Monopolies depend on the government to exist.

I very much disagree but respect a desire to not get into a debate, so I’ll leave it there.

I really don’t know what that means

“Your freedom ends at my face” is a saying used often here to contend with right-wing group’s insistence on “freedom,” often the kind that involves harming others; e.g. free speech absolutism and the “freedom” to spout neo-Nazi rhetoric that advocates for the murder of minorities, or the “freedom” to not get vaccinated and thus worsen a pandemic. A more full version might be “Your freedom to throw a punch ends where my face begins.” The idea is that it is fair to restrict a freedom if it supports the freedom of others — you might not trust governments to determine where those lines lie, and that’s fair, but that’s a separate issue.

I don’t know if libertarianism courts a different audience in Brazil, but in the U.S. it has a very rabidly right-wing audience who effectively want to tear down as much government as possible, and who view “your freedom ends at my face” as an insult. It’s the ideology of an extraordinarily unregulated market – a true “free market” – which is a monopolistic and wildly unethical disaster waiting to happen.

Anarcho-capitalism, which your username references, is all of that, only more. So you might understand why effectively everyone here is going to treat that with extreme suspicion.

This is why I think monitored access is a better idea than total withholding. Kids are going to end up on social media; either as they grow up and eventually become adults, or as a result of peer providing access & pressure. Best to let them on, but ensure they are safe, know how to be safe, and know why to be safe.

Makes me wonder if it’s intentional to try to make society a worse place with inventive uses of pushing certain trends on international versions of tiktok instead of filtering them out.

Good lord, this is a massive reach. A much simpler explanation is that algorithmic garbage is profitable, and China’s government does not care about negative ramifications that occur outside China itself and so do not regulate it.

China’s run by a terrible government, not an MCU villain.

Not to mention the obscene fees with using it. Crypto is rife with issues.

I think we’re looking at a future where Google ensures we don’t ever have to worry about making such a choice.

This really doesn’t make Brave look any better though, seeing as it has its own version of “privacy-focused” attention-monetization schemes (Basic Attention Tokens) and its own fair share of controversies. Not to mention being Chromium under the hood and being developed by a company headed by Brandon Eich of all people — a massive homophobe.

None of which make Firefox impeccable or ever did. But all of which made Brave decidedly worse to me, including after this all happened.

I… can’t tell if this is sarcasm?

Honestly? Considering how little the police actually do to help anyone, versus the huge amount of harm they cause, I’m not entirely convinced that “Get rid of all police” wouldn’t be a good idea, even if they got replaced with basically nothing. And I’ve seen a lot of leftists who felt similarly. So “those on the other side” aren’t entirely wrong; they just don’t understand how incredibly bad police are.

This doesn’t mean we should replace the police with literally nothing — obviously things investing in social services and crisis intervention would be great. It’s just that I find it hard to do worse than what currently exists.

I find comments like these on places like Beehaw almost amusing in a way. It’s like watching a drunk person stumble from a bar all the way to a courthouse and getting upset the clerk won’t sell them more liquor.

Seriously though, I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish here. Just about everybody here disagrees and isn’t keen on a take like this, and I’d figure you’d have been able to tell as much before posting. So… are you just here to argue?

I’m saying that if you think you said “that is a stupid position to take and here is why,” you missed the mark severely, and you should be more careful with your phrasing if you don’t want people to get upset at you in future. It’s not about people “willingly” misinterpreting anything — whether you realized it or not, what you said wasn’t the level-headed response you may have intended it to be.

I saw that one. It’s what I was referring to when I said “saying you want to ‘avoid alienating people’ when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic.” Criticizing the maintainer response there was one of the good parts of the blog post.

But the outcome of that doesn’t really much change the fact that the sarcastic PR was sarcastic, and thus calling that PR spam is reasonable, whereas claiming they called the trans woman herself spam is not. To be clear, however: I’ve no issue with the sarcastic PR itself, only the framing of it in the blog post.

It is absolutely a reasonable interpretation to assume you were referring to the people making the decision you didn’t like. And even if it wasn’t, calling an idea a group of people have “incredibly fucking stupid” isn’t much different, as it carries an implication of how you see those people.

If you feel other people are getting offended too easily at what you say, I recommend spending extra time on your posts to ensure you avoid saying derogatory things you don’t intend for. Something that looks good to you can be incredibly insulting to others who read differently from you, and since conversation is a two-way street, that’s the kind of thing we all need to be aware of.

I’ve no love lost for the developers in question. But between the original two PRs and associated comments being from over three years ago, and the “trans woman [being called] 'spam” comment being said about a PR that seems pretty strongly to me to be meant as a sarcastic insult rather than a genuine contribution, I can’t help but find it a little unconvincing.

It’s not without merit by far. I feel that Kling’s blog post not addressing the drama was in poor taste and may indicate a lack of self-improvement regarding the initial fuckup, and saying you want to “avoid alienating people” when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic. I also understand not wanting bigots to be able to just bury their past and pretend they were never bigoted. It’s just that the fiery response this has gotten still ends up feeling a bit disproportionate given how old the truly insulting issues were. Am I missing something?