|
Top-level
 In an hypothetical world where I am an authoritarian ruler without discernment or awareness of the world around me, I would probably ban everything that Brendan Eich has created, starting with Javascript. I think encouraging a boycott of Firefox because of Brendan Eich's views was kind of stupid. A boycott of Brave, however, with it being a more closely held project by him personally, that makes more sense. 5 comments
@DigitalJacobin That's true. The reason I think it was unnecessary is because I believe Mozilla would have demoted him anyway. But of course, both scenarios are counter-factual now. @DigitalJacobin I mean, if your logic were ethical, consistent, and applicable, all people everywhere should boycott everything by Microsoft, everything by Google, everything by Amazon, and so on... In the great scheme of things, a laser focus on boycotting Firefox in particular is more pro-Google and pro-Microsoft than it is pro-gay rights. Assuming you care about the privacy of gay people who depend on Firefox to exist in countries where such situations are a real concern. Also see, above: "In an hypothetical world where I am an authoritarian ruler without discernment or awareness of the world around me, I would probably ban everything that Brendan Eich has created" But we are not in such world, and boycotting a product of one organisation because one stupid guy is too fucking stupid.  @vruz @ruhrscholz: JavaScript shows every bit of its ten-day initial development; it's a horribly-designed language at its core which has persisted due to a lack of other options and a shit-ton of stubbornness from web developers to try to cobble out something usable out of that fly-tip of a base. |
Gregory's Server
@vruz Before Firefox had taken accountability and removed him from Mozilla, it made sense to boycott as a way of pressuring Mozilla to do the right thing (which they did)