6 ms·

If he feels that way, he feels that way. However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to

by bena 14d ago

If he feels that way, he feels that way. However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces. Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing. If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values. If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free. So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability. And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support. * I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.

croes 14d ago
> anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics' groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values. Strange because that’s exactly what the anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics' groups in the government demand.
epistasis 14d ago
One of the best freedoms out there is freedom of association. I don't need to associate with people I don't like or find distasteful. I don't need to join hands with the Tankies. I don't need to read JK Rowling's works. I get to choose. > If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values. I don't associate that claim with these groups, if anything they seem to be saying the opposite.
- bena 14d ago
  A little bit sorta. Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue. Now, they'll also say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to create. Or at the very least create based on certain properties. Which is admittedly almost a "same result, different mechanism" issue. But they will claim to allow the market decide (aka "go woke, go broke").
  - newspaper1 14d ago
    Conservatives have many forms of "cancel culture". They want to deport people from places they don't like (or from a race they don't like), they want to enforce Christianity in public places, they want to make being "antifa" illegal... And the ultimate form of cancel culture, conservatives (including the neo-liberal variety) will straight up murder you if you're Muslim and live in the Middle East. None of that is free market.
    - bena 14d ago
      I don't necessarily disagree. But this is getting rather forest for the trees. End point is: If you don't like who is making your software, make your own. Giving up is just letting them win.
      - newspaper1 14d ago
        That costs money though (or takes time, which is money). When you need to eat and put a roof over your head, you realize our system is not setup to allow you to do this.
        bena 14d ago
        They did it though. And I didn't say it would be easy, just possible. I think that's some of the disconnect for some people. They think that simply because a thing is possible, it should be easy.
        newspaper1 14d ago
        They most likely had access to capital though. That is extremely unevenly distributed and not an option for most people.
    - allanmacgregor 13d ago
      Bit of a strawman here, particularly the last one. Find a single US administration in recent history that hasn't killed thousands in the middle east? I'll wait.
scroot 14d ago
"giving up" in this case would be to stay the course, to ignore one's own considered ethical obligations.
bassalo 14d ago
> If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. It's a very straightforward reconciliation given her women's rights advocacy. Massive respect to her for taking a stand against the progressive-styled misogyny that's arisen in recent years.

by bena 14d ago

croes 14d ago

> anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics' groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values. Strange because that’s exactly what the anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics' groups in the government demand.

epistasis 14d ago

One of the best freedoms out there is freedom of association. I don't need to associate with people I don't like or find distasteful. I don't need to join hands with the Tankies. I don't need to read JK Rowling's works. I get to choose. > If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values. I don't associate that claim with these groups, if anything they seem to be saying the opposite.

bena 14d ago
A little bit sorta. Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue. Now, they'll also say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to create. Or at the very least create based on certain properties. Which is admittedly almost a "same result, different mechanism" issue. But they will claim to allow the market decide (aka "go woke, go broke").
- newspaper1 14d ago
  Conservatives have many forms of "cancel culture". They want to deport people from places they don't like (or from a race they don't like), they want to enforce Christianity in public places, they want to make being "antifa" illegal... And the ultimate form of cancel culture, conservatives (including the neo-liberal variety) will straight up murder you if you're Muslim and live in the Middle East. None of that is free market.
  - bena 14d ago
    I don't necessarily disagree. But this is getting rather forest for the trees. End point is: If you don't like who is making your software, make your own. Giving up is just letting them win.
    - newspaper1 14d ago
      That costs money though (or takes time, which is money). When you need to eat and put a roof over your head, you realize our system is not setup to allow you to do this.
      - bena 14d ago
        They did it though. And I didn't say it would be easy, just possible. I think that's some of the disconnect for some people. They think that simply because a thing is possible, it should be easy.
        newspaper1 14d ago
        They most likely had access to capital though. That is extremely unevenly distributed and not an option for most people.
  - allanmacgregor 13d ago
    Bit of a strawman here, particularly the last one. Find a single US administration in recent history that hasn't killed thousands in the middle east? I'll wait.

scroot 14d ago

"giving up" in this case would be to stay the course, to ignore one's own considered ethical obligations.

bassalo 14d ago

> If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. It's a very straightforward reconciliation given her women's rights advocacy. Massive respect to her for taking a stand against the progressive-styled misogyny that's arisen in recent years.