- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Now it makes sense why some of the Fox News-parroting, right wing people I know use Brave. I had no idea about what the author mentioned about the browser, I just know it is based on Chromium which I will not use. Thus, I am on Firefox. And for many reasons, including those the author laid out, I’m happy I chose wisely.
removed by mod
deleted by creator
Not what I said. Here is an example I love Pantera, the lead singer should be beat for some of the shit he has said over the years, am I going to stop listening to Pantera? Fuck no
If he’s a piece of shit, then, yeah, maybe you should stop listening to them. That’s totally your decision, and I don’t really care either way, but it’s not like you’re doing some moral good by not refusing to listening to them. Do what feels right for you, and I will do what feels right for me.
I stop watching things with actors I think are pieces of shit. I stop listening to bands with members I think are pieces of shit (Brand New anyone?). So yeah, I’d probably stop listening to Pantera (personally/were I a fan). Again, you do you.
“working towards something better is pointless, everything is shit anyway”
Hey, switching to a less shit shitty option, is still an improvement.
If the only way you’re willing to accept improvement, is by fixing it all at once or nothing at all, you’ll never solve anything.
I am a Firefox user and always suggest using it to people. But still the more people not using Chrome (even if they are still chromium based) the better.
🙄
Your take would be acceptable if a perfectly viable alternative like Firefox didn’t exist. Since it does, how about you STFU?
I am a Firefox user both mobile and on PC. I’m just tired of people saying don’t use this because of the person working on it.
I enjoy Pantera, the lead singer should have the shit beat outa him for this G’s he has said but does that mean I am going to stop listening to Pantera? Fuck no
The less people using Chrome (even if they are chromium based browsers) the better
deleted by creator
OK, but it’s also a pretend privacy browser that doesn’t actually protect or respect your privacy.
deleted by creator
The browser as is right now is open source and has way better defaults for privacy than Firefox (currently it seems it is the best browser in this aspect after librewolf. see: https://privacytests.org ).
Do you think AD Block Plus to be non privacy oriented because it shows you non invasive ads? No ads I’ve seen in the browser ever seen like they’re targeted. As for crypto, it’s anti privacy as the blockchain tracks everything you do on it… So yeah any of the crypto stuff they did isn’t that bad TBH and it is also OPT in…
removed by mod
Some counterpoints:
-
I like the idea of a system where users get a share of the revenue from the ad networks, which then can be used to support other content creators or businesses online. I think that if most of the web worked like this, we wouldn’t have people being treated as eyeballs and we would still have the power to vote with our wallets to choose who is actually worth of our attention. Is there any other browser or company doing anything like that?
-
People keep talking about Firefox as if it’s a paragon of virtue, but casually forget that they are only alive because they are completely dependent on Google to survive and are nothing more than “controlled opposition” nowadays. They also have done a ton user-hostile shit like sponsored links in the frontpage and completely crippled pocket, and let’s not forget that current Mozilla execs are raking in millions while laying off people and disbanding key projects.
-
The crypto part keeps called a scam, but their system has been working perfectly fine and it has always been liquid enough for me at the exchanges. Is their BAT token needed? Certainly not, and I would be fine if the 3-8 euros worth of BAT I receive every month (depending on my mobile usage and on their success as an network) were sent to me directly via SEPA. But can anyone realistically say that there is any efficient worldwide way to distribute payouts? For every dollar you sent to someone via Patreon (or Ko-Fi, or any alternative), how much do they get to keep? With the Brave creators program, all of the $15/month that I send to the different people get to them.
All in all, I will stop using Brave in a heartbeat if there is anyone else providing any alternative with a slight chance to fight Surveillance Capitalism. None of the Chromium or Mozilla forks are doing that.
Brave’s objective is to create a system that looks altruistic but they control it and take a ever increasing cut. Google started off the same way. I like the idea, but it’s one that needs to be controlled by a not for profit or by the people. Giving that control to a for profit company is just repeating history.
Firefox isn’t perfect, but my argument for choosing them or a fork of FF is to combat the market share of chromium based browsers. With google pushing for Web Environment Integrity (aka web DRM) using a different browser is one of the few good ways to protest.
I would also like to point out that popular open source projects often get contributions (both code and financial) from large corporations. Sometimes it’s their main source of revenue. This isn’t just a Mozilla problem. I wouldn’t even say it is a problem. A problem would be if those contributions affect the project in a negative way.
Just like in most things these days our choices are limited to the shitty and the less shitty. Obviously where Brave and Firefox lands on that shitty spectrum will depend on your priorities, but for me at least Firefox is less shitty and far from perfect, but decent.
Edit: grammer
Brave’s objective is to create a system that looks altruistic but they control it and take a ever increasing cut.
I don’t see how? All they control is the ad network. Viewing the ads is opt-in. The ads they displayed are stored in device, and the code that selects which ads to show you is open source. The system for verifying ad views can be audited by any party. The token is on the blockchain so they can’t manipulate and the contract does not have any special rules.
Assuming a world where Brave gets significant market share, the “worst” they could do would be to change the promised revenue share, but if they went to do that then users would lose the incentive to opt-in into the ads, and they would more likely lose revenue and open themselves for competition. (That’s a risk that could run even if they did everything right, by the way)
using a different browser is the only good way to protest.
That is not true. “Though Brave uses Chromium, Brave browsers do not (and will not) include WEI”.
A problem would be if those contributions affect the project in a negative way.
And I could make the argument this is in the case with Mozilla and Firefox. Mozilla being so dependent of Google’s revenue means that they will never take any measure that could be seen by Google as a credible threat to their business. Ask yourself why Firefox never included an ad-blocker by default or has kept its mobile browser crippled for so long, or got rid of FirefoxOS…
Firefox never included an ad-blocker by default because an Ad-blocker kinda does the opposite of what the web-browser is supposed to do.
A web browser shall render the web page according to specification. Blocking content hinders this behavior and will even break some websites.
I think most people have forgotten that 15 years ago web browsers had barely started becoming standards compliant, with Opera being the first(?) to pass the Acid2 rendering test in 2006.
For reference: https://hyperborea.org/journal/2006/03/opera-passes-acid2/
A user installing an ad-blocker is perfectly fine, and hopefully the user makes an informed decision of advantages and the possible disadvantages that said ad-blocker might have.
And it’s also fine for fringe browsers like Brave to have a default ad-blocker, but there’s a big difference from that to just putting one in a product that’s used by millions, even though most users would likely be happy with the change.
Sorry, this is a terrible and senseless pontification. They could have always bundled an ad-blocker without having it enabled out-of-the-box.
Sure they could have.
But why would they?
Just because you, clearly, disagree with my opinion doesn’t make it terrible or senseless.
The strength of your conviction, or in which you convey it, isn’t a stand-in for rational arguments and logic based debate.
But why would they?
Because it would be one very interesting marketing point? For a browser that promotes itself as “focused on protecting users” and “not selling you out”, having a built-in (even if not enabled by default) ad-blocker would make a lot more sense than adding integration with Pocket.
rational arguments and logic based debate.
There is nothing logical about claiming “Firefox is a browser and browser need to render the page as is”. First, even that were true it does not require them to enable the ad-block by default. Second, this definition is contrived and seems picked up just to give a rationalization that gives them some moral ground about their omission. We could just as easily say something like “a web browser is the user agent to access the www and as such it can always modify the web page in favor of the user”. Why is that you choose to go for a definition that just happens to favor the business of their biggest source of revenue?
I dislike that you used quotes to misrepresent what they said by making them sound like a cartoon caveman. Poor form.
Also I remember why I and, presumably, a lot of others moved to chrome in the first place. Firefox started getting really bloated and adding a bunch of default features that people either didn’t want or already used an extension for, the main selling point of firefox back then was extensions and customising your own browsing experience. Adding a first party ad blocker just seems like a waste of time when third party ones likely do a better job.
I get your point, though, I can definitely see why a default one might be a nice marketing note, but no need to be rude about someone disagreeing with your speculation.
Orion does everything you’re asking for and has none of the baggage. Also, Safari? I mean it sucks, but it literally does what you say you want.
Both are for MacOS (I’m on Linux) and neither are open source, which is also something important to me.
Also, where do any of these provide “a system where users get a share of the revenue from the ad networks”?
You didn’t say that was a requirement. You said
All in all, I will stop using Brave in a heartbeat if there is anyone else providing any alternative with a slight chance to fight Surveillance capitalism
Both of those browsers accomplish that.
I despise argumentation-by-gotcha. if you need to be so pedantic, here is another qualifier to my choices: “these alternatives must not violate my basic freedoms, so anything closed source is out.”
Dude it’s not argumentation by gotcha, whatever the fuck that is. All I have to go on is what you said. I don’t know anything else about you, your one comment is all the context I get. What you said and what you clearly meant seem to be two different things.
Look at the very first item in the list of counterpoints in “my one comment”. Do Safari or Orion provide anything like that?
All in all, I will stop using Brave in a heartbeat if there is anyone else providing any alternative with a slight chance to fight Surveillance Capitalism.
Your first item in the list literally says “I like the idea” not “this is a requirement”. Then later on you literally say “all in all”, indicating that the only thing that matters to you is what you are about to say next. Maybe you speak English as a second language, but I literally only have what you wrote to go on. And what you wrote was clear that all that mattered was the final sentence
-
It should’ve been as simple as stop using any chromium-based browser, but the CEO is also super bigoted, doing ad theft, and pushing crypto scams.
Even the crypto people don’t generally like him. He tried for Bitcoin integration first and got booed away before starting an ICO - nothing about this needed another coin. Pay-to-surf is a Turing test; his idea doesn’t even work in theory.
deleted by creator
Crypto will never be a thing. We’ll be in a Star Trek style post-economy future where the concept of money is worthless before crypto will ever be a viable alternative to fiat currency, at least for anything aside from buying drugs online from dudes with roman statue avatars who talk like anime villains.
How will we coordinate on building that Star Trek future without it being censored?
another
Any of the existing cryptocurrencies can already handle payments. We don’t need yet another one for each use case of money.
The moment my cryptofan buddy started talking up brave, I knew it was time to uninstall.
I currently use brave on iOS to block YouTube ads. Is there any other option right now? I’d be willing to switch.
If you don’t mind sideloading and refreshing the app from your PC every 7 days, I recommend (and use) uYou+ as a sideloaded app. It has PiP capabilities w/o needing premium, along with a built-in video downloader, sponsorblock, and adblock.
The best solution on iOS is Yattee. You can add Piped or Invidious instances as locations and stream ad-free YouTube from there. Another solution that doesn’t involve Piped and Invidious is AdGuard. Open a YouTube link in Safari, hit actions, then hit Block YouTube Ads (by AdGuard).
Hey, thanks for the link/suggestion for Yattee! Never knew something like this existed for iOS.
Firefox + ublock origin.
I just clicked through a few long youtube videos without hitting any ads.edit: my apologies, I missed your iOS problem.
They said iOS. There’s no extension support in iOS Firefox.
Article, brought to you by Google.
Tf did you smoke today? I definitely want that stuff too!
Brave is chromium.
I’m personally like to stop using Brave, and I will, however while LibreWolf will be what I’ll switch to on desktop, I’m not sure what I would want to switch to on my Android phone. I see that LibreWolf doesn’t have an Android version (and potentially never will; fine, developers will do whatever they want). I’ve heard about IceRaven, however, I’m not sure how good it is. Also would like an actually privacy focused search engine, but I think LibreWolf might have a good list on that front.
(Note: please do suggest in replies, not sure I made that apparent)
Isn’t this like the fourth time this has been posted? the conversation always goes around in circles with nobody changing their mind.
I’m pretty sure I’ve read this news a couple of times now the past week or weeks?
removed by mod
mullvad browser is a great choice
Why was appointing Eich as CEO so controversial? It’s because he 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.
Which is all the reason I need.
If he had changed his tune since then and done something to offset that, I might be willing to cut him some slack.
But, instead, he seems to have doubled down…
They had me at invented JavaScript
Not a single solid reason given in this unhinged rent except a mention of that affiliate link fiasco, which even they themselves agree was a major fuckup.
All BAT and crypto stuff are completely opt-in and it barely takes a few clicks to set the browser to never let you see that side of it again. As for Brendan’s political affiliations, most users couldn’t care less. He might as well be a
furryflat-earther but if the product is good, it is good. Stop acting like you’re sure all the things you use throughout the day aren’t made by people with doubtful leanings.I personally don’t use Brave on desktop, Firefox is good enough; but it is the best option on Android currently since Bromite is almost always a Chromium version behind whatever is current.
Edit: Just learnt that I was wrong in my perception of what “furry” meant. Reading the replies objecting to that reference made me dig a bit deeper and realise that it’s just a type of fandom, and not some sex-deviant cult that pop media made me believe. Sorry for the wrong example.
deleted by creator
Bro, most people don’t even care about their own privacy and keep using edge/chrome in windows. Some lemmy users care about Eich’s beliefs, like you, but most people don’t.
I am not even sure what that list supposed to prove either…
I am sure CEOs of banks or oil companies are totally not bigots who absolutely despise poor’s, that’s I feel fine using their products!
deleted by creator
The very first reason seems valid to me. No way anyone should be supporting a hateful asshole like that. Anybody going around saying homosexuality is any less valid than heterosexuality has no place in our society anymore.
Brave is the browser for the far right.
removed by mod
I’m removing this comment. Your link isn’t relevant to the discussion, Prop 8 was an attempt to ban gay marriage in a state where it was currently legal.
Further attempts to debate human rights will be met with a permanent ban.
I have this weird suspicion that a person advocating to specifically ban gay marriage (and not get rid of marriage in general) might actually be homophobic
Honestly, that article is pretty lousy. It just boils down to “I oppose gay marriage because I don’t like the concept of marriage”. Just seems like veiled homophobia to specifically call out opposition to gay marriage when they could have just written “I oppose the concept of marriage, and this is why”.
removed by mod
Not a single solid reason given in this unhinged rent except a mention of that affiliate link fiasco, which even they themselves agree was a major fuckup.
That’s pretty dismissive of a feature that could only have been added intentionally. It’s not like there was some accidental glitch that was adding affiliate suffixes on the end of links.
What we have here is a business poking and prodding and seeing what they can get away with. You’ve said that there’s only one thing they did that’s truly out of line, while glossing over the fact that most of what they do is borderline. Their intent is clear.
Not a single solid reason given
Well not to you, but that doesn’t mean much considering you think spyware is fine as long as it’s opt-in (and that being a furry is equivalent in severity to being homophobic, wtf). The fact that you think this article is bad is basically a ringing endorsement.
mf really conflated being a homophobe to being a furry 💀
Corrected now
Can we please let this meme hate die? How have you people not adjusted to the concept of putting on a costume and roleplaying, we do it every October.
what a goofball…
Imagine comparing furries to homophobes lol. Sit down you goofball.
Corrected, sorry for that
“Funding awful people doesn’t make me awful” Say sike right now
deleted by creator
If directly funding homophobic policies isn’t a good enough reason for you, you need to look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why that is
it is the best option on Android currently since Bromite is almost always a Chromium version behind whatever is current.
Right now Bromite is unmaintained and has been for a long time. I shudder to think how many versions it’s behind.
If you want a FOSS Chromium-based Android browser, use Mulch. It gets updates fairly quickly and serves much of the same purpose that Bromite did, while actually having a (very slightly) larger dev team.
Edit: Oops. Didn’t realize that Mulch doesn’t have a content blocker. Someone else mentioned Cromite (which does have a built-in content blocker), so that might be a good option as well.
Or Cromite, a fork of Bromite that’s kept up to date and has more features.
Huh. Didn’t know about that one. Thanks for mentioning it!
