Even putting aside my personal issues with Brendan Eich (prop 8 supporting shithead), Brave has always come across as incredibly shady as a company. From the way they collected "donations" on...
Even putting aside my personal issues with Brendan Eich (prop 8 supporting shithead), Brave has always come across as incredibly shady as a company. From the way they collected "donations" on "behalf" of creators, even ones that didn't sign up for their creator program (e.g. Tom Scott), and even going so far as to create profile pages for them without their consent (misleading people into thinking those creators had signed up, when they hadn't). To them repeatedly violating the GDPR. To the arrogant way they (Eich especially) dismisses and hand-waves away legitimate questions and concerns on HN, and elsewhere about the company's questionably behavior. And now this. They seem to embody everything about the American startup "move fast, break things", "ignore the law until called out on violating it", "disruptor" ideology that I absolutely despise.
Wow, I never knew about the creator thing at all, that's actually pretty wild. I do remember reading that The CEO of Brave was also fired from Mozilla for opposing same sex marriages and other...
Wow, I never knew about the creator thing at all, that's actually pretty wild. I do remember reading that The CEO of Brave was also fired from Mozilla for opposing same sex marriages and other such issues. I never really understood why people wanted to go to Brave anyways, since it was still a Chromium fork.
Mozilla has it's own issues, but I'd gladly take them over Brave. Been over 10 years at this point (though I've used Waterfox for a while) and haven't looked back!
The 'prop 8 supporting' wikipedia link I provided talks about that. He supported California Proposition 8 (an attempt to ban same-sex marriage), which is one of the reasons he was ousted as CEO of...
I do remember reading that The CEO of Brave was also fired from Mozilla for opposing same sex marriages and other such issues
The 'prop 8 supporting' wikipedia link I provided talks about that. He supported California Proposition 8 (an attempt to ban same-sex marriage), which is one of the reasons he was ousted as CEO of Mozilla. But the thing not shown in Wikipedia is Eich's responses to the issue over the years on HN. He has since deleted all the comments on HN where he mentioned it, but he has on multiple occasions tried to play it off like he's the "real victim", saying anyone who supported his ousting from Mozilla are the "real bigots", and even claimed he would be on the "right side" of history when it came to prop 8/gay marriage. So needless to say I, as a queer person, fucking loathe him. But again, even putting that aside, Brave has done some pretty shady shit over the years. Which is actually a shame, since the idea of an ad-free, user donation supported web, and privacy conscious browser is a good one, IMO.
I use it because I don't have a problem with Chromium but wanted a more secure browser then Chrome. If anything, being Chromium has been a selling point since Chrome extentions are compatible. I...
I never really understood why people wanted to go to Brave anyways, since it was still a Chromium fork.
I use it because I don't have a problem with Chromium but wanted a more secure browser then Chrome. If anything, being Chromium has been a selling point since Chrome extentions are compatible. I used Firefox as my main for a few years before switching because it felt bloated and just didn't run well, but I guess we'll see if the performance has improved since then.
I mainly use brave on android, because it's the only chromium fork that has a decent adblocking and anti-annoyance feature. On android, firefox just feels painfully slow compared to all chromium...
I mainly use brave on android, because it's the only chromium fork that has a decent adblocking and anti-annoyance feature.
On android, firefox just feels painfully slow compared to all chromium based browser.
I am talking of the first draw when going to a new page (when the page is drawn, it's fine). Firefox seems to always have 500ms of random waiting before displaying anything.
Don't know if there is some hidden network setting that might add some random waiting like DNSSEC (even though I deactivated it in the settings). But I just had enough of fiddling in its settings to try to better the situation.
And everywhere there is a discussion comparing Chromium and Firefox, there seems to be a collective oversight on the completion in the url bar.
I just can't stand the stupid choice of firefox here of not remembering the whole url I visit all the time and not only the domain name.
In chromium, I type y and it auto-completes it to www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions. Don't even to think about it, its a muscular thing at this point where I don't even see the url bar extends down to display all the auto-completing choices.
In Firefox, I always have to wait for it to display the www.youtube.com, then wait for the url bar to extend down, then go one step down to enter on www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions.
This only point makes Firefox unusable for me as a main browser for general use. I just use it to have a second browser with some specific sites I visit only on Firefox which does not suffer of this url completion.
I've been using Brave on my phone for a few years now, not knowing of the ethical issues with the company. I like that it blocks ads by default (and, in my experience, really well) but would...
I've been using Brave on my phone for a few years now, not knowing of the ethical issues with the company. I like that it blocks ads by default (and, in my experience, really well) but would rather not support them by continued use, especially since I have trouble believing that a company that is shady in one aspect (or several) that doesn't seem to affect me won't eventually burn me as well. I know that's maybe silly coming from someone who still relies on Google for email and mobile devices, but at least with a web browser the switch from less ethical to more only costs a little time, rather than a steep learning curve (self-hosting) or significant monetary and performance costs (finding a non-Google affiliated phone or shelling out for iPhone, which has its own problems in my mind).
All of that faff to say, do you have any recommendations for an Android-compatible mobile web browser/adblocker combo that is comparable to what Brave Shields does, without such a heavy "ethics tax" included?
I personally use plain ol' Firefox with the uBlock Origin extension added. (There aren't many officially-approved extensions for Firefox for Android, but uBlock Origin is one of them!)
I personally use plain ol' Firefox with the uBlock Origin extension added. (There aren't many officially-approved extensions for Firefox for Android, but uBlock Origin is one of them!)
I’m not an Android user, so can’t really help with that since I don’t know what’s all available on the platform. You could try making a new topic asking for recommendations though. p.s. I...
I’m not an Android user, so can’t really help with that since I don’t know what’s all available on the platform. You could try making a new topic asking for recommendations though.
p.s. I personally use Firefox, and 3rd party adblockers (uBlock Origin, AdGuard), on everything.
I was at Mozilla when he was promoted and ousted. It was the weirdest dumb decision they've ever made. They knew about his stances, and knew a good chunk of the org was LGBT and still did it.
I was at Mozilla when he was promoted and ousted. It was the weirdest dumb decision they've ever made. They knew about his stances, and knew a good chunk of the org was LGBT and still did it.
For whatever reason I didn’t know much about Brave but I had it on my phone because it sounded like a good way to browse with a little more privacy. Well anyway I deleted it after reading this.
For whatever reason I didn’t know much about Brave but I had it on my phone because it sounded like a good way to browse with a little more privacy. Well anyway I deleted it after reading this.
I'm not sure I see what the problem is. The broader copyright question vis-a-vis AI will inevitably come before the courts, and if they rule against the copyright holders (as I suspect they would)...
I'm not sure I see what the problem is. The broader copyright question vis-a-vis AI will inevitably come before the courts, and if they rule against the copyright holders (as I suspect they would) then what is the issue with what Brave is doing?
There was an argument made that they are monetizing other people's work, but they're not; they're monetizing a way to access content. How exactly is this fundamentally any different than what search engines or web browsers do anyway?
It seems like this all stems from an assumption that feeding copyrighted works into an AI learning module is inherently immoral/illegal, and therefore anything that facilitates that is guilty by association.
Agreed! I have been happily using and recommending Brave for many years. Haven't see any other privacy-focused browser (or product for that matter) that is more user-friendly. Whichever device I'm...
Agreed! I have been happily using and recommending Brave for many years. Haven't see any other privacy-focused browser (or product for that matter) that is more user-friendly. Whichever device I'm on, I can just install it and start browsing. No need anymore to constantly review which privacy plugins are (still) legit and which combination of them is most efficient. As I get older I have less and less desire to be constantly fine-tuning my set up. Brave offers extremely good, privacy-preserving defaults and has great performance. It's a rare example of a well designed product in the privacy/open source area. I appreciate it for that.
Every time I see a title like this, I'm afraid I will read about an issue with some core aspect of the product and I will feel compelled to switch. Luckily, it inevitably ends up being an article about yet another weird or shady attempt of theirs to make money. They're welcome to try, as long as they allow me to support them in other ways. So far, all of these things have been opt-in (which, by the way, I can't say for Firefox's data gathering defaults). As for prop 8, I don't feel I am supporting the CEO specifically by using Brave, even if I am supporting the product. It's a bit of a gray area, but in most cases I try to separate the "author" from their work. If I wouldn't use any software developed under a CEO whose personal views or actions I object to, I don't think I'd be using much technology at all.
With these articles I'm always reminded of the Dutch saying that who wants to beat a dog can always find a stick, meaning that if you really want to find fault with something, you can.
It's been a while since I've used Firefox and while I've got some complaints with this specific fork (Mull), it's nothing security-related. Always hated the useless extras Brave had, but there are...
It's been a while since I've used Firefox and while I've got some complaints with this specific fork (Mull), it's nothing security-related.
Always hated the useless extras Brave had, but there are a few UI decisions in Brave that I wish Firefox has.
I don’t really understand why your take away from this article is to not use the Brave browser. It seems to me that it’s just a good example of the complications AI is introducing into copyright law?
I don’t really understand why your take away from this article is to not use the Brave browser. It seems to me that it’s just a good example of the complications AI is introducing into copyright law?
Settled on Mull, currently moving all content saved on Brave to Mull/Firefox. Btw, you might want to check the links you posted. They're recommending Brave, which is the topic of this thread. Lol.
Settled on Mull, currently moving all content saved on Brave to Mull/Firefox.
Btw, you might want to check the links you posted. They're recommending Brave, which is the topic of this thread. Lol.
I know they do, but it is not all they recommend. They don't just yank things off the page at a moment's notice, but take their time weighing their selection.
I know they do, but it is not all they recommend. They don't just yank things off the page at a moment's notice, but take their time weighing their selection.
Even putting aside my personal issues with Brendan Eich (prop 8 supporting shithead), Brave has always come across as incredibly shady as a company. From the way they collected "donations" on "behalf" of creators, even ones that didn't sign up for their creator program (e.g. Tom Scott), and even going so far as to create profile pages for them without their consent (misleading people into thinking those creators had signed up, when they hadn't). To them repeatedly violating the GDPR. To the arrogant way they (Eich especially) dismisses and hand-waves away legitimate questions and concerns on HN, and elsewhere about the company's questionably behavior. And now this. They seem to embody everything about the American startup "move fast, break things", "ignore the law until called out on violating it", "disruptor" ideology that I absolutely despise.
Wow, I never knew about the creator thing at all, that's actually pretty wild. I do remember reading that The CEO of Brave was also fired from Mozilla for opposing same sex marriages and other such issues. I never really understood why people wanted to go to Brave anyways, since it was still a Chromium fork.
Mozilla has it's own issues, but I'd gladly take them over Brave. Been over 10 years at this point (though I've used Waterfox for a while) and haven't looked back!
The 'prop 8 supporting' wikipedia link I provided talks about that. He supported California Proposition 8 (an attempt to ban same-sex marriage), which is one of the reasons he was ousted as CEO of Mozilla. But the thing not shown in Wikipedia is Eich's responses to the issue over the years on HN. He has since deleted all the comments on HN where he mentioned it, but he has on multiple occasions tried to play it off like he's the "real victim", saying anyone who supported his ousting from Mozilla are the "real bigots", and even claimed he would be on the "right side" of history when it came to prop 8/gay marriage. So needless to say I, as a queer person, fucking loathe him. But again, even putting that aside, Brave has done some pretty shady shit over the years. Which is actually a shame, since the idea of an ad-free, user donation supported web, and privacy conscious browser is a good one, IMO.
I use it because I don't have a problem with Chromium but wanted a more secure browser then Chrome. If anything, being Chromium has been a selling point since Chrome extentions are compatible. I used Firefox as my main for a few years before switching because it felt bloated and just didn't run well, but I guess we'll see if the performance has improved since then.
I mainly use brave on android, because it's the only chromium fork that has a decent adblocking and anti-annoyance feature.
On android, firefox just feels painfully slow compared to all chromium based browser.
I am talking of the first draw when going to a new page (when the page is drawn, it's fine). Firefox seems to always have 500ms of random waiting before displaying anything.
Don't know if there is some hidden network setting that might add some random waiting like DNSSEC (even though I deactivated it in the settings). But I just had enough of fiddling in its settings to try to better the situation.
And everywhere there is a discussion comparing Chromium and Firefox, there seems to be a collective oversight on the completion in the url bar.
I just can't stand the stupid choice of firefox here of not remembering the whole url I visit all the time and not only the domain name.
In chromium, I type
yand it auto-completes it towww.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions. Don't even to think about it, its a muscular thing at this point where I don't even see the url bar extends down to display all the auto-completing choices.In Firefox, I always have to wait for it to display the
www.youtube.com, then wait for the url bar to extend down, then go one step down to enter onwww.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions.This only point makes Firefox unusable for me as a main browser for general use. I just use it to have a second browser with some specific sites I visit only on Firefox which does not suffer of this url completion.
I've been using Brave on my phone for a few years now, not knowing of the ethical issues with the company. I like that it blocks ads by default (and, in my experience, really well) but would rather not support them by continued use, especially since I have trouble believing that a company that is shady in one aspect (or several) that doesn't seem to affect me won't eventually burn me as well. I know that's maybe silly coming from someone who still relies on Google for email and mobile devices, but at least with a web browser the switch from less ethical to more only costs a little time, rather than a steep learning curve (self-hosting) or significant monetary and performance costs (finding a non-Google affiliated phone or shelling out for iPhone, which has its own problems in my mind).
All of that faff to say, do you have any recommendations for an Android-compatible mobile web browser/adblocker combo that is comparable to what Brave Shields does, without such a heavy "ethics tax" included?
I personally use plain ol' Firefox with the uBlock Origin extension added. (There aren't many officially-approved extensions for Firefox for Android, but uBlock Origin is one of them!)
Two votes is good enough for me, I'll give it a try! Thanks!
I’m not an Android user, so can’t really help with that since I don’t know what’s all available on the platform. You could try making a new topic asking for recommendations though.
p.s. I personally use Firefox, and 3rd party adblockers (uBlock Origin, AdGuard), on everything.
Thanks for the rec anyway, I think I'll give it a go!
I was at Mozilla when he was promoted and ousted. It was the weirdest dumb decision they've ever made. They knew about his stances, and knew a good chunk of the org was LGBT and still did it.
I use brave for one thing only - background playing youtube videos.
There's a small (tiny, really) addon for Firefox that does the same thing which I used before I switched to NewPipe.
Follow-up: An update on Brave selling copyrighted data for AI training
Related: Crawlers, search engines and the sleaze of generative AI companies
For whatever reason I didn’t know much about Brave but I had it on my phone because it sounded like a good way to browse with a little more privacy. Well anyway I deleted it after reading this.
I'm not sure I see what the problem is. The broader copyright question vis-a-vis AI will inevitably come before the courts, and if they rule against the copyright holders (as I suspect they would) then what is the issue with what Brave is doing?
There was an argument made that they are monetizing other people's work, but they're not; they're monetizing a way to access content. How exactly is this fundamentally any different than what search engines or web browsers do anyway?
It seems like this all stems from an assumption that feeding copyrighted works into an AI learning module is inherently immoral/illegal, and therefore anything that facilitates that is guilty by association.
Agreed! I have been happily using and recommending Brave for many years. Haven't see any other privacy-focused browser (or product for that matter) that is more user-friendly. Whichever device I'm on, I can just install it and start browsing. No need anymore to constantly review which privacy plugins are (still) legit and which combination of them is most efficient. As I get older I have less and less desire to be constantly fine-tuning my set up. Brave offers extremely good, privacy-preserving defaults and has great performance. It's a rare example of a well designed product in the privacy/open source area. I appreciate it for that.
Every time I see a title like this, I'm afraid I will read about an issue with some core aspect of the product and I will feel compelled to switch. Luckily, it inevitably ends up being an article about yet another weird or shady attempt of theirs to make money. They're welcome to try, as long as they allow me to support them in other ways. So far, all of these things have been opt-in (which, by the way, I can't say for Firefox's data gathering defaults). As for prop 8, I don't feel I am supporting the CEO specifically by using Brave, even if I am supporting the product. It's a bit of a gray area, but in most cases I try to separate the "author" from their work. If I wouldn't use any software developed under a CEO whose personal views or actions I object to, I don't think I'd be using much technology at all.
With these articles I'm always reminded of the Dutch saying that who wants to beat a dog can always find a stick, meaning that if you really want to find fault with something, you can.
Dang, I've been using Brave for all my devices.
What's a safe and secure alternative for Android/Mac/Win?
Firefox?
It's been a while since I've used Firefox and while I've got some complaints with this specific fork (Mull), it's nothing security-related.
Always hated the useless extras Brave had, but there are a few UI decisions in Brave that I wish Firefox has.
I don’t really understand why your take away from this article is to not use the Brave browser. It seems to me that it’s just a good example of the complications AI is introducing into copyright law?
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/mobile-browsers/
Settled on Mull, currently moving all content saved on Brave to Mull/Firefox.
Btw, you might want to check the links you posted. They're recommending Brave, which is the topic of this thread. Lol.
I know they do, but it is not all they recommend. They don't just yank things off the page at a moment's notice, but take their time weighing their selection.