So I randomly stumbled upon some fresh drama around Thorium Web Browser thanks to a video made by a Chris Titus Tech channel on YouTube. While I do not use it and I do not think I even heard about it before, it is a nice opportunity to talk about few related topics. I will sum up the situation for you. The browser had some softcore furry porn hidden in the about section, supposedly as a joke to be removed once found. Some people got mad in github issue comments and got even madder when they found out about an anti-circumcision page on the browser’s author website, which contained some explicit images (they probably found it while searching for his personal information, because someone then called to his home and shared a phone call recording). The browser is now clean and the page was removed too.
First, lets talk about the fact, that the browser had hidden stuff in it. I personally do not like surprises in my software, but that is because software surprises usually harm your computer or spy on you. In this case it was just an image. If it was an image of a kitten, nobody would care. The worst I can say about it is, that it is a bloat (Seriously, 5 MB PNG? Should have been a JPG) and I am not into it (ew… nose ring).
Now, about the fact that the image was almost pornographic. The prevailing type of a comment seems to be the good old “think of the children”. It is absurd to me, to worry about a hidden image in a web browser, when any web browser allows your child to visit one of the many porn websites, where they will see much more explicit things than this image (not to mention, when they get deep into puberty, they are not children anymore). If a parent is already able to block all these websites, then they would surely not allow their child to use some obscure web browser.
For us adults, if it was randomly displaying porn, that could be an issue in a workplace. But of course, it does not do that, you have to look for it (it was there for 8 months). Also, if you want to use a niche web browser for work, you should be more concerned about security issues, which means you should review the code, which means you would find the image. Legally speaking, there maybe should be a NSFW warning somewhere, but I do not see this as a big deal.
The video I mentioned makes this sound like if it is some kind of inherit disadvantage of open source projects, which is a dumb statement, because this is completely unrelated from the fact, that this web browser is open source. This is an issue of a very small group of developers expressing their creative freedom. This could have happened, if it was closed source freeware too. While it does not really happen nowadays with commercial software (but who really knows, when was the last time you checked every library on your computer for hidden porn?), it did happen in the past when software teams were smaller and less organized, like all those hidden messages in various video games.
People call this unprofessional and that it should not have happened in the first place. You can criticize the image inclusion, I will even agree that this does not belong in a web browser, but that is all you are entitled to. This is a free software, that someone made for themselves and decided to share it with other people, who might find it useful. The developers do not work for you, they have no obligation to bow to your demands. The software is open source. If you do not like something in there and the developers refuse to change it, fork the project or use something else. This ability to circumvent the software owner is one the reasons FOSS is so great. If you did not know about the image, that is on you for not reviewing the code of the software you are using. Sure, I would be angry, if an update compromised the software I rely on, but we are not talking about a security issue, a privacy issue and not even a functionality issue here. We are talking about an image that some people decided to get offended by. If that made you loose your trust, fine, use something else.
Regarding the anti-circumcision page, first of all, it is unrelated to the web browser itself. It is just accessible from the website where the browser can be downloaded. It is not illegal to have an opinion on circumcision, so the only potential issue are the included images. While they do show sexual organs of children and so I would not be surprised it would be ruled illegal, they are obviously not pornographic in nature, but are depicting a medical practice instead. A lot of people can not distinguish that though, so it would be safer to not have them there. I know it is there for shock value, but if someone stays at the page to think about children getting healthy body parts cut off and still does not see a problem with that, some gore will not persuade them otherwise.
When I say I do not like politics being stuffed into games, what I have in mind is people changing or adding things in an established franchise, that do not fit there and just serve to push a message. However, when someone makes their own thing, they can put whatever they want in it, I will just not play it. With other software it is the same. Pushing this into, what was up to that point, a normal web browser, would be very disappointing. If it was like that from the start, I would still not like it, but there would not really be anything to complain about.
Finally, a bit about the call recording. Some people are talking about doxing, which is not the case, because the web browser’s author has full contact information on the website. If anything, that is the biggest mistake he made, because there are some vile people on the internet, who will go to great lengths to hurt people, just because they do not like their opinion. And that is also the main reason, why someone would search for real world contact information, instead of just continuing a discussion on the internet. He can consider himself lucky, if nobody gets the police involved.
Anyway, calling someone using publicly available information is fine. Publicly sharing a recording of that conversation probably not so much, depending on what exactly the local law says about this.
If I were to cover all of this with one word, it would be overreaction. The appropriate response would be to open an issue for removal of the image with “wtf?” as a reason, bunch of people agreeing it is pointless, the developers admitting it was a mistake and removing it. Anything more just makes the people involved look like hysterical babies.