Both he and the board say otherwise and his stance was known prior to his appointment. Hell, one of the board members resigned over his coming appointment and that wasn't enough to get the others to not back him.
They "say otherwise" because that's the polite thing to do in this situation. A "voluntary" resignation keeps everyone on good terms instead of producing an inevitable slapfight between Mozilla and Brave. The resignation was pretty clearly under duress, no matter what the official / publicly stated reasoning might have been.
His stance was known, maybe, but it wasn't until after he was appointed that the backlash ramped up to its peak.
If all of the main participants making public statements about something does not convince you that it went down the way it did then I don't think there are any arguments that would convince you at all.
> n I don't think there are any arguments that would convince you
Of course there are arguments. The arguments would be if there wasn't a huge controversy about it. But there was.
Thats the evidence that he was forced out.
If, instead, there was no controversy of note, and nobody had called for his resignation, internally or externally, then in that situation I would believe that they were not forced out.
But thats not what we saw. What we saw was a huge controversy, and we saw people, and even other companies, calling for him to be pushed out of the company.
If this evidence had not existed, then I would believe that they were not forced out.
