Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 441 posts

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#221

Post by gnarbarian »

sprafa wrote: post #214
tajen wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women resign everyday "because they can't manage effectively" when, if fact, it's harassment. You could justify any discrimination with "he quit, that was his choice". Today the discrimination is against someone who held a political opinion some day in his past. Or should I say "in his/her/its/Apachehelicopter" past as to not assume their gender and not condemn my future ability to be CEO?

He is not a woman and he is not a part of an historically discriminated against group. You're making a huge false equivalence that ignores one simple thing: he resigned BECAUSE he was found to support discriminatory policies. If the problem is discrimination then he was part of the problem. Women who resigned because they are harassed are victims of discrimination. Men who resign because they SUPPORT discrimination a…

>historically discriminated against group

So when does reparations end? Is there some objective condition that can be met where we can all agree to stop trying to prop certain groups up while discouraging others?

I personally don't think that's possible. We would spend the rest of time trying to correct perceived wrongs done to categories of people for hundreds of years. It's far more sane to simply agree to NOT discriminate based on race/gender/creed/religion/politics OR say that it is fair play to do so.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#222

Post by csallen »

gnarbarian wrote: post #211
csallen wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being gay/black/female/disabled/etc isn't a choice, therefore I don't believe businesses should be able to discriminate on that basis. Being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, therefore it doesn't make sense for the government to make laws protecting such groups imo.

>being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, I'm not so sure. Maybe they were brought up that way. You can't choose your parents or your religion in that respect. Muslims have a choice to be Muslim or not, should it be OK to discriminate against them too?

I personally think we live in a deterministic universe and free will is a farce. A serial killer is, ultimately, the product of biological and environmental forces that were out of his control.

That said, we still need to draw the line somewhere if we want our laws to be effective. And the universally intuitive place to draw it is between biology and environment. The result is that environmentally unlucky individuals will get screwed so the rest of society can flourish. So yeah, if you had racist parents who brainwashed you with neo-nazi doctrine, I'm fully okay with the government not requiring that you be accepted by society.

Religions are a touchy subject for many, but I don't personally believe they should enjoy any special protections. And I say that as an atheist who'd be highly discriminated against by many, many people.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#223

Post by scatters »

cm2187 wrote: post #209
glogla wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job. Maybe not direct instance. But if I were at Mozilla, I would have resigned because of him. I mean, Eich was giving money to people campaigning for removing civil rights from people based on their sexual orientation. That's not a small thing - if it was race instead of sexuality…

So you think that if the programer has the wrong political views, his loops and arrays stink?

He wasn't working as a programmer.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#224

Post by ZoF »

glogla wrote: post #191
smsm42 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. This is a very disingenuous way of describing it. More proper way to describe it would be that a group of political activists put pressure on Mozilla to fire Eich because of his political views, for political reasons, and Mozilla as organization caved. There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his…

> There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job. Maybe not direct instance. But if I were at Mozilla, I would have resigned because of him. I mean, Eich was giving money to people campaigning for removing civil rights from people based on their sexual orientation. That's not a small thing - if it was race instead of sexuality…

That's your choice to make.

That said, most rational people can identify an opinion they disagree with without resorting to threatening the livelihood of the person espousing it.

The man made a $1,000 donation to support a view he believed in. He did nothing illegal or wrong and pledged promoting equality at Mozilla.

He then had a large concerted smear campaign run against him, with major sites threatening to block Firefox access unless Mozilla took action.

We have no way to know if you'd actually quit if you were in this situation; more likely you simply disagree with this view and see this as the easiest way to justify this situation as 'right'.

I disagree with Brandon Eich on this point, but I also disagree with how Mozilla and members of the LGBT community handled this.

The way this played out, and what it represents, introduces a chilling effect on honest political discussion/participation for anyone with opinions that might be considered offensive.

It sets a very bad precedent.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#225

Post by gnarbarian »

csallen wrote: post #222
gnarbarian wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, I'm not so sure. Maybe they were brought up that way. You can't choose your parents or your religion in that respect. Muslims have a choice to be Muslim or not, should it be OK to discriminate against them too?

I personally think we live in a deterministic universe and free will is a farce. A serial killer is, ultimately, the product of biological and environmental forces that were out of his control. That said, we still need to draw the line somewhere if we want our laws to be effective. And the universally intuitive place to draw it is between biology and environment. The result is that environmentally unlucky individuals…

Cheers for a great discussion. Here's to hoping we don't get fired for it.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#226

Post by anc84 »

angry_octet wrote: post #117
tonyplee wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good work! BTW, how easy is it to add FF + noscript type of features to chrome? --- Only enable JS on whitelist websites - all others are default disable unless user explicitly temporary or permanently enable it.

It is in the settings for Chrome. Settings->Advanced->Privacy->Content: Cookies->Keep until quit + exceptions you choose. Javascript->Deny all + exceptions you choose. When you browse there is a little icon in the address bar to whitelist a site. It is a bit of a pain at first but it makes things a lot safer. When you go incognito it will forget which sites you whitelisted at session end, so you are not enabling a si…

For people as conciuous as this, I highly recommend uMatrix. It is a switchboard that easily lets you control anything (from initial request to frames) per domain.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#227

Post by ZoF »

glogla wrote: post #193
gnarbarian wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I struggle to see how the world could be arranged such that we could all hold forth with controversial views, but such that there was never a consequence to holding those views. What would that world look like? It's called not talking politics or religion at work. Or not discriminating against someone because of something unrelated to their job. There is zero conflict of interest between Eich supporting prop 8 and h…

There are limits to that kind of tolerance, though. You shouldn't care what politicians your coworker likes. You shouldn't care what religion your coworker follows. You should care if your coworker is neo-nazi or if he is supporting Islamic State or Westboro Baptist Church. The only diagreement is whether Eich was closer to the former or the latter. I can perfectly imagine people whose rights he wanted to take away t…

You have no evidence he is closer to the former and all this is is justification for cultural Marxism.

The only thing that an individual should be judged on at work is actions/comments/etc. made at work.

If you'd like to argue otherwise I'd hope you at least have something more formally define-able than 'he was trending towards being a neo-nazi'. I'd also expect you to be able to point to an authority for defining these ideological limits other than the currently loosely defined group-think.

Please answer these few scenarios:

-Should someone believing and actively promoting pro-life stances(outside of work) be fired?

-Should a casual narcotics user on weekends be fired once it's found out he/she uses?

-Should someone be fired for having a confederate flag hanging in their living room? What if they're black?

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#228

Post by mavhc »

sangnoir wrote: post #194
Frondo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job." I don't know if that's true. I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla, but I'm 100% it's a non-zero number. They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8. I couldn't say whether they did, being neither gay nor a mozilla employee, but I could imagine it…

> I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla...They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8 Does that mean CEOs/management should be forced to resign for donating to the Trump campaign if some of their employees are Mexican immigrants or Muslim?

Everyone who donates to the Trump campaign should be forced to resign

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#229

Post by 8draco8 »

4ad wrote: post #212
rocky1138 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you running the multiprocess Firefox build? The speed improvements with that version are insane.

If only Firefox used a native GUI on the mac. I really don't like Safari. But I also value consistency: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of... .

This is not SFW image!

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#230

Post by khedoros »

SimeVidas wrote: post #151
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, the whole Sponsored Tiles push ( https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504 https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publish... ) and attempts to justify ads in the browser as "user-enhancing" made me very wary of Firefox. Moreso than Chromium.

Why? From what I’ve read, it was completely harmless. I smell FUD :-)

A subset of the tiles are paid advertisements. "Completely harmless" depends on your point of view. Personally, if I have a choice, I'll opt for the browser that doesn't show me "sponsored content" on first boot, just out of principle.
Post reply on HN