[HN Gopher] Getting Started with Brave
___________________________________________________________________
Getting Started with Brave
Author : admiralspoo
Score : 120 points
Date : 2021-01-11 19:04 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (support.brave.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (support.brave.com)
| jklinger410 wrote:
| They should have a BAT extension for Firefox.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| The extension route isn't feasible. If you don't control the
| underlying APIs, you can't guarantee service moving forward. We
| saw this with the Manifest v3 alarms and how they threatened
| the existence of uBlock Origin and other fine extensions.
| There's a lot more that can be said about this topic, but I'll
| leave it at that for now :)
| thekyle wrote:
| A hypothetical Brave Rewards extension would pretty much just
| check which domains you visit and proportionally send them
| BAT tokens. As long as there are APIs to check the current
| domain and send HTTP requests to Brave's servers I think it
| would be fine.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| I don't think BAT is a very serious idea if it's only
| applicable to one browser.
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| "Firefox BAT extension might not work in the future" is still
| better than no Firefox BAT extension. I like the idea of
| Brave but my preference for Firefox is greater.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| It's not a matter of "might not work in the future," it
| would be broken on arrival due to the limited abilities
| offered by the current extension APIs.
|
| As for Firefox vs Brave, I would encourage you to check out
| the independent study by Leith, of Trinity College in
| Dublin. Leith found Brave to be in its own class as the
| "most private" browser tested (including Firefox): https://
| www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf.
|
| You could perform a similar test yourself. Setup Fiddler on
| your machine (installing the root cert to inspect HTTPS
| traffic), set aside %localappdata%/Mozilla and
| %appdata%/Mozilla, then launch Firefox. The traffic
| (without any user interaction) is a surprise to many.
| Compare with Brave (be sure to set aside
| %localappdata%/BraveSoftware beforehand).
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| I've never quite understood why I would want to use Brave
| as its just another chromium browser with some ideas
| about advertising. I found your post interesting.
|
| The paper you linked to is limited in scope to the
| browser itself calling home with unique identifiers. The
| paper says nothing about what happens when the browser
| visits say Facebook.
|
| In terms of the browser calling home and uniquely
| tracking you all by itself, the paper says Brave does a
| good job. But Brave still calls home for things and Brave
| can still collect IP addresses and browser fingerprints
| the same as any other site.
| nobunaga wrote:
| If people want to donate money to content creators or actually
| earn money off the web, there are better alternatives than
| watching ads.
| beefee wrote:
| It's important to have content-neutral browsers. Several days ago
| Mozilla indicated their support of the Internet censorship
| regime: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-
| than-d...
| teddyh wrote:
| "Not supporting side A" is not "Supporting side B".
| meremortals wrote:
| + 1
|
| ProtonMail indicated potentially entering the browser space:
| https://twitter.com/ProtonMail/status/1347930110553419777
| ignoramous wrote:
| I re-read it twice, but I don't see anything in the blog post
| advocating censorship:
|
| > _1. Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they
| are paying and who is being targeted._
|
| > _2. Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms
| so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom,
| and the associated impact._
|
| > _3. Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices
| over disinformation._
|
| > _4. Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth
| studies of the platforms' impact on people and our societies,
| and what we can do to improve things._
|
| > _These are actions the platforms can and should commit to
| today. The answer is not to do away with the internet, but to
| build a better one that can withstand and gird against these
| types of challenges. This is how we can begin to do that._
|
| I read the blog post as claiming that deplatforming / silencing
| isn't the answer. A lot more (outlined above) is required.
| LanternLight83 wrote:
| I'm with you- I read Mozilla's statement in a well-
| intentioned light, and believe that they are still as much of
| a leader of internet freedoms as they've ever been. It's true
| that there's a complicated situation around censorship and
| moderation, and the national conversation turning to this
| area doesn't make the lines any clearer, but Mozilla
| certainly doesn't deserve the level of criticism I've
| observed in some forums for this statement. If you feel as
| sure as I do, and would like to support their cause, it's
| more effective to donate what you can to the Mozilla
| Foundation than to further engage with the narratives these
| threads imply.
| war1025 wrote:
| I could agree with this view if the article was titled
| something like "Deplatforming is not the answer"
|
| When you are in a politically charged moment like we were
| when that post went live, a headline of "We need more than
| Deplatforming" is implicitly stating that the actions taken
| were correct and justified. That is obviously something a
| large portion of the country is going to disagree with.
|
| Ever since the ousting of Brendan Eich over his Prop 8
| donations, right-leaning people have been a bit wary of
| Mozilla. Many of us still backed them because the ideas
| they claim to stand for seem noble.
|
| Blog posts like the one in question make it very hard not
| to feel like Mozilla's position is "we disagree with you
| and we don't want you around." If they don't want us as
| users, then maybe it's better we go elsewhere. Brave is a
| logical place for such people to look since it is run by
| Eich, which was where everything started.
| BenFeldman1930 wrote:
| Imagine Mozilla were actually producing TV sets. Then reread
| and reevaluate.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| The post reads (to me) like calls for web sites and
| advertisers to implement these practices (like transparency
| in advertisers), not like features/changes that will ship
| in Firefox. I'll gladly change my tune, of course, when I
| see a patch land that blocks users from viewing certain
| content.
| rdmreader3319 wrote:
| Their only job is to display HTML as fast and optimized as
| possible, not to guide people how to browse the Internet and
| what to read.
| rsynnott wrote:
| That ship sailed about 15 years ago when browsers started
| blocking popup ads by default.
| cryptopia wrote:
| They chose differently.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| Starting with the title "We need more than deplatforming".
| First claim is that deplatforming / silencing is great, but
| we need even more of the same.
|
| "more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal
| of bad actors from social media platforms"
|
| And of course, they want to be part of determining who,
| exactly, is a bad actor.
| offby37years wrote:
| Their market share dwindling to zilch can't come quick
| enough.
| cryptopia wrote:
| They also claim that The New York Times and news outlets
| the NYT recommends represent "factual voices" that need to
| be amplified.
|
| I'm looking for alternatives after 24 years with Mozilla.
|
| I used to worry about their sinking market share. Now I
| celebrate it (2.66% if mobile browsers are included).
|
| Unfortunately most alternatives are based on Chromium, and
| Google is of course also not a neutral player.
|
| Still, there are some interesting browsers to be
| discovered. Opera has some really nice features now (like
| workspaces and a free VPN), but it's closed source and
| partially owned by a Chinese company. But it shows that
| innovation is still possible in the browser space.
| rdmreader3319 wrote:
| I just ended 17 years of FF fidelity. I was already using
| Brave on mobile and sometimes on desktop. With the
| bookmark import tool and my password stored on Bitwarden,
| it takes a couple of minutes to have a comfy browsing
| environment.
|
| The only issue I see with Brave is Qwant is the default
| search engine. Qwant is heavily backed up from the French
| government and answer to censor request very easily, I
| have more trust in DDG for privacy & censorship.
| valvar wrote:
| I just installed Brave for Android, and for me Google was
| the default. It's very straightforward to change to
| Startpage or DDG, but much more worrying than the default
| engine is that it does not seem to be possible to add a
| custom search engine such as one using Searx! That's an
| absolute necessity in my opinion.
| rdmreader3319 wrote:
| You can set DDG in the settings, I'm using DDG on the
| Android version. It's also easy to choose it on the
| desktop version.
| valvar wrote:
| I know, as I said in my comment. DDG is okay I guess, but
| why is it not possible to use a truly custom engine? I
| personally want to use an instance of Searx.
| admax88q wrote:
| Surely it is possible to configure a custom search engine
| in Brave. I would be amazed if the list was hard coded.
| valvar wrote:
| Apparently it's only possible if the search engine
| supports "open-search": https://community.brave.com/t/is-
| it-possible-to-add-a-new-se...
|
| None of the search engines that I want to use seem to
| support open-search, however.
|
| In Firefox this is not an issue and adding a custom
| search engine there is trivial.
| war1025 wrote:
| I don't know if Brave supports it, but I learned a while
| back that in Firefox you can add "smart bookmarks" (I
| think that's what they're called) where you put a "%s" in
| the url and then when you hotlink the bookmark it will
| substitute any words after the bookmark keyword into the
| url.
|
| I've used that trick to add custom search keywords for
| multiple websites that didn't have an "official" Firefox
| search engine.
| war1025 wrote:
| I went to the Brave website and had a look around Friday
| evening. I have also been using Firefox since back before
| it was even called that.
|
| Part of me thinks I should make the switch, and then part
| of me think that I'd just be indirectly backing Google by
| switching to Brave.
|
| Anyone have thoughts on that?
| skrowl wrote:
| > 3. Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices
| over disinformation.
|
| > 4. Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth
| studies of the platforms' impact on people and our societies,
| and what we can do to improve things.
|
| I'll help you. These two are the overt censorship.
|
| When (often hyper-partisan like Snopes) fact checkers are the
| ones determining what you can see based on THEIR OWN
| interpretation of "hate speech" or "inciting violence" then
| that's censorship.
|
| Alternatively, if you don't want to see something on Twitter
| / Parler / Gab / etc, just don't follow that person instead
| of calling for them to be censored.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| > When (often hyper-partisan like Snopes) fact checkers are
| the ones determining what you can see based on THEIR OWN
| interpretation of "hate speech" or "inciting violence" then
| that's censorship.
|
| This viewpoint is the culmination of years of hacking the
| Overton window. In any two-party environment where only
| _one_ party regularly _does_ proliferate bigotry and
| violent attitudes, any reasonable/neutral observer will
| appear to be a partisan for the opposition by default.
|
| To assume this wouldn't be the case wrongly assumes that
| ideas should naturally fall along a Normal distribution,
| with the most morally-correct views centered precisely at
| x=0 (bipartisan) along the left/right axis.
| war1025 wrote:
| > In any two-party environment where only _one_ party
| regularly _does_ proliferate bigotry and violent
| attitudes
|
| Anyone who believes this is a true depiction of politics
| in the USA is willfully blind.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| The probability of both factions promoting
| bigoted/violent attitudes at precisely the same rate is,
| well, impossible. Inevitably there will be a higher
| penetration of these ideas in one side or the other.
|
| I'm not making the claim that the balance is immutable
| (it's always changing), but at this moment (and for the
| past decade, at least) there is one side where those
| ideas are _far_ more widely seen as acceptable or
| encouraged.
| olah_1 wrote:
| I understand your point, but I am assuming that you
| aren't aware of the examples that the parent and I are
| thinking of. There is blatant manipulation of "mostly
| false" and "mostly true" for things. It's very slimey.
|
| They spin for their team and exaggerate for the other.
| guidovranken wrote:
| This was the final straw for me. I'm migrating to alternatives
| after a very long time with Firefox. I just can't trust the
| product of a wildly ideological organization which clearly has
| hangups about free speech and how users spend their time on the
| internet. (For some reason you never hear these people about
| Tor which undoubtedly has been conducive in many human rights
| violations).
|
| I've tried Brave and it looks and feels good. And the ability
| to donate to random Twitter users directly from the browser
| interface is a brilliant and innovative feature that I intend
| to start using.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Totally agree, I've told everyone I know to drop Firefox
| because of this.
| ogogmad wrote:
| Why does Brave need its own blockchain token? Either it's
| centralised and doesn't need blockchain. Or it's trying to be
| decentralised, and then might as well use an existing token like
| BTC or ETH. I understand that the latter may be too expensive for
| micropayments, but surely that comes with the territory when
| you're using a blockchain.
|
| I simply don't get BAT.
| mind_half_full wrote:
| +1
| nobunaga wrote:
| +1 to exactly what? Scammy behaviour from a product that can
| potentially watch and track your every move?
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-aff...
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| You've linked the same article on nearly every thread on this
| post, why is changing affiliate links for cryptocurrency
| important?
| nobunaga wrote:
| A piece of software injecting behaviour that aims to
| benefit the CEO of the company and earn him money should be
| considered what exactly? Have you ever seen any other
| browser do anything like that? I think you are simplifying
| the issues here. They did not advertise what they did, and
| only changed their behavior when they were caught out. I
| can point to quite a few other things Brave has done that
| is similar in nature. I think people should be informed
| about the product before considering using it since it pops
| up on HN once every 3 months.
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| The article you linked doesn't support your assertions
| and the linked explanation tweet from their CEO seems
| pretty reasonable: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status
| /1269317625915400192
|
| I don't see how I was simplifying the issue by asking you
| a question. It also seems to me like you are reaching for
| a reason to discredit the browser.
| nobunaga wrote:
| Its ok to differ on the opinion about wether an
| explanation is reasonable or not and we differ on that.
| How one can make that mistake to me is a bit worrisome.
| To me, thats not a developer bug (nor does their
| explanation provide any proof that it is), its an
| intentional way for someone to benefit financially
| without informing their users. Also have a look at the +1
| posters history. Some more interesting behaviour. If you
| want and care, do some of your own research on some of
| the other 'mistakrs' brave and their CEO have done. Ive
| never seen such mistakes happen regularly with other
| browsers that have been around longer. Feel free to use
| Brave, Im just informing the public.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Brave with the various crypto extensions removed is a very nice
| alternative to Chrome.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| Brave's (privacy-respecting) ad notifications are off by
| default. But I would encourage you to reconsider these
| features, unless (or even if) you support content creators out
| of your own pocket. Sponsored Images, for instance, is a high-
| quality image that appears on every 4th new tab. 70% of the
| associated revenue goes into your wallet, which can then
| automatically flow out to the verified sites and properties you
| visit throughout the month. It's a great way to convert your
| attention into real support for the people who make the Web
| enjoyable. And best yet, there is no user data involved or
| exchanged.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| How do these websites collect this money?
| cryptopia wrote:
| Afaik dissenter from Gab is a fork from Brave, presumably
| without the crypto.
|
| Last I checked (briefly after it was released), I didn't care
| that much for the right leaning comments. But maybe it has
| improved or it can be filtered.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| Gab is abandonware. It hasn't been updated since September of
| 2020, IIRC. I'd be careful with that app.
| userbinator wrote:
| Something has gone _very_ wrong with how people perceive
| software if "hasn't been updated in _three months_ " is
| enough to call it "abandonware".
|
| Software does not, and perhaps I should say should not,
| need to constantly change.
|
| This is completely orthogonal to Gab's political leaning.
| rsynnott wrote:
| For a web browser, that's certainly getting into
| dangerous territory. You want your web browser to be
| updated as rapidly as possible; zero days are a fact of
| life.
| nobunaga wrote:
| There are so many better alternatives to brave. I would not
| advocate for it considering their past behaviour which makes
| them not a browser to trust
| (https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-
| aff...)
| nobunaga wrote:
| Brave seems to pop up here every now and then. With its past
| history of scammy behaviour
| (https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-aff...)
| and how they collect money without actually promising to give it
| to people that they claim to act opn behalf of, its not a browser
| anyone should trust.
|
| There are so many better alternatives to brave for those that
| want to donate to content creators or just browse the web. I have
| never understood the fascination or usefulness of brave. I would
| caution people against using it.
| StephenSmith wrote:
| What alternative do you suggest? I'm using firefox and
| wondering if I should look at something else.
| nobunaga wrote:
| De-Google Chromium, Firefox with the right extensions
| installed, Safari if you like the walled garden and apple
| ecosystem
|
| Im sure there are more but all the bells and whistles Brave
| touts you can get elsewhere and you are not using a product
| from a company that has shady practices
| john-shaffer wrote:
| > how they collect money without actually promising to give it
| to people that they claim to act opn behalf of
|
| This has not been the case for a long time.
|
| Brave is far from perfect, but it is much better than allowing
| Apple or Google to control your browser and doesn't require any
| tech expertise to use.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| Some clarification here.
|
| Back in 2018, Brave gave tokens from our own UGP (User Growth
| Pool) to users. These tokens could then be directed to
| websites, YouTube channels, and more. If the intended
| recipient wasn't verified, the tokens would go into a
| settlement wallet. But note, the tokens people were sending
| were almost entirely those which they first received from
| Brave (it was not yet possible to earn rewards at that time).
| So users were getting tokens from Brave, then earmarking
| those tokens for content creators.
|
| More details at https://brave.com/rewards-update/
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| It seems Brave is often combatting some bad pattern on the
| web by replacing it with something worse.
|
| The latest affiliate link controversy was from 2020 [1] Weird
| ad browser notifications is not that old [2]
|
| Probably others. Happy to be wrong, I haven't researched it
| much, but what exactly is the case that they have a good
| track record of any significant length?
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-
| aff... [2] https://community.brave.com/t/turning-off-brave-
| notification...
| john-shaffer wrote:
| You have to explicitly find and enable the ad
| notifications. It can actually be a bit of a PITA. I
| couldn't get it to work on my phone. The purpose is if you
| want to support websites, but don't want to spend money.
| The ad revenue goes in a wallet, and you decide who to
| disburse it to (they do have to be registered as a Creator
| -- Brave's system is subject to KYC laws). The revenue is
| small and not worth the notifications, so transferring
| funds to your wallet is generally a much better option.
|
| I don't have sources other than that I've been using Brave
| as my primary browser on all devices.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| The affiliate link "controversy" didn't impact user privacy
| or security in any way. Brave offered a pre-search
| affiliate option for some keywords before the use
| navigated. Our mistake was doing this for fully-qualified
| domains too. Read https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-
| suggested-sites/ for more details, including screenshots.
|
| Regarding your second concern about ad notifications, these
| are Brave Ads. They're opt-in. And they're built on privacy
| and anonymity. See https://brave.com/rewards for more. A
| quick summary: users who opt-in to Brave Ads receive a
| regional catalog of ads. Their browser, locally on their
| device, studies the catalog for relevant items. When an ad
| can be shown (users determine frequency), a notification is
| displayed. At this time, 70% of the associated revenue is
| directed towards the user.
|
| Brave Rewards is a way for users to support content
| creators on the Web without having to sign up for services,
| hand over personal information, or dig into their own
| pocket. It's a way to passively translate your attention
| into real, substantive support for the sites you visit.
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| [1] is the exact same link linked to by OP and is not
| convincingly an issue [2] is about an opt-in system that is
| easily disabled if accidentally opted into
| ashleshbiradar wrote:
| What's wrong with it's creator contributions thing?
| nobunaga wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
|
| https://twitter.com/vj_chidambaram/status/107647481470831001.
| ..
|
| Are some examples.
| chappi42 wrote:
| Normally I use Firefox, but as it didn't run well on
| SailfishX/Android, an alternative was needed. Tried Brave,
| adapted some settings and this browser runs very well, I can
| recommend it. And, at least for me, Brave is very useful!
| beefee wrote:
| It's a matter of preference and threat models. Brave isn't
| perfect, and has had some controversy in their business
| practices. They also have some telemetry and cryptocurrency
| ads. For non-technical users I still think Brave is the best
| overall bet, especially on mobile devices. There's a great
| privacy comparison linked in a different thread.
|
| For more technical people, ungoogled-chromium [1] is probably
| the cleanest option. It's completely free from ads, telemetry,
| "pings", "experiments", and the like.
|
| [1] https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
| rglullis wrote:
| I am fairly technical and I prefer Brave _because_ of the
| ads. It 's the one model I think that has acceptable ethics
| and that can be an alternative to Surveillance Capitalism.
| Crypto is just an implementation detail, but an important one
| if you really want to make it a global alternative and that
| can include the unbanked.
|
| It made me contribute to content creators way more than I
| have with Flattr (now owned by scammy EyeO, remember them?)
| or with Patreon. I can not do any of that with any other
| offering.
|
| Lastly: what telemetry?
| beefee wrote:
| Here's the telemetry documentation:
| https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/P3A
|
| So it's sending some amount of telemetry, but it's not so
| bad compared to mainstream browsers. A more detailed
| comparison is available in this report linked by another
| commenter:
| https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
| curiousgal wrote:
| I am fairly technical and I prefer Brave because of the anti-
| fingerprinting.
| fsflover wrote:
| What does https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ show for Brave?
| curiousgal wrote:
| Here you go
|
| https://i.imgur.com/RJpoIGu.png
| Tanath wrote:
| If you want to avoid fingerprinting you should use tor-
| browser. And using a chromium-based browser over tor makes
| you more fingerprintable, not less.
| jraph wrote:
| > Brave seems to pop up here every now and then
|
| Yes. "Oh, another unwarranted mention of Brave!"
|
| Isn't Hacker News a website on things that gratifies own's
| curiosity? How does an article about how to get started with a
| browser that isn't new is supposed to fulfill this requirement?
| By making us ask ourselves these questions?
|
| These mentions which just look like ads need comments like
| yours at the top of the post.
|
| It's not even hard! The presentation of a new version with
| interesting new features would fit the bill.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| There is no "scammy" behavior in our past. What you're linking
| to here is an affiliate link offering from pre-search UI in the
| browser. This involved no user data, no privacy impact, etc.
| See the official response here (with screenshots, so as to
| clarify how the feature actually worked):
| https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/.
|
| If an affiliate link offering (shown plainly, and prior to any
| navigation event) worries you, wait until you see what other
| browsers are getting away with. If you're using Chrome, Edge,
| or Firefox, your browser serves as an out-of-the-box keylogger,
| sending each keystroke off to Google (Chrome and Firefox) or
| Bing (Edge) as you type into the address bar. Even an
| unintentional pasting of sensitive information gets
| transmitted.
| nobunaga wrote:
| There has been plenty of 'mistakes' that brave has needed to
| backtrack on and apologise for. Other browsers that have been
| around longer than brave have not been found to behave in
| ways brave has even though I am sure many researchers poke
| holes in it. If you would like to point out the behaviour of
| other browsers and compare it to the controversies that Brave
| has had, feel free to do so and prove many of the doubters
| wrong. The affiliate link is one of many examples.
| offby37years wrote:
| Still more trustworthy than the mainstream alternatives
| (Google, Mozilla, Apple or Microsoft).
| jfk13 wrote:
| I don't think it's helpful to group Google, Mozilla, Apple
| and Microsoft together like this, as though they were all "of
| a kind". There are some very different business models and
| priorities among them.
| [deleted]
| userbinator wrote:
| They're all essentially controlled by Google to some
| extent, from the perspective of "web standards" churning...
| but then, so is Brave.
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| I find Safari good enough. Slow to support new APIs maybe,
| but it's perfectly serviceable for a daily driver. What's
| your issue with it?
| lmedinas wrote:
| Safari is good, my dealbreak is the adblockers. Ive been
| using Safari since 2 months im already desperate to use
| Firefox, Chrome or even give Brave a try. And no, none of
| the available adblocker for Safari works well.
| nobunaga wrote:
| To be honest, thats a claim that you have not proven. If
| anything, Firefox and safari are probably more trustworthy
| based on my own subjective opinion. They have never injected
| affiliate links or promised to do things which are borderline
| scam-like behaviour.
|
| I personally treat all software with a level of distrust. But
| brave has done things which all point to a certain behaviour
| in which people should think twice before using the product.
| You can get the benefits of privacy that Brave touts from
| other browsers. If you want to donate to content creators,
| plenty of ways to do so as well.
| rglullis wrote:
| BS. Do a Google search on Firefox. The querystring has an
| identifier for Firefox.
|
| It's no different than what happened with Brave, except
| that Brave acknowledged it was bug behavior and that the
| identifier is only for the browser, not user data.
|
| As for ways to donate to content creators, please do tell:
| is there any solution out there that let us be rewarded by
| getting privacy-preserving ads _and_ to contribute the
| proceeds further to other people?
| LawnGnome wrote:
| Having a source identifier in a query string isn't
| remotely the same thing as hijacking links or injecting
| content into a page.
| rglullis wrote:
| The ads are via notifications.
|
| There has NEVER been link hijacking or content injecting
| on a page, what are you smoking?
| LawnGnome wrote:
| Link hijacking:
| https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-
| brave-we...
|
| Content injection: https://community.brave.com/t/does-
| brave-inject-buttons-onto...
| rglullis wrote:
| The first was not link hijacking. It was a bug,
| acknowledged and fixed.
|
| The second... You are technically right, but I thought
| you meant the browser was injecting their own ads on
| someone else's page. The tip button does none of that, it
| does not disturb the user or gets in the way of any
| action, can be disabled and is there to help the creators
| network. I don't see anything to get worked up about.
| nobunaga wrote:
| Its very different IMO, one benefits the CEO financially
| the other is an identifier for tracking purposes. One was
| done without informing the user the other is a common
| methodology that many websites do with parameters such
| utm_ (not that I am advocating for tracking). They are,
| IMO, very different practices. Im sure you disagree but
| when you modify a URL for financial gain without
| informing your users and then backtrack only when you get
| caught out, its a different ball game.
|
| Im not going to get in to the game of finding specific
| ways to donate to content creators. There are ways to do
| it. If you want to do it anonymously, I am sure you can
| do so as well, I have never been interested in doing so.
| If the reason you want to use brave is to donate money
| anonymously, more power to you, personally, I would
| caution people against using it due to their past shady
| behaviour (The affiliate link is just one of many
| examples).
| rglullis wrote:
| Sorry, this seems like just an attempt for you to
| rationalize your double standard.
|
| > There are ways to do it.
|
| It's more than "donating anonymously". I asked if you can
| point an alternative that lets me monetize my attention
| and give it forward. Show me any system as
| straightforward as Brave that lets me give 2-3EUR every
| month to wikipedia and archive.org and any one else I
| desire.
|
| > The affiliate link is just one of many examples.
|
| Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. I see
| you already failed at providing an alternative for
| supporting content creators, will you also back out of
| showing what "many examples" you are talking about?
|
| PS.: Curious that you single out the CEO. If you don't
| want to use Brave for having a beef with the CEO it's one
| thing, but at least be honest about instead of making it
| about the product.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Does wikipedia actually _get_ the money from your
| attention? That appears to be the foundational problem
| behind Beaver 's BAT approach: it's not opt-in for the
| website.
| rglullis wrote:
| Yes, they do. The recurrent donations can only be given
| to verified accounts.
| nobunaga wrote:
| You have been provided evidence by multiple people on
| Brave's shady practices yet you are the one who seems to
| be such a fervent supporter in the face of much evidence
| provided to you that no other mainstream browser (besides
| chrome maybe) has shown so consistently even though they
| have been around longer than Brave. I never even knew the
| CEO until I came across the last hacker news article on
| Brave's dodgy behavior. Stop making assumptions about
| people on the internet.
|
| Why should I research for you a topic which does not
| negate the shady practices that Brave has been at fault
| for? If you want to donate money using Brave go for it,
| the evidence of what Brave has done, and done so
| consistently on many fronts is out there. If you want to
| look into it, go for it, I am not your personal
| researcher, a lot has already been done for you.
| anxrn wrote:
| One of these is not like the others. I would genuinely like
| to understand why I should not trust Mozilla.
| mateus1 wrote:
| Just get Firefox.
|
| Brave has ads, including annoying desktop pop ups!
| strig wrote:
| But does FF have an adblocker on iOS?
| anderber wrote:
| You have to active choose in the settings to get ads. And if
| you do, you get "paid" in crypto for getting them. But I also
| like Firefox.
| [deleted]
| jonathansampson wrote:
| "Brave has ads" is a good thing. Please, allow me to explain :)
|
| When you launch Firefox for the first time, you're already
| being setup and prepared to be served to Google. Your data and
| more are being primed. The address bar serves as a key-logger,
| and your inputs (before ever explicitly navigating anywhere)
| are being sent to Google.
|
| Brave's ad notifications are opt-in; you have to turn them on.
| You decide their frequency. They're built on privacy. Users in
| a common region (e.g. United States) share a regional catalog.
| Your browser downloads a copy of this catalog, studies it
| locally, and decides when/if it should show any of the ads
| listed therein.
|
| When a Brave Ad is displayed, 70% of the revenue goes into a
| digital wallet. When you see an ad in Firefox, there's a good
| chance you just lost a little bit of your data, and received
| nothing in return. In Brave, these rewards stack up, and can be
| passively or actively distributed to the sites and properties
| you appreciate most online.
| pachico wrote:
| I've been using Brave for a couple of years, already (I think)
| and I'm quite happy with it. By default it might spawn some ads
| but you can easily disable it forever. It's the fastest there is.
| xtracto wrote:
| I love it, the only thing I feel it is missing is default
| support for .bit domains. With all the censoring going on of
| different sites at the DNS level, it is time to have a
| distributed alternative.
| teddyh wrote:
| Nobody who liked it when Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla (over
| his support of Prop 8) should consider using Brave, now or in the
| future.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-11 22:01 UTC)