With Big Tech’s (google, twitter, instagram, etc) cancel culture, (a.k.a. censorship) in full swing, I’d like to know Brave’s official stance on the First Amendment in general and free speech specifically. Thank you.
Would also like to know.
I would also like an answer on this. Thank you.
Please, don’t answer this.
We, software engineers, must stay away from politics. Taking a stand “as a company” will just contribute to divide society.
Let politics to politicians, and software to software engineers.
I came to Brave because Mozilla asked for more censorship.
Nice try, waltercool, but big tech, from all appearances, is all-in on censorship. I removed Firefox from my machines this morning specifically because of its CEO’s statements regarding the need for more control of communications on Internet platforms like his. The First Amendment is on life support and the Second Amendment is on the hit list. So, I’m asking again, where does Brave officially stand regarding controlling the free expression of ideas on its platform?
I’m with you, I did the same, but this is a lose-lose for Brave.
If they stand like Mozilla, company which motto is “an internet for everyone”, people will mass reject them. Brave is insignificant in terms of numbers with Firefox/Chrome/Edge.
If they stand contrary to censorship, Google, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and Apple thugs will deplatform them from AppStores and advertising.
Brave isn’t a big company, they can’t just go and oppose to Google or Apple as they depend of Chromium, Android/iOS app stores and their providers.
It would be better if companies just remain neutral here, specially in times when Big Tech corporations and cancel culture are killing everyone who stand against them.
USA is facing the tyranny of corporations, who stand above presidents in terms of power, who can manipulate elections, and I do really hope consumers can punish them in the long term. I’m not pro Trump or Biden, I don’t care about them, but this demonstration of power from companies should never happen or tolerated again.
I see what you’re saying, and agree with you.
I was going to ignore this thread — let it spiral into oblivion and die a well-deserved death — but I’m amused by folks whose words make clear they’ve never read the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment. They’re foaming-at-the-mouth about free speech and de-platforming of people and services. I’m sure these same people support strong private property rights. Amazon Web Services, Facebook, Firefox, Google, Twitter (and Brave) — these are all private entities, every one of 'em. Think of it this way: Amazon Web Services (or any other private entity) is a deeply religious baker; and Parler and Trump want to buy a gay wedding cake.
Every civilised society has the right to free speech, but equally every civilised society puts a limit on what is deemed to be acceptable free speech. Most people are perfectly willing to accept the latter if it affects their opponents, but are not so keen if it affects themselves.
Me as well.
Anyway, I trust Brendan Eich.
I hope I won’t have reason to change my mind in the future.
How generously you have deigned to educate us poor, unwashed rubes concerning the First Amendment. I, poor ignorant me, was fine with the dumpster-fire otherwise known as Twitter controlling its content until it, along with the other near-monopolies google, facebook and amazon, censored a sitting POTUS. And now, with the bit between their teeth, these wild horses are calling for the suppression of any and all speech that doesn’t conform to the official DNC narrative. And when the dear leader CEO of Mozilla joined the braying, I ignorantly removed it from my machine, foolishly hoping to find a browser more compatible with my very-limited understanding of free speech. But your seminar on the First Amendment has opened my eyes. Many thanks.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that near-monopolies Twitter and Amazon have colluded to shut down one of the few refuges for free speech, namely Parler. But Parler had it coming, am I right? This free speech stuff gets so confusing.
You are wrong at some statements. Strong private property rights are OK, but no one should apply moderation IF they are being well protected by Section 230. Nowadays you can be removed by entirely political reasons, and can’t legally appeal like any other business.
Also, your example about the bakery is completely wrong by two points:
- A gay couple can try to sue the baker if they want. Due Section 230 no one can appeal against Social Media corporations. Even more, they have no way to directly contact them (no phone or email).
- The gay couple is demanding a physical labor for a man, likely against his will. What if I’m the baker and I have arachnophobia, would you force me to make a spider alike cake?
Now, allowing censorship will always lead to segregation (just look what Gab is), and segregation can only lead to social tension and violence. Keeping a stable society it’s government and NGO duties for sure and that’s why shouldn’t be granted full responsibility to corporations, as they may or not do it for profit reasons.
I really don’t need to know Brave’s “stated” stance on this because their actions will speak volumes more than any statement. As of now, I think it’s clear where they stand, at least for me…and hope it stays that way and they stay OUT of the present fray. Why companies jump into the political nonsense (either side) is beyond me, especially when it is so arbitrary and many times extremely hypocritical. Thank you, Brave, and you are now my go-to browser…hope it stays that way.
Parler made a mistake: they used a third-party cloud platform (AWS). Had they had their own servers and ASN — preferably with a free-speech-friendly worldwide CDN — nobody could have censored them. Expensive? Yes, but it’s necessary, not to say compulsory. That being said, I believe Parler will be online again sooner or later and, most likely, they will also get many more users. People are leaving Twitter in droves, and Twitter is losing money: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/twtr
I totally agree with your assessment. Parler took the easier, less-expensive path, naively thinking AWS would be a politically-neutral host, and it has paid the price. And I certainly hope you’re right about Parler’s reappearance.
Freedom of speech is not about politics, its is a founding principle of democracy and imprescriptible human rights. What has been seen on Facebook and Tweeter, even against someone like Trump is affecting many particularly about how much freedom is left over internet. Brave being a browser, interfering on user freedom would be a considerable set back.
+1. I would very much appreciate Brave to comment of their views of human rights freedoms including the fundamental freedom of speech, and particularly over and through the wolrdwi wide web.