I get that, I was excited for Brave as an independent search engine before learning more about them. Kagi genuinely seems to be a good meta search engine, but its leadership is ignorant, reckless, and frankly embarrassing. I won't comment on Searx since I haven't tried or read about it in a long time. Bit bleak, eh?
Brendan is CEO of Brave and known homophobe, kicked out of Mozilla for... being a homophobe. He now leads the foremost crypto browser, known for its bravery and gathering a large cult of cunts. N.B. not all brave users are cunts, but cunts are seemingly attracted to brave, where they may find a welcoming community of people just as proudly horrible.
I think Ross is ok (I haven't seen anything horrible so far at least), the issue is really Lunduke who, for those unaware, is also a known transphobe and extreme right-wing propagandist.
It's completely unrelated, right? He just doesn't know, right? I'm sure nobody ever tried telling him. Or maybe he's only capable of perceiving technical information, so the rest of Brendan's history never entered his head?
You're not even moving the goalposts, you're dancing with them.
I give you pointed arguments, you ignore them, then give me unrelated nonsense.
Documentation shouldn't have pronouns since that's the wrong tone
What do you mean wrong tone? Pronouns are in everyday conversation, in companies' documents and in the government's too. I'm reiterating to you, @Possibly linux, that they're in Linux Kernel documentation. Better call Torvalds and tell him to fix that tone. The singular they has been in use for over half a millenium, and is now used by so many people and institutions, it'd actually be easier to list those who refuse to use them.
I think the dev probably just hasn't been exposed much to transgender people. Reacting with hate immediately doesn't help at all.
I've seen folks calmly and respectfully explain to him what's wrong, but he just doubles down. Now we say, "maybe don't use that guy's software," and people like you come out of hiding to defend him. Clearly, any hate that may have been is gone—it's just snowflakes scared of pronouns, all the way down.
Parent comment says "a user." Reading the docs, it clearly wasn't referring to a man, but any user, as in "the average Lemmy user interacts with many instances, and they have the option to block those they're not interested in."
I don't think that's just opinion anymore, it's a fairly accurate analysis. Countless serious projects use pronouns and "they," and that's fine, but for these few specific groups they're somehow political and a bad thing.
I've heard Andreas' twitter likes were telling, before those went private, but that information's out of reach now. That said, I've seen the people who frequently interact with him there, and I wouldn't feel comfortable around them either. He seems to really like it, though. Make of that what you will.
Still, good point on the reality of "moral software use." For all its issues, I do hope Ladybird succeeds as a new browser engine because the internet needs more of those. I'm just not touching it unless they get their shit sorted.
Ideally it should be rewritten to not to use pronouns.
Why? Linux kernel docs use pronouns and they, and they're fine. What's so special about Klingland that they need to keep pronouns out?
The PR is low effort and feels like it was deliberately done for attention.
Have you ever seen the piles of "good first issue" tags on github? Most newcomers start with simple changes, and documentation improvements are high up in being a user's first contribution. Do you have anything that suggests the person behind the PR had such intentions, beyond you thinking it's low effort?
You are leaving out the part where he said he thinks that they sounds weird.
That doesn't help. Also, his main reason remains "keep politics out of my project," completely missing the point that his stance is also political. It's the old "my politics aren't political because they're normal."
I believe he is still open to rewriting the docs to not use pronouns at all
That's even more political, and ridiculously so. Linux kernel docs refer to users as "they." Should they change it? Are they bringing in unnecessary politics into the sanctity of one of the world's greatest collaborative technical projects? Are they too fucking woke?
I remain skeptical of using solely LLMs for this, but it might be relevant: DARPA is looking into their usage for C to Rust translation. See the TRACTOR program.
You streamed together a sequence of misunderstandings, fallacies and self-victimization into an incoherent pile of garbage that fails at actually responding to anything. Got it, got it, you're god's bravest warrior, resisting the authoritarianism of people who think others shouldn't be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt. I'll stop giving you attention now, so sorry.
Toxicity doesn't "work fine," it's contagious and destructive. For projects, it slows progress. For communities in general, it reinforces bad behavior and pushes out newcomers, leading to more negative spaces, isolation, and stagnation, just off the top of my head. These were issues in older communities just as they are in modern ones.
I don't see why we should abandon moderation for your benefit, at the expense of people who care.
I'm lost, here. Do you not think fighting toxicity and hate speech is a valid and important function of moderation that's just as much or more for the sake of the people as it might be for advertisers?
You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?
I literally linked an example.
tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?
Follow the links.
So why are you still upset at them?
Link.
I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it.
I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn't outright confirmation, but it's enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you're not even properly reading what you're replying to. You're going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.
You're right, we probably wouldn't agree, and if my read on you is any good, I'd rather not risk wasting time on that conversion.
If you think my problem with Substack is "Nazis are there right now," then you didn't get it. I must've not explained myself well, and that's on me, but you're missing the point regardless.
Nazis are part of my explanation because it ought to be clear to any reasonable reader how they should be dealt with, but one can still be horrible without being an outright Nazi. Those people should be dealt with similarly. Substack will see something horrible and first ask, "but how would our handling of this affect free speech?" which is a disgrace and a red flag.
I'm commenting on a larger issue related to the topic. At no point do I say people shouldn't listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice. At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.
I've seen people defend Substack saying it's not so bad, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.
I'm gonna say it: fuck free speech, I like myself some censorship. I sincerely believe some things are too harmful to be allowed to openly proliferate, that there's often a feasible path to reaching that conclusion, and it's not that difficult.
We mustn't avoid this because "it harms free speech." Nazis love that argument, and they're a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn't get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn't get support to do so, because they're one of the reasons it's necessary in the first place.
"But not every case is clear-cut like Nazis," people will say, "you shouldn't support censorship, since it can be used for evil. Innocent ideas always get censored, too." To which I'll reply, "tell me more about those innocent ideas." When that happens, tell me. I'll reach out to people in charge, spread the news, get mad, help you in any way I can to fix it. We'll do it together. Fucking tell me more.
But lo and behold, many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles or worse, it's always the same shit.
I don't care if it's Substack, or Ghost, or Twitter, or Reddit, or whatever. It's one thing to platform harmful views unaware. I get it, moderation is hard. Once aware, though, if your response is "but free speech," fuck off. It is moral and correct to censor Nazis. Same for people saying immigrants will eat your pets, or that gays want to sexualize children, change their genders, and harm women. Fuck that.
Platforms defining themselves on free speech is a red flag. "We're popular with both extremes" isn't a defense, it's a self-report that you're just a mercenary and like it that way—both sides being users means double the revenue.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.
I get that, I was excited for Brave as an independent search engine before learning more about them. Kagi genuinely seems to be a good meta search engine, but its leadership is ignorant, reckless, and frankly embarrassing. I won't comment on Searx since I haven't tried or read about it in a long time. Bit bleak, eh?