Arc’s organization features have become insanely useful.
What are you upset about an opt-in feature?
The fact that its main 2 gimmicks are a shitty ad blocker and integrated cryptocurrency should be enough of a red flag, honestly. Just use Firefox, people!
Firefox is significantly slower though...
Not really that significant when you're using it, I promise. I'm usually all for speed, but FF has better functionality than the competition.
No fuck Mozilla
This is bulshit, didnt have to say aything in tehnical aspect of the browser so he continyed to tras some people that work on that project, probably false..
Who cares? As liberal I'm sick of the mellow-dramatic outrage culture. People aren't perfect. Who knew? If you don't use brave what's the alternative? Google, who is much worse? Maybe "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" and stop using the lefts social capital to alien people over small personal gripes.
I notice people who write these types of articles never open themselves to the same sort of scrutiny.
This is bulshit, i dont decide will i use a browser depending on who works on it, but depending on the browser itself.
So insted of looking at browser itself this dude sugests we should look at people that work on it and asume the browser is bad if someone working on it is bad which is blindfolded deciding and its nonsense.
So if you have malicios intent and dont have to say anything bad about the browser itself concretly and tehnical because if you lie there, many people that know how it is will say no it doesnt work that way here how it is than you just trash people that are working on it whic is wery hard to veryfi is it trye or not. And probably it isnt..
So when we discus open source software there is no need to talk about writers of the code much because we can discus the code itself and tell concretly if something is bad. Exactly which line and why its bad.
Anything else is just made up and malicios.