Hacker News Reader

Comment by fulvioterzapi | Hacker News Reader

> Brave search is a possibility, but they’re owned and managed by a homophobic douchebag.

Here we go again... He donated a few thousands dollars in 2008 and 2010 to a referendum campaign against same-sex marriage. He then repeatedly said he was sorry.

Is this being a "homophobic douchebag", considering that all politicians from both sides of the aisle held the same views at some point not so distant in time from 2008?

Just to put things in context, in 2008 Joe Biden asserted he opposed “redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.” Also a "homophobic douchebag"?

Also the guy is a genius, he invented Javascript, his technical prowess would probably have an effect on Brave, rather than his political views.

This intolerance of even the slightest political dissent is worrying.

View on HN

> all politicians from both sides of the aisle held the same views at some point not so distant in time from 2008?

To pick an obvious example, Sen. Sanders didn't hold this view and hasn't for his entire political career

> This intolerance of even the slightest political dissent is worrying.

I generally agree with you, but not in this case. There are some things we consider "politics" that just shouldn't be. Equal rights for people who hurt no one is one of those

Someone has to be pretty far down the rabbit hole before they start contributing money to a cause. This was a deeply held public view of his from what, only 12 years ago? It's relevant when we're talking about a search engine. I wouldn't trust a newspaper published by him either

Brave also has a sketchy past with regard to trust and privacy. Lying, misrepresentation, reading and modifying private data: I'd rather just not mess with it.

Not to mention, there is no evidence that his alleged homophobic douchebaggery has had any effect on any of his products.

That wasn't claimed.

> Here we go again... He donated a few thousands dollars in 2008 and 2010 to a referendum campaign against same-sex marriage. He then repeatedly said he was sorry.

When did he say he was sorry? I don't think I've ever seen him apologize.

Yes, he did, on his personal blog.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/new-m...

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

I don't see anything there even close to him saying sorry. Did you post the wrong links?

No, it's the right link. "Express my sorrow at having caused pain" is a more formal way of saying "I am sorry I have caused pain".

You are free to claim there are some subtle differences (pro tip: there are not), but further nitpicking will make you look a bit foolish, in my opinion. Your choice.

That isn't even a full sentence :D

This is hilarious.

That doesn't seem like an apology for donating. It seems like a promise not to discriminate in the future.

It's a sad state when asking a question for follow up gets voted down. You asked a question, and stated a personal fact, that you don't think you've ever seen him apologize. And somehow, this is offensive or doesn't contribute.

Let that sink in. That providing the information, the links, the reference to this somehow doesn't contribute.

Shame.

That's some weird reasoning you're trying to stack up here.

He donated, he paid the price for that.

Now throwing the "both sides"-Trumpism into the room doesn't change anything here because it's not those politicians who run Brave and were CEOs of Mozilla.

Also how "slight" the dissent is, is not for you to judge. It hurt some people more than others. You are not to dictate them how much it's supposed to hurt them.

He REPEATEDLY said he was sorry? Where? The only one I could find was a subordinate clause drowned within a "we'll probably do many other things in the future" -post.

The worst part is, as you called out with Biden, the intolerance isn't even consistently applied. They'll forgive people when it's convenient for them, and everyone else is irredeemable.

Biden is bad too.

He donated money to try and prevent a group of people from having the same rights as the majority of people. That’s never ok and it shouldn’t take an awakening to figure out that it’s wrong.

Not advocating he should be #cancelled or anything like that, but justifying his advocacy against civil rights as “political dissent” is disingenuous.

Edit: I find it pretty appalling that a comment calmly stating that advocating against civil rights is wrong is downvoted AND flagged.

So is donating money better or worse than an actual lawmaker saying they shouldn't have those rights? I'm confused.

All depends on the Letter after their name. Everyone knows this, but pretends it's not the case.

What does that have to do with anything? They’re both wrong and it doesn’t matter which one is “worse” if in fact either one is. One bad thing does not negate a less bad thing if that’s the direction you were going.

I think that it's asinine to list a private citizen previously holding this view as a reason to not use a web browser but at the same time being OK with a lawmaker who also previously held the same view being POTUS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com