Description This is getting a little silly now, guys. I appreciate the privacy benefits of Brave, but I don't really want to play whack-a-mole with Brave's forceful corporate advert...
I agree with you on the Brave browser and all the cruft it includes but you’re missing my point. I’m saying it isn’t necessary to mention one’s character defects in relation to their product.
I’m saying it isn’t necessary to mention one’s character defects in relation to their product.
IMO it is. Brendan Eich is the CEO and founder of Brave. Brave is a private company, which he owns. He makes money from the Ads inserted by the browser. Many people don’t want to give this guy any money, and they’re right. It’s a point that will interest many, thus it is useful to bring it up.
If you think that you can support a company while disagreeing with the CEO, fine. But that doesn’t mean that the CEO’s actions should not be discussed.
Marcos Abenante said hateful and racist things. I’m not supporting nor downloading his Brutal Doom project anymore
I don’t know who that guy is or if any of what you’re claiming is true, but if I played brutal doom and learned about something like that it would likely bother me indeed.
Tim Cook is a homosexual therefore I won’t buy his products because of his sexual orientation
This is completely different from what’s above. Tim Cook being Gay doesn’t harm anyone, while donating to hateful lobbies and denying basic science does.
yeah if the CEO of brave donates to hateful charities, and he’s making money from his scummy practices, then that is absolutely a valid criticism of the product.
This is completely different from what’s above. Tim Cook being Gay doesn’t harm anyone, while donating to hateful lobbies and denying basic science does.
Sure it can, depending on whichever ideology or philosophy people follow. I think it’s generally in bad faith to include such things outside the context of the original topic of Brave being sketchy.
I agree with you on the Brave browser and all the cruft it includes but you’re missing my point. I’m saying it isn’t necessary to mention one’s character defects in relation to their product.
IMO it is. Brendan Eich is the CEO and founder of Brave. Brave is a private company, which he owns. He makes money from the Ads inserted by the browser. Many people don’t want to give this guy any money, and they’re right. It’s a point that will interest many, thus it is useful to bring it up.
If you think that you can support a company while disagreeing with the CEO, fine. But that doesn’t mean that the CEO’s actions should not be discussed.
Okay. By that logic:
“Tim Cook is a homosexual therefore I won’t buy his products because of his sexual orientation.”
Or…
“Marcos Abenante said hateful and racist things. I’m not supporting nor downloading his Brutal Doom project anymore”.
Is that what you’re saying? That’s ridiculous. Stay objective and out of the intersectional rabbit hole.
I don’t know who that guy is or if any of what you’re claiming is true, but if I played brutal doom and learned about something like that it would likely bother me indeed.
This is completely different from what’s above. Tim Cook being Gay doesn’t harm anyone, while donating to hateful lobbies and denying basic science does.
yeah if the CEO of brave donates to hateful charities, and he’s making money from his scummy practices, then that is absolutely a valid criticism of the product.
Agreed. I’d rather read more into that than one’s opinion of their character.
Sure it can, depending on whichever ideology or philosophy people follow. I think it’s generally in bad faith to include such things outside the context of the original topic of Brave being sketchy.