I knew the "elephant in the room" section of the article was coming before I started reading... but then it wasn't even about the right thing! The other different, bigger, angrier, elephant in the room is about Brave being YACB (Yet Another Chromium Browser). A browser built on the Chromium project is riding on top of that elephant trying to tell it where to go.
I think Google created a "moat" in terms of hyperaccelerating browser development with disproportionate firepower that nobody else could keep up with. And one potential non-terrible use of AI might be diminishing that moat and with it Google's ability to steer the whole web into their ecosystem. So if you want to be an optimist maybe that's a silver lining that will grow with time.
From what I can tell, Iceweasel is more or less a reskinned Firefox: there's some code changes to make it compatible with Debian's licensing guidelines, but it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to describe Iceweasel as 'Firefox for Debian'. And so are you also certain that the maintainers of Firefox comply with your requirements?
EDIT: Seems like they edited their comment instead of replying (kinda weird?), answering "yes" to my question. Perhaps I am a pessimist but I am doubtful that every single maintainer involved in Iceweasel complies with their requirements. And presumably this applies to more than just the browser: what OS are they using? What apps do they use? What phone do they have? What bank do they use? What car do they own? Etc. When you take such a hard stance against something over a refused pronoun PR (which btw was definitely chuddy of him), you nonetheless invite scrutiny against yourself, particularly when you say things like "You might be amoral, some of us give a fsck."
What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact. It's why JK Rowling is so hated but not Orson Scott Card: the latter is likely giving just as money money to objectionable causes but he's not being loud about it [anymore], whereas JK Rowling is being loud... very loud. And so buying Harry Potter merch becomes a litmus test for morality, but not buying Ender's Game merch. Alas.
Some people don't allow imperfection to stop them from achieving their goals to the best of their ability. Your takedown of Iceweasel completely misses the point.
> Your takedown of Iceweasel completely misses the point.
This is not a takedown of Iceweasel: it was merely the example that they provided. It could've been anything.
> Some people don't allow imperfection to stop them from achieving their goals to the best of their ability.
One could use this exact argument to explain one's continued use of, shills for, or even contributions to Ladybird, because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
And let me be clear, the goal with these comments is not to convince 1attice to use Ladybird against their objections: the goal was to invite them to reflect on their boycott and question whether it was a proportionate response. But instead I got the usual moralistic response where I'm accused of being amoral for not [presumably] not engaging in the same boycott. Alas.
>One could use this exact argument to explain one's continued use of, shills for, or even contributions to Ladybird, because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
Or, to your point, these arguments could count in favor of Firefox in opposition to Chromium.
Very true, though the suspicious mind seeking to evade Google's dominance will be naturally wary of then picking a browser that's kept afloat in-part by Google. I do correct my previous assertion though of a "Chromium/Firefox hegemony" since Firefox only seems to hold ~5% market share: <a href="https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide" rel="nofollow">https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl....
> because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
Perhaps OP is more concerned with how humans interact with each other than Chromium/Firefox's hegemony. Perhaps combating the hegemony is only worthwhile to OP if the incumbent treats its users with equal respect.
OP described that they researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it. I assume this means looking for things like a CoC, and watching how maintainers respond to users.
When you point out that every person at Mozilla may not behave the same way, it misses OP's point. He's not interacting with the Mozilla community - he's interacting with Debian's Iceweasel community.
I don't know if you're amoral or not - that's not a judgment I'm prepared to make. I caution you not to confuse the word "amoral" (not caring about the morality - as it sounds you may not) with "immoral" (not being moral yourself.) I'm not sure it was an attack on your character.
That said, a thread that begins "Fair enough. What browser are you using?" and then devolves into an attack as to whether it's dependencies support OP's views does not appear to be made in good faith.
> Perhaps OP is more concerned with how humans interact with each other than Chromium/Firefox's hegemony.
Fair enough.
====
> Perhaps combating the hegemony is only worthwhile to OP if the incumbent treats its users with equal respect.
The issue arose from a pronoun PR, which I regard as disrespectful towards contributors. One can speculate whether that'll trickle down to the users, but I'd imagine most users being unaware of this drama going on behind the scenes. Then again it's a small project largely followed by people who care about the Chromium/Firefox thing so maybe not?
====
> OP described that they researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it.
Did they? Where?
====
> He's not interacting with the Mozilla community - he's interacting with Debian's Iceweasel community.
> whether it's dependencies support OP's views
Okay, let's say that I do the same thing: I fork Ladybird and give it a new name (Ladybug) and a new icon. Maybe I swap out the IO library for whatever reason. Does that free Ladybug from upstream's drama? Can 1attice now safely use Ladybug knowing that it respects human rights because Ladybird is a mere dependency?
====
> I'm not sure it was an attack on your character.
> then devolves into an attack
You're unsure whether their ad hominem was an attack on my character, but you are certain that me questioning their boycott was an attack? Huh?
> Okay, let's say that I do the same thing: I fork Ladybird and give it a new name (Ladybug) and a new icon. Maybe I swap out the IO library for whatever reason. Does that free Ladybug from upstream's drama? Can 1attice now safely use Ladybug knowing that it respects human rights because Ladybird is a mere dependency?
Once again, you seem to be missing the point. It's not a simply a matter of moral purity. OP is interested in projects where they and their friends feel welcome in the community: to submit bugs, to contribute, or just to use the tool. DHH's views on race (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey...) - and pronouns - make that difficult for some people.
While I don't personally submit pull requests to change documentation which refers to users with male pronouns, I do always find it jarring and confusing when I come across gendered language in that context. I guess the best way to put it is that I find it "illogical" and so I double-take. In technical documentation, it seems sensible to reduce confusion through accurate terminology, politics aside. So, DHH's stance that using a non-gendered term for a userbase that consists of more than one gender is woke "politics", seems to me to be it's own form of virtue signaling - virtues which make me feel unwelcome contributing.
> You're unsure whether their ad hominem was an attack on my character, but you are certain that me questioning their boycott was an attack? Huh?
I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem, especially in the this context: in this thread you criticize "the usual moralistic response" in defense of "combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony" - a technical goal. You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
> amoral: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions like this:
> > What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact.
When OP and others explained how they evaluate projects, you haven't demonstrated a willingness to genuinely understand them. It seems you are more interested in proving that they are illogical. But in fact it's OK to disagree and have different goals.
> I do always find it jarring and confusing when I come across gendered language in that context.
While I genuinely do not object to gender neutral language, I often find the opposite to be true: it's extremely obvious when gendered pronouns have been lazily replaced. For example, "If the Minister consults the Commission before they issue a direction, they must notify the Board before they take any further action." Who is "they" in this scenario? And is each "they" referring to the same entity? What this made-up example demonstrates is that, very often, switching to gender neutral language often requires you to rewrite and restructure the text, rather than merely find-and-replacing he/him/his with they/them/theirs. Though wrt to the specific Ladybird PR in question, it really was that simple.
Steel-manning the argument, I can understand a general aversion to updating language just for the sake of updating language: nothing is being added, clarified, or elaborated on. It's not like the section was rewritten to include a new feature and the rewrite used gender-neutral language. If anything, one could easily accuse the PR of being an attempt to pad a resume.
That being said, I do want to reiterate that Kling was being an absolute chud for rejecting the PR the way he did.
====
> I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem
Ah, the "just asking questions" defence. Wonderful.
====
> You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
Fun fact, saying someone is without morals is also an ad hominem attack.
====
> You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions
No? Me stating an assumption based on demonstrated behaviour is part of questioning their boycott.
====
> When OP and others explained how they evaluate projects
Okay, this is the second time you've referenced conversations that have not taken place within this thread, so let me remind you of the flow of the conversation with 1attice thus far:
> I'm excited for ladybird to reach alpha
> [flagged comment that said something approximating "I don't use browsers that don't respect human rights"]
> Fair enough. Which browser are you currently using?
> Iceweasel
> And you are certain that its maintainers comply with your requirements?
> Yes. [later edited to repeat the "yes" and state that I might be amoral]
> From what I can tell, Iceweasel is more or less a reskinned Firefox: there's some code changes to make it compatible with Debian's licensing guidelines, but it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to describe Iceweasel as 'Firefox for Debian'. And so are you also certain that the maintainers of Firefox comply with your requirements?
At no point during this exchange did they explain that they "researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it" or "explained how they evaluate projects" (both quoting you). In fact, prior to their comment editing, both of their answers to my questions were single-word responses. So once again I must insist that you actually show me these comments where they supposably said these things, because I cannot find these comments from 1attice anywhere in the comments or on their profile, so I'm starting to doubt their existence.
> Ah, the "just asking questions" defence. Wonderful.
The text you quoted does not lean on asking questions as a defense. For the third time, I'm pointing out that the word "amoral" is not a character judgment.
I'm also not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. In fact, in your last comment, you said you were only "questioning their boycott."
> Fun fact, saying someone is without morals is also an ad hominem attack.
I'm not sure how to be any more clear that that's "immoral" (without morals) and not "amoral" (uninterested in morals).
> At no point during this exchange did they explain that they "researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it" or "explained how they evaluate projects" (both quoting you).
"Yes" and "I have been in the scene for years, and I have researched and sourced carefully" was a clear reply to you asking if they had done their research. It may not be satisfactory to you, but the question was answered. (They actually previously explained more about their research but edited out.)
I don't think we're going to see eye to eye, but it was nice chatting with you.
The "just asking questions" defence is most exemplified by this South Park clip: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKsfJHZ9vXE" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKsfJHZ9vXE. But the concept is not confined to questions: it describes how attackers hedge their disparaging statements. "You might be amoral, some of us give a fsck" is so obviously an example of this that it feels asinine discussing it at all: it feels like trying to convince someone that "and" is a conjunction. I even fed the exchange into ChatGPT and asked what it thought "the 'just asking questions' defence" meant and it understood it without issue. I can even paste the output if you want. And let me be clear, I understand the distinction between amoral and immoral: it's still a personal attack. And I'm assuming the HN mods agree because their comment is still flagged.
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
I think Google created a "moat" in terms of hyperaccelerating browser development with disproportionate firepower that nobody else could keep up with. And one potential non-terrible use of AI might be diminishing that moat and with it Google's ability to steer the whole web into their ecosystem. So if you want to be an optimist maybe that's a silver lining that will grow with time.
__MatrixMan__ · · focus · HN ↗
1attice · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
1attice · · focus · HN ↗
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
1attice · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
EDIT: Seems like they edited their comment instead of replying (kinda weird?), answering "yes" to my question. Perhaps I am a pessimist but I am doubtful that every single maintainer involved in Iceweasel complies with their requirements. And presumably this applies to more than just the browser: what OS are they using? What apps do they use? What phone do they have? What bank do they use? What car do they own? Etc. When you take such a hard stance against something over a refused pronoun PR (which btw was definitely chuddy of him), you nonetheless invite scrutiny against yourself, particularly when you say things like "You might be amoral, some of us give a fsck."
What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact. It's why JK Rowling is so hated but not Orson Scott Card: the latter is likely giving just as money money to objectionable causes but he's not being loud about it [anymore], whereas JK Rowling is being loud... very loud. And so buying Harry Potter merch becomes a litmus test for morality, but not buying Ender's Game merch. Alas.
radlad · · focus · HN ↗
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
This is not a takedown of Iceweasel: it was merely the example that they provided. It could've been anything.
> Some people don't allow imperfection to stop them from achieving their goals to the best of their ability.
One could use this exact argument to explain one's continued use of, shills for, or even contributions to Ladybird, because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
And let me be clear, the goal with these comments is not to convince 1attice to use Ladybird against their objections: the goal was to invite them to reflect on their boycott and question whether it was a proportionate response. But instead I got the usual moralistic response where I'm accused of being amoral for not [presumably] not engaging in the same boycott. Alas.
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
Or, to your point, these arguments could count in favor of Firefox in opposition to Chromium.
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
radlad · · focus · HN ↗
Perhaps OP is more concerned with how humans interact with each other than Chromium/Firefox's hegemony. Perhaps combating the hegemony is only worthwhile to OP if the incumbent treats its users with equal respect.
OP described that they researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it. I assume this means looking for things like a CoC, and watching how maintainers respond to users.
When you point out that every person at Mozilla may not behave the same way, it misses OP's point. He's not interacting with the Mozilla community - he's interacting with Debian's Iceweasel community.
I don't know if you're amoral or not - that's not a judgment I'm prepared to make. I caution you not to confuse the word "amoral" (not caring about the morality - as it sounds you may not) with "immoral" (not being moral yourself.) I'm not sure it was an attack on your character.
That said, a thread that begins "Fair enough. What browser are you using?" and then devolves into an attack as to whether it's dependencies support OP's views does not appear to be made in good faith.
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
Fair enough.
====
> Perhaps combating the hegemony is only worthwhile to OP if the incumbent treats its users with equal respect.
The issue arose from a pronoun PR, which I regard as disrespectful towards contributors. One can speculate whether that'll trickle down to the users, but I'd imagine most users being unaware of this drama going on behind the scenes. Then again it's a small project largely followed by people who care about the Chromium/Firefox thing so maybe not?
====
> OP described that they researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it.
Did they? Where?
====
> He's not interacting with the Mozilla community - he's interacting with Debian's Iceweasel community.
> whether it's dependencies support OP's views
Okay, let's say that I do the same thing: I fork Ladybird and give it a new name (Ladybug) and a new icon. Maybe I swap out the IO library for whatever reason. Does that free Ladybug from upstream's drama? Can 1attice now safely use Ladybug knowing that it respects human rights because Ladybird is a mere dependency?
====
> I'm not sure it was an attack on your character.
> then devolves into an attack
You're unsure whether their ad hominem was an attack on my character, but you are certain that me questioning their boycott was an attack? Huh?
radlad · · focus · HN ↗
Once again, you seem to be missing the point. It's not a simply a matter of moral purity. OP is interested in projects where they and their friends feel welcome in the community: to submit bugs, to contribute, or just to use the tool. DHH's views on race (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey...) - and pronouns - make that difficult for some people.
While I don't personally submit pull requests to change documentation which refers to users with male pronouns, I do always find it jarring and confusing when I come across gendered language in that context. I guess the best way to put it is that I find it "illogical" and so I double-take. In technical documentation, it seems sensible to reduce confusion through accurate terminology, politics aside. So, DHH's stance that using a non-gendered term for a userbase that consists of more than one gender is woke "politics", seems to me to be it's own form of virtue signaling - virtues which make me feel unwelcome contributing.
> You're unsure whether their ad hominem was an attack on my character, but you are certain that me questioning their boycott was an attack? Huh?
I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem, especially in the this context: in this thread you criticize "the usual moralistic response" in defense of "combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony" - a technical goal. You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
> amoral: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions like this:
> > What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact.
When OP and others explained how they evaluate projects, you haven't demonstrated a willingness to genuinely understand them. It seems you are more interested in proving that they are illogical. But in fact it's OK to disagree and have different goals.
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
While I genuinely do not object to gender neutral language, I often find the opposite to be true: it's extremely obvious when gendered pronouns have been lazily replaced. For example, "If the Minister consults the Commission before they issue a direction, they must notify the Board before they take any further action." Who is "they" in this scenario? And is each "they" referring to the same entity? What this made-up example demonstrates is that, very often, switching to gender neutral language often requires you to rewrite and restructure the text, rather than merely find-and-replacing he/him/his with they/them/theirs. Though wrt to the specific Ladybird PR in question, it really was that simple.
Steel-manning the argument, I can understand a general aversion to updating language just for the sake of updating language: nothing is being added, clarified, or elaborated on. It's not like the section was rewritten to include a new feature and the rewrite used gender-neutral language. If anything, one could easily accuse the PR of being an attempt to pad a resume.
That being said, I do want to reiterate that Kling was being an absolute chud for rejecting the PR the way he did.
====
> I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem
Ah, the "just asking questions" defence. Wonderful.
====
> You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
Fun fact, saying someone is without morals is also an ad hominem attack.
====
> You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions
No? Me stating an assumption based on demonstrated behaviour is part of questioning their boycott.
====
> When OP and others explained how they evaluate projects
Okay, this is the second time you've referenced conversations that have not taken place within this thread, so let me remind you of the flow of the conversation with 1attice thus far:
> I'm excited for ladybird to reach alpha
> [flagged comment that said something approximating "I don't use browsers that don't respect human rights"]
> Fair enough. Which browser are you currently using?
> Iceweasel
> And you are certain that its maintainers comply with your requirements?
> Yes. [later edited to repeat the "yes" and state that I might be amoral]
> From what I can tell, Iceweasel is more or less a reskinned Firefox: there's some code changes to make it compatible with Debian's licensing guidelines, but it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to describe Iceweasel as 'Firefox for Debian'. And so are you also certain that the maintainers of Firefox comply with your requirements?
At no point during this exchange did they explain that they "researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it" or "explained how they evaluate projects" (both quoting you). In fact, prior to their comment editing, both of their answers to my questions were single-word responses. So once again I must insist that you actually show me these comments where they supposably said these things, because I cannot find these comments from 1attice anywhere in the comments or on their profile, so I'm starting to doubt their existence.
radlad · · focus · HN ↗
The text you quoted does not lean on asking questions as a defense. For the third time, I'm pointing out that the word "amoral" is not a character judgment.
I'm also not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. In fact, in your last comment, you said you were only "questioning their boycott."
> Fun fact, saying someone is without morals is also an ad hominem attack.
I'm not sure how to be any more clear that that's "immoral" (without morals) and not "amoral" (uninterested in morals).
> At no point during this exchange did they explain that they "researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it" or "explained how they evaluate projects" (both quoting you).
"Yes" and "I have been in the scene for years, and I have researched and sourced carefully" was a clear reply to you asking if they had done their research. It may not be satisfactory to you, but the question was answered. (They actually previously explained more about their research but edited out.)
I don't think we're going to see eye to eye, but it was nice chatting with you.
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗