restricting the power of the rich comes with downsides
Say, if I don't believe there's a good reason for a person's wealth to reach Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk levels, if I say that's not healthy for society, that we ought to implement heavier progressive tax and that people like him must pay it properly, can you explain what the downside would be?
To some degree, I agree, including the tendency for infighting among leftists. It's why I've never liked this meme or its variations much. On the other hand, I've recently seen only one side actually mobilize to attack government buildings and harm people inside, and it wasn't the left.
Anecdotally, this week at work, I heard a self-identified rightist argue for banning gay marriage. Others sitting around their table agreed. I've also had the privilege of hearing we should get rid of social programs, and too many jokes about killing people they don't like. Last time I talked to a tankie and they defended oppressive policies saying the ends justify the means, folks around us made fun of them and moved on.
I think one of these groups might not be a real issue. At the very minimum, they're definitely not as dangerous as the other one, right now. So, is the meme a bit silly? Sure. Does that matter? I don't feel like it does.
Please don't reply re: proper tankie political classification. It's beside the point, I'm using them because it seems to be what most imagine when they think "far left."
Poe's law has bested me. I'm just gonna hope it's all a joke and leave, now.
This might sound controversial to you, but I don't want the rich being able to oppress people.
(Historically, that went horribly. It's still going horribly, in fact.)
I think you're being disingenuously generous with your interpretation of far right policies.
If you want to see far right evils, all you need is to look at the news. The comment you replied to contains a straightforward example. Could you tell us which evils the far left is committing right now?
I think you might've accidentally added sarcasm tags to your admission.
As a small protest against problems with the AI industry, I don't read posts with them. It costs little to not contribute to the issues at hand, and being unwilling to drop the slop doesn't endear the authors to me.
Of all the aesthetics one could go for, I'm not sure that I'd pick Twitter-AI themed IED, myself.
I don't think this thread is helping.
In fairness, these projects have different objectives. Ladybird aims to be a full browser, Servo doesn't.
There is Verso, which aims to build a browser on Servo, but it's still very young (though, I suppose that applies to LB as well). Ideally, I'd like to see all these projects grow into complete solutions. I think that'd be healthier for the internet. It's just really difficult to support Ladybird with Andreas as he's acting right now.
I think there was a similar idea in the USA with the COPIED Act, but I haven't heard about it since.
Might be nicer if they just didn't care.
Check the comment section for the video version of this article by Niccolò, or the comment section of the post on r/browsers, or the replies whenever these issues are mentioned on Twitter, and so on, and you'll find a bunch of brave people saying stuff like:
These were taken directly from the video. They're on the mild side. Throw in also some "stop inserting politics (other than mine) into tech" comments, and a few homophobes not even trying to hide it. Rather than not caring, many of them like it a lot, especially the right-wing politics.
I don't think every Brave user is a cunt, but fucking hell, are loud cunts seemingly attracted to Brave.
To folks bothered by this: know that the lead developer of Ladybird is a big fan of Brendan Eich.