The post author mentions in the comments he doesn't like the politics of the Mullvad and Brave creators.

Brave creator Brendan Eich is also the creator of JavaScript, which powers most of the web today. Eich donated to Republicans and pro-marriage causes, yes.

The author thinks that should disqualify his tooling from the open indie web.

I find that kind of political gatekeeping fit for a bygone and dead era. It’s a point of view that says we must cut off from our lives everyone who disagrees with our politics, even in the slightest.

Commercialized sites like Reddit are on the decline in part because of over-zealous mods driven by politics who ban and silence dissent. Facebook and pre-acquisition Twitter were also focused on silencing dissent; so much that they banned a sitting US President.

But the indie web of the ’90s? It was filled with free speech and live-and-let-live libertarians. Reddit originally was a bastion of free speech, and its founders were libertarian-leaning. Their vision has been polluted by the commercialization and big media takeover of Reddit..

The indie web is not likely to revive for many reasons. But it certainly will not revive with the kind of political gatekeeping the blog author is advocating.

▲

RunSet a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Eich donated to Republicans and pro-marriage causes, yes.

Pro-marriage as in "prohibit marriage", I presume, since that is the cause to which he donated.[0]

https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-mozilla-ceo-addresses-anti-ga...

▲

mghackerlady 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right, but being against gay people isn't exactly the live and let live vision

	▲	627467 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Its funny because its deploying the same broad shunning mechanism the other side is accused of using

▲

benj111 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I find that kind of political gatekeeping fit for a bygone and dead era

This is a new thing though. I'm on my 40s, you didn't used to expect people to cancel things because you disagreed with the creators politics.

>Twitter were also focused on silencing dissent; so much that they banned a sitting US President.

Should the sitting president get a free pass? For better or worse these platforms do need to have rules. If those rules are to be fair, everyone should be held to the same standard.

▲

InsideOutSanta 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Reddit and Facebook are on the decline because both are full of slop. The problem is undermoderation, not overmoderation. Twitter's real decline started after the acquisition and its ostensible return to free speech.

I should also think that libertarians should be in support of private people deciding not to support companies or people that support causes they disagree with. That's an excellent example of people's freedom of action.

▲

vouaobrasil 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Reddit and Facebook are on the decline because both are full of slop. The problem is undermoderation, not overmoderation.

I don't think that's really the problem. I think it's just because Reddit and Facebook are too large to work, period - sort of what Kirkpatrick Sale was trying to get at in his book "Human Scale". Global systems of humans connected and interacting are probably doomed to this regardless of what mechanisms are instituted, unless those mechanisms limit in some way the local size of the interaction.

	▲	InsideOutSanta 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree that this isn't the primary issue; my comment was a response to somebody making a specific claim, which is why I highlighted the moderation issues on Reddit and Facebook. I agree with you that sheer scale is the primary issue, but for a particular reason: these systems are all prime targets for malicious actors intent on manipulating people on a large scale.

▲

benj111 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>I should also think that libertarians should be in support of private people deciding not to support companies or people that support causes they disagree with

As a liberal, not a libertarian, I would say that's a bit reductive.

People should have the right to express their political beliefs. The fear of cancellation and potentially losing their job etc isn't conducive to freedom of thought. Yes you individually may not agree and may choose not to support them, but here we have people actively calling on others not to support them, and condemning those who would choose to carry on engaging.

It's very divisive, 'you are either with us or against us'. That is far from any kind of liberty.

▲

InsideOutSanta 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Isn't calling for boycotts an essential part of free speech and libertarian-style freedom? If libertarians favor small governments and believe that free markets will govern themselves, aren't boycotts exactly how that happens?

	▲	benj111 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well as I said, I'm a liberal, not a libertarian. I don't believe in small government or the power of the free market in a political sense. I do believe in freedom of speech and allowing others that freedom, even if I disagree with it. Punishing others, because they don't enforce your values is anathema to me. Basically what is being suggested is that if I believe in democracy and freedom, I should be ok with an elected police state. It should be obvious that I can be pro democracy, but anti bad things that come out of that process. I don't think it would be hypocritical for someone to support freedom or some other value, by removing freedom, or contradicting that value. I support freedom of speech, that doesn't extend to allowing others to lie, especially in the name of removing others freedoms. That doesn't invalidate my views or values.