The terms cult and culture have the same problem(s) as sect and religion. There is no one clear-cut definition, but many competing definitions, most of which are kind of vague or ambiguous. Both sect and cult are usually used in us versus them narratives. If you pick a random person and try to discuss if and why something is a cult/sect or culture/religion you are almost guaranteed to run into unresolvable conflict because you’ll likely have different definitions in mind. The obvious solution is to settle on a common definition beforehand, but that will just cause the next conflict because there are so many and there is no obviously correct one.

People often bring up an aspect of control as the defining characteristic of cults/sects. Does that make all states cults? Does that mean every major Christian denomination was a sect 200 years ago?

Another common definition is that of a new group splitting off from the established group. Does that mean the entirety of Christianity is just a jewish sect?

Most definitions, when applied rigorously, imply that every culture/religion has been a cult/sect at least for some time in the past. And here comes the trouble: Most people from some culture/religion will provide you with a definition for cult/sect, when arguing about it, but will not accept when you apply it to theirs and point out that by that definition it either is a cult/sect, or was 200/500/1000 years ago. Because most people use those terms to denote otherness possibly even in a pejorative way.

In an academic context (for example anthropology or history) the distinction between cult and culture or sect and religion can be useful when a definition is given in the context and it is applied consistently. Outside of academia those terms aren’t very useful beyond instigating people against each other or minorities, solidifying circle jerks, or starting flame wars.

My nonprofessional take on it:

Every culture started out as a cult and all cultures are or have been horrid given the opportunity.

Every religion started out as a sect and all the sects’ and religions’ fairy tales are equally ridiculous when observed from the outside.

The distinction between cult and culture, and sect and religion, has no net positive benefit outside of academia and should be avoided outside of fiction.

Never knew it was such a common nickname. TIL.

Ha! My name is also Kevin! But my friends call me Fuck Off!

Considering how many tests Brave does not pass, I’d say that page looks pretty balanced and fair. Also it is consistent with independent studies where Brave came out on top of the list.

My impression is that most opposition against Brave is largely political. And then people try to find technical reasons after the fact, which simply isn’t justified in comparison with other browsers.

As other comments have pointed out, I’m not convinced the premise of your question is correct. I’ll throw in Slimbook to increase the sample size:

Funny how you do not address most of what I said … so, disingenuous it is.

Regarding optional features, I more used them as a segue red herring into the last three links

ftfy

Nothing good will come of this conversation, so I’ll stop it right here. Have a nice day.

Being chromium based it

• has better performance
• has less bugs
• has better standards compatibility

Don’t get me wrong, I am using Firefox, but your entire post is pretty disingenuous. Criticizing Brave over privacy concerns and then suggesting Firefox instead requires disingenuity or a special kind of ignorance and/or stupidity. Firefox has had 10 times as many privacy “mishaps” as Brave with all the “experiments” of corporate affiliates they shipped to users unannounced. There’s a reason there are so many forks of Firefox.

Pretty much everything you criticize about Brave is entirely optional.

Then you title a link as Brave “getting ousted as spyware”, and the linked to page does not oust Brave as spyware at all. You would do good to adopt some of the more neutral/factual tone of that page.

And in parts that page is pretty ridiculous, too: complaining about what is set as the default search engine (the same as Firefox, btw). Who the fuck cares what search engine is set by default? Just change it. Opt out of everything you do not like. If there’s stuff you cannot opt out of which is bad, we can talk about that. But arguing about optional features is ridiculous.

Edit: little add-on: Brave factually has better out of the box (no plugins) privacy protection than Firefox: https://privacytests.org/

I take it you missed that the “previous one” was also sarcasm.

That’s terrible advice, […]

Is it really? It reliably protects people from all the garbage content on youtube.

Being able to adjust your sarcasm detector is a must-have skill. Sarcasm levels fluctuate wildly depending on platform, community, season, and topic. Otherwise you can never know if you’re making an ass of yourself when replying to other comments. Really, it’s irresponsible to partake in social media without a finely tuned sarcasm detector.

It’s actually a bug in my client (Boost): https://unilem.org/comment/1749581

Weird. Must be some scaling issue in Boost. It even looks like that when I view it full screen and zoom in:

Why does this photo(?) look like digital concept rendering from ~2000 without antialiasing?

They’ve been doing the same with all hyperlinks in the gmail web frontend. Not when you fetch the mails via imap/pop, though.

𝖄𝕰𝕾! 𝕷𝕰𝕿’𝕾 𝕿𝖄𝕻𝕰 𝕷𝕺𝖀𝕯𝕰𝕽!

“Any suggestion that our commitment to continued investment in global health has reduced, is fundamentally untrue,” Dr. Thomas Breuer, the company’s chief global health officer, wrote in a statement.

The company told ProPublica […] that a vaccine for TB is radically different from the company’s other vaccines because it can’t be sold at scale in wealthy countries.

This is the best summary I could come up with. I am not a bot ;-)

They trained an “AI” on an empty set?

All the other comments kind of suggest otherwise, but I am pretty certain that fedora comes with firewalld enabled by default.