• whou@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      oh sorry! forgot about it adding a description. will do next time.

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    173
    ·
    1 year ago

    Brave Software, the company behind the browser of the same name, was founded by Brendan Eich. He’s best known as the creator of JavaScript from his days at Netscape Communications

    Say no more fam.

  • Lafuma300@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. Couldn’t care less what the founder did or didn’t do. We need as many non-Google browsers as possible. The problem with Brave is that it is a chromium browser.

      • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, does that mean Edge is a Google browser, too?

        Chromium is open-source. Even if Google adds something malicious to the source code (such as that Web Environment Integrity stuff), it can be removed by someone else creating their own browser based on Chromium. That’s the very definition of open-source.

        Related side-note: Lemmy itself is open-source, too. If the creator of Lemmy added something to the software that someone running an instance didn’t agree with, they could simply fork the original software and remove the unwanted addition. Some people do disagree with that person’s views, and yet they’re still here. Many of them joined .world and other instances instead of .ml because they disagreed with the creator’s views.

        While Google, the creator of Chromium, isn’t a good company for the consumer, I personally think Chromium itself isn’t a bad idea. It’s just that Google and some other companies modify it for their own means, and those means aren’t always consumer-friendly.

        All that to say: while the company that originally created Chromium is bad, the software isn’t. And while some of the companies and people using that software are bad (including Brave, IMO), some of them are looking out for their users’ interests, and those forks of Chromium are generally ok. (You should still actually do research and not pick a fork because the company developing it said it’s okay, though. Take a look at what others are saying and verify it.)

        • escapesamsara@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, does that mean Edge is a Google browser, too?

          Yes.

          All that to say: while the company that originally created Chromium is bad, the software isn’t.

          Only to the extent that websites are built for chromium compatibility, due to its monopoly on the internet. It’s great software because it’s the most popular software so all other smaller providers that serve that software have to focus their resources into ensuring compatibility. Chromium(Blink) itself is pretty mid, and definitely equal to WebKit or Gecko, not better or significantly worse.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      Brave works for what I need it to do. I don’t like lending credence to bigots(secret or otherwise) but if someone is gonna say “don’t use this browser” they need to list a replacement that has the same functionality. And it can’t be “just use duckduckgo” because we all fucking have that on our phones and none of us can use it as our primary browser and we all know exactly why. 😒

        • KroninJ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          As far as I’m aware, the ddg browser collects data and they sell it to Microsoft. The search by itself is fine though.

          • RIP_Apollo@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you have a source for the claim that DuckDuckGo browser is selling user data to Microsoft?

            You might be referring to the time when the DuckDuckGo browser was blocking all known trackers except Microsoft trackers. After that information was made public and users complained, DuckDuckGo was able to renegotiate its agreement with Microsoft so that it can block their trackers.

            Furthermore, DuckDuckGo now publish their blocklist on GitHub.

            Source: https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/05/duckduckgo-microsoft-tracking-scripts

            So this privacy issue has been rectified now. But even if it hadn’t, failing to block Microsoft trackers isn’t the same as collecting data and selling it to Microsoft.

            But if you are aware of DDG browser selling data to Microsoft, please share a source.

    • JoYo 🇺🇸@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      no one wants to secure their web render so they’ll always use whatever is native to the platform.

      on windows that’s chromium. on macos that’s webkit.

      • Espi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What does this even mean. Chromium or Webkit are not “native” to an OS. OSs don’t magically include browser engines, its not a critical component of an OS either.

        Most OSs do come with browsers preinstalled, but they are programs just like any other. You can remove Safari from macOS (albeit its pretty hard because root is read only and signed), you can remove Edge from Windows. In my desktop with Windows 10 the only browser I have is Firefox (not even Edge), does that make Gecko the “native” browser engine?

        If anything, the native browser engine for Windows would be MSHTML from Internet Explorer.

          • crazycaveman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Chromium isn’t native to Windows. iOS is the only OS (I’m aware of) where browsers are forced to use a specific engine, but even that will be changing

              • crazycaveman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, I’m not. Chromium doesn’t exist in Windows unless you install a program that includes it. Chromium web engine is “native” to the chromium web browser, not to any OS (except maybe ChromeOS). As espi mentioned, Internet explorer’s mshtml is the only engine “native” to Windows. Just look at the Opera browser, they changed web engines from Presto to chromium; that’s not using “what’s native to the platform” (Opera works across all OS’s with chromium, except for iOS for the restriction I mentioned before), it’s using what the developers/company want to use to render their pages. Nothing in Windows itself provides any of the chromium engine “pieces”

                • zysarus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This was true until Edge transitioned to Chromium. Now the natively installed browser in Windows is Chromium based.

                • JoYo 🇺🇸@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Edge is using EMET for memory protections.

                  Chrome has EMET disabled because it’s own memory protections conflict and it just won’t execute.

                  When you’re make a web view for Windows you’re either bringing a long your own rendering or using Edge because it’s included.

                  No one wants to secure their own rendering which is why they all use whatever is already there which is EMET which is a pita to test so they just go with Edge.

                  native is just jargon for “what is already there.”

    • Neutron Star@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In fact. Mozilla rely more in Google. If i wasn’t mistaken 90% of their money came from Google and they rely Google safebrowsing wherein it exposes your IP to Google

  • Daniel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    TL;DR: The article claims that the Brave web browser is bad and should not be used.

    The author points out that Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript, co-founder (and ex-CEO) of Mozilla, and founder of Brave, donated 1,000 USD in support of a proposition to ban same-sex marriage. Along with making the claim that Brave’s goal is not to act as an ad-blocker, but instead to build and grow their own advertisement network, and he also believes that the network has several flaws:

    • Brave Ads paysout in a form of cryptocurrency, called BAT (🦇).
    • As BAT is a cryptocurrency there is high volatility.
    • BAT can not be redeemed for fiat (“actual”) money directly from within the Brave Wallet.
    • The author also believes that “it [the network] has largely failed” but that it “has generated a lot of revenue for Brave,” via the ICO (Initial Coin Offering; IPO for crypto).

    In addition to these key points the author also:

    • Claims that Brave prompted FTX, before the scandal.
    • Cites the The Brave Marketer Podcast where ex-CMO of Crypto.com Steven Kalifowitz shares an ambitious goal of being a “‘brand like Coke and Netflix.’” The author then mentions that:
      • In 2023 there was a report from The Financial Times that Crypto.com traded against their customers.
      • In 2022 the company try to hide the severity of its layoffs.
    • Mentions Brave’s integration with Gemini, and how the crypto exchange is under investigation for lying about FDIC insurance.
    • Mentions a partnership with the the 3XP Web3 Gaming Expo where they sponsored the Esports Arena and rewarded contestants with the BAT token.
    • Claims that Brave added affiliate/referral codes to URLs, such as “binance.us.”

    Finally, the author lists Firefox and Vivaldi as alternatives to Brave, and ends the article with “Brave Browser is irredeemable, and you should not use it under any circumstances.”

    I am human, please let me know if I’ve made a mistake.

    Edit: Fixed bat emoji and typo.

      • Rooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        Brave is still bad. With their “incidents” they had. Brave is chromium = Google controlled in a way. Brave is a coorperation, yes a PROFIT seeking company. Mozilla does nit promote google, it uses duckduckgo as its default search engine. There are forks from Firefox too that hardens the browser and the develop/ceo is not a complete *ss. The referal link “scam” was real, they injected it in Amazon links…

        Screw Brave go search for a real alternative to google.

        • zahel@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          These people are basically a cult. Do not bother trying to enlighten the Brave browser community cult. If you use brave, you are a certifiable idiot.

            • VonReposti@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hopefully the Digital Markets Act in EU will put an end to iOS’s browser monopoly. When that happens Firefox might be looking to port their Android browser to iOS which supports addons like uBlock but nothing is for certain right now.

              I know it isn’t hope you’re looking for, but it’s the best I can do with my current knowledge.

              • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I appreciate that but my response was more intended to chastise the guy blanket labeling people cultists and idiots for no good reason because they hate a browser someone else uses.

                The system-wide AdGuard app handles most things well enough, and Brave does its thing on YouTube ads without issue.

                Firefox Focus will also take care of YouTube ads (if anyone else stumbles down this rabbit hole), but it’s too heavy-handed for me because I actually stay logged into my account and use my history.

                My Pi-hole install also handles all but YouTube if I’m at home, so there’s that.

            • Thetimefarm@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Doesn’t iOS only use webkit based browsers? I would imagine the reason you can get ad blocking through brave is some kind of deal they have with google. Which probably means they’re just giving them all the data google would collect normally.

              Firefox on iOS doesn’t have ad blocking because apple took support away in webkit. The only way brave could be doing it is by being white listed by the company serving the ad to you somehow.

              Both Mac and iOS have issues with VPN usage too but that’s unrelated to webkit.

              • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes Apple forces everyone through webkit and won’t allow third-party blockers. Brave on iOS was forked from Firefox anyway, and iirc uses the same API to block ads as Firefox Focus. Google is most definitely not involved, particularly because both block YouTube ads (and is my primary reason for using Brave anyway).

                I’m not sure what you’re referencing in regard to VPN usage; I have had zero problems with mine.

        • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Firefox does default to Google. If you see DDG, it’s likely an edit by your distribution.

          Also, Brave Search is a real alternative. It’s one of the few engines aside from Google, Bing and Yandex that has its own crawler.

          • Rooki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh yeah i forgot i used librewolf too much XD. Brave Search creeps on you. Privacy Policy is unreadable and unreachable. Tbh. if you want a privacy protecting search engine. Use Searx(ng).

          • Rooki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Brave is way worse using Chromium. That is the point. Its dependent on google 100%. I dont know Fitefox? What is it? Is it a rare fox? Brave injects ads (targeted ads) into your websites. Injects referal urls into their results. The CEO is a corrupt bad person. They implemented in their earlier stages a hidden crypto miner. Recommending Extensions? Are you sure that chrome doesnt do it too?

      • Caravaggio@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mozilla deals with Google

        With how much revenue comes from those deals, we might say it’s practically financed by Google. FF is more Google than Chromium-based Brave if you follow the money.

    • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      These guys tried to get a previous employer of mine to advertise with them. It works great if your entire audience is tech bros. Ours was not.

      • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        As I understand it, the argument isn’t so much “if you use a thing made by a bad person, you are a bad person by association” but rather that using a commercial product made by a bad person, who spends his money on bad causes, is directly helping him spend more money on said bad causes. Since he has never apologized or shown any indication that he has become a better person, not wanting to monetarily support him is a valid reason to not use his product.

      • escapesamsara@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s really hard for the creator of Javascript to make money off of javascript, and it’s unlikely he has any financial interest in the Mozilla corporation anymore since they’re a nonprofit and thus don’t have share holders. However, he directly profits off of Brave.

    • doublepepperoni [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The author points out that Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript, co-founder (and ex-CEO) of Mozilla, and founder of Brave, donated 1,000 USD in support of a proposition to ban same-sex marriage.

      My impression was Brave got started after he got hoofed out of Mozilla or left on his own accord after the backlash for showing his ass to be a homophobe. Redditor types were of course very angry about this blatant disregard for frozen peaches and jumped onto his new venture in droves

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    [Eich] donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California’s state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

    Even though I do not agree at all with the donation and support - out of the things that influence me into choosing a browser, 15 year-old private donations of appointed CEOs is pretty low on that list.

    And the whole BAT thing is opt-in and they’re very transparent about it. I don’t get why people get so triggered when the C word - crypto - is involved.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. They do a lot of things I don’t like, which is why I don’t use them. However, I do recommend them over Chrome if someone isn’t willing to use Firefox (or Safari on iOS with an ad blocking extension).

        That said, the ad replacement thing was an interesting idea, and if it got better click-through rate while preventing sites from stealing PII, they probably could’ve cut a profit sharing deal and users would’ve been better off vs the status quo. They could also have a “premium” option where they pay a certain amount for no ads, and that amount gets split with websites who would normally serve ads.

        There are some good ideas there, but unfortunately the good ideas don’t seem to have really worked out as intended. I still think they’re better than Chrome, but things can change.

        • notfromhere@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          BAT can be distributed to publishers of content you go to based on percentage of visiting those sites. You can purchase BAT or subscribe to the ad program. Nobody in this thread knows even the basics of BAT, smh.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, it’s possible, but that’s not how it works in reality.

            I think it’s a good idea, but with some missteps by Brave. They need to get sites on board before I can truly recommend them.

            • notfromhere@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well nobody is perfect, this thread is making that abundantly clear. If they were still doing all that shit years later everyone might have a point. Make mistakes and learn from it and move on is the only thing I can really ask of anyone. Brave is doing the right thing IMO. As to your comment about BAT, it’s the classic problem of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Not recommending it because it’s not being used so nobody’s recommending it lol.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t recommend it because there are better options. Firefox is privacy respecting, and since it still has an independent rendering and JavaScript engine, it’s better for open web standards. On iOS, all browsers have the same rendering engine as per Apple’s rules, so I recommend Safari with an ad blocker.

                If Brave actually offered something tangibly better for the open web, I would recommend it. But it doesn’t, so I recommend something that does.

                However, if you need a chromium-based browser, I think Brave and Chromium are about on par, so I recommend both.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the data collection sounds like it’s counter to its supposed goals. Multiple campaigns have been discussed that just make it believe they don’t actually care about privacy considering all the ways they keep trying to do stuff is counter to that. Why stay? Tor Browser is available. Hell, Firefox itself is already able to take you pretty far and extensions can do the rest.

      Why make the sacrifice of your personal data? Like, how many attempts at collecting personal data do you need to have occur before you realize it’s always been their goal?

    • Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would also imagine there are a lot of people that did not support same sex marriage back in 2008 that do now. I do not know the Eich personally, but it doesn’t make sense to hold this stuff against people until we find out if they have or haven’t changed their views.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        15 years ago isn’t that long ago - and there is a huge difference between “not supporting same sex marriage” and “donating against same sex marriage”.

        • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          15 years is a long time. I know someone who did a complete 180 on their beliefs within a few years: from a conservative, homophobic, and religious pov to the exact opposite. I myself changed some political views I had 5 years ago.

          I have no idea about Eich, but if I let this affect my choices of anything, frankly I won’t do anything else in my life facing the millions of variables before me.

        • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, he donated $1000.

          California voters approved prop 8 by a sizable majority. It was thrown out by the courts. That kind of dilutes my “oh no” over one persons donation. We’d need to boycott a good portion of Californians.

          Today I think it’s relevant to point out he was an outspoken against masks, shutdowns, and was calling Fauci a liar. Basically everyone’s conservative family member in 2020.

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of appointed CEOs who quit after 11 days to boot. But he was CTO prior.

      But looks like he was largely ousted very fast with all the negative PR Mozilla was getting.

  • jabberati@social.anoxinon.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    @whou Don’t forget the time they made it possible to ‘donate’ to creators, but when creators weren’t signed up with their program #Brave would just keep the donation. So users would think they have donated for example to Tom Scott, but in reality he never received anything. Overall just a scummy company.

  • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    1 year ago

    The fact is i don’t care about these things. All it matters is that Brave uses Chromium, therefore I’ll never touch it.

  • drathvedro@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please stop reposting this crap every fucking day. What’s up with you and this exact article in particular anyway? Are you getting paid or something?

    • whou@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      well, I just came across the article on Mastodon and wanted to share it. I mean jeez, imagine sharing and wanting to discuss interesting topics just for fun?

      and I posted the article on !technology@beehaw.org and then cross-posted it here, because I thought it was also an interesting community to discuss it. I saw a bunch of people cross-posting it elsewhere, so if you’re seeing it a bunch of times then it’s probably because those communities probably also have something in common with the article. I personally think every community have different people and different discussions to have, so I don’t see it as particularly bad.

  • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean… I’ve been using Firefox since Google silo’d all log-ins together.

    On the other hand, search.brave.com is freaking incredible. It’s so much better than Google, Bing or DDG at this point, it’s shocking. I switched a couple weeks ago and it’s surreal to see so many usable, useful results on the first page again.

    • McBain@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tried it for a couple of weeks and went back to DDG. It’s way better for programming and other geekie stuff imo.

      • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You mean DDG is better for programming or Brave Search is? I’m finding a lot more useful stuff via Brave for whatever reason currently.

        (I guess results may vary though if that’s not the case for you!)

    • Franzia
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Try Startpage And you can use addons to filter out bad results, if that helps. Brave search definitely is potent.

      • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cool! I didn’t think of that, but it would do the trick, you’re right.

        (I was hoping for it to be in the popup list of search engines, I guess.)

    • nottheengineer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup, half of it is just “I don’t like this person, so no one should use anything they have anything to do with”.

      The points about the browser itself are clearly just afterthoughts.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, regardless of whether it sounds like afterthoughts, it kind of sounds like the ulterior motive for Brave is entirely counter to its purported intent. Why ignore it just because of something unrelated? Sounds like the exact same issue people complain about the author.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You were agreeing with someone that said it led them to the opposite conclusion of the point the author wanted to make. That would require you to ignore those points or at the very least admit privacy isn’t important.

            When you said “yup” to a claim, it means you agree with the claim. You didn’t simply only say you disliked the author’s writing style and felt their focus wasn’t properly targeted on the correct points.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The purpose is to make a for-profit browser that respects privacy. They’ve tried a number of different approaches, and they’ll probably try more.

          I especially like the idea of replacing ads with non-tracking ads with better clickthrough rate (i.e. higher profit), and share the profit with the sites. Ad recommendations could be made from local data that never gets sent to a server. That’s privacy respecting and profitable, but unfortunately they didn’t get enough deals made with content creators to be effective.

          And what a CEO chooses to do with their money is none of my business, what is my business is the quality of the product that company makes, as well as the quality of the work environment that product is made in. I don’t like the direction Brave has gone, so I don’t use it. And now that I know iOS Safari has ad blocking extensions, I’ll no longer be recommending Brave to anyone (I recommend Firefox everywhere except iOS, and I recommend Safari with ad block there).

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can’t respect privacy by violating it. Just because you’re ok with the amount of violation doesn’t make it ok.

            I’m fine with blocking things on someone else’s site. I’m not ok with injecting things on someone else’s site.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              What are you talking about? If the logic and metadata is completely stored in your machine, there’s no privacy violation. The ads themselves don’t need any PII unless you opt in to some kind of profit sharing system (e.g. you get paid to see ads), and that can simply be handled by the browser itself (i.e. a cryptographic signature that can only be verified client side).

              As for not liking injecting stuff into a browser, what about browser extensions show you if another site has a better deal on something? Or accessibility tools that change the styling of the site? Or password managers that inject auto fill buttons? Or addons like RES that add features like previously viewed posts or times you’ve upvoted a user?

              Injecting ads is the same idea, you’re removing features you dislike and adding features you do. The unethical part is profiting from sites, which is why those profits should be shared with those sites. I think there’s a good case to be made that sites, browsers, and users can all make more with this method and without violating user privacy (the advertiser doesn’t need to know anything about you specifically, it just needs to know that the browser can place ads effectively). All data can stay on your local machine and never sent to the browser vendor, website owners, or advertisers.

              If Brave got that to work, I’d consider it. I’d prefer it to be an addon to my browser instead. Here’s how I’d prefer it to work:

              1. I install an open source, auditable extension that tracks my browsing history locally to serve relevant ads
              2. Sites sign up for the program and provide a tracking key that only tracks that website (unique per site, not part session/user)
              3. Once I hit some amount of ad views on a given site in a given day, ads go away; my browser is 100% in control of that
              4. Profits go to an open, auditable service that distributes a portion to sites, the addon vendor, and users who opt in (with anymore crypto wallets); if users opt out, those profits are donated to a charity instead (again, publicly auditable)

              This way, the user:s privacy isn’t violated, sites make a profit, the addon maintainer gets paid (ideally a nonprofit org), and users can get some pocket change as well. Everything would be auditable, so nobody can pull a fast one without getting caught.

              • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You let me know when you find a system that analyzes your data locally and chooses an ad to show without letting anyone know anything. Even just delivering the ad is violating a level of privacy because they know it targets you at the very least. But beyond that, targeted ads require statistics to build to know how to target. You need data to build a model. You can’t build that without sharing.

  • 🦥󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You shouldn’t use Brave simply because it’s heavily infected with crypto shit and tries to monitorize your web browsing time by default. Not everything you do has to be a side hustle.

    Sure you can “switch it off” but then why not use something else in the first place that’s focus isn’t trying to make money out of you. If Brave ever gained any decent market share the web would be an even shitter place than what Google is suggesting at the moment.

  • YTG123@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fine, but, like, don’t recommend Vivaldi. Also, if you disable the Brave ads, you’re not really supporting them, while still getting the benefits.

    — Sent from Librewolf

  • Hal-5700X@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Dude, this is a Firefox. Why tell us not use something what…95% of people here are not using in the first place?

    EDIT: The crypto stuff is opt-in. You don’t have to use Brave Shields (in browser ad blocker). It can be turned off. Now you can use uBlock Origin or another ad blocker.

    About the CEO, I can’t see nothing about his beliefs reflecting in his work. Looks like he kept them separated. I’m not for said beliefs.

    EDIT 2: Also Brendan Eich is a co-founder of Mozilla. So if you’re not going to use Brave because of him. How can you use Firefox?

      • Hal-5700X@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Claiming it’s Firefox is a bit misleading. Claiming its suggesting it’s equivalent to saying don’t use Firefox is outright deceptive and/or downright ignorant.

        I’m sorry but what?

      • nxfsi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        this is a Firefox

        It’s obvious that op meant that we are on r/Firefox, therefore there’s no need to shill against brave.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Given what I had said about it, the interpretation made sense. I already apologized. There’s no need to correct me after the author already did. It adds nothing but trying to be condescending.