Not a Brave user, but it's a privacy conscious browser for casual users, as opposed to hardened firefox where you have to set up everything by yourself. The digital currency stuff is what keeps me...
Not a Brave user, but it's a privacy conscious browser for casual users, as opposed to hardened firefox where you have to set up everything by yourself.
The digital currency stuff is what keeps me away from using it, at all.
Brendan Eich is what keeps me from using Brave. He is a massive homophobe who supported Prop 8 and was ousted "voluntarily stepped down" as CEO of Mozilla as a result. And since then he has even...
Brendan Eich is what keeps me from using Brave. He is a massive homophobe who supported Prop 8 and was ousted "voluntarily stepped down" as CEO of Mozilla as a result. And since then he has even repeatedly said on HN and reddit that everyone against Prop 8 were really the ones on "the wrong side of history", and he is really "the one being persecuted". Guy is a total unrepentant asshole IMO and so I refuse to support anything he is involved in, no matter how much I agree with the project in principle.
I posted an earlier comment about it here, if you're interested, but the short of it is that I see Brave as Better Chrome right now. Many people I know won't use Firefox on account of the friction...
I posted an earlier comment about it here, if you're interested, but the short of it is that I see Brave as Better Chrome right now. Many people I know won't use Firefox on account of the friction of switching and dealing with its differences, but using something functionally identical but more private is an easy sell for them, and Brave fits that -- at least for now.
Can you explain why you don't like Brave? I use brave on all my devices and have not had any issues. The chromium core doesn't really bother me. I am not opposed to FF but seems like a lot of...
Can you explain why you don't like Brave? I use brave on all my devices and have not had any issues. The chromium core doesn't really bother me. I am not opposed to FF but seems like a lot of setup for an equally private browsing experience.
It's made by an ad company. The cryptocurrency thing is extremely shady. They frequently do dumb shit, such as this and this It's basically Chromium. So, why not use Chromium? Brendan Eich is a...
It's made by an ad company.
The cryptocurrency thing is extremely shady.
They frequently do dumb shit, such as this and this
It's basically Chromium. So, why not use Chromium?
Ok so basically you personally don’t like the people and business model? To answer your original question, I like the product and calling it an MLM is just disingenuous.
Ok so basically you personally don’t like the people and business model? To answer your original question, I like the product and calling it an MLM is just disingenuous.
I never understood why it was listed there in the first place. People keep on suggesting it because blocks trackers and ads, and I guess that might sort-of fly on mobile, but (1) there are more...
I never understood why it was listed there in the first place. People keep on suggesting it because blocks trackers and ads, and I guess that might sort-of fly on mobile, but (1) there are more flexible, more open alternatives (Firefox, which supports extensions even on mobile) and (2) they added BAT and their own ad network a while ago, which is... slightly problematic.
And then there's this.
Out-of-box FF has come a long way in regards to its privacy recently. For people like us on this sub, we pay more attention to this stuff than others. For the average user, FF does really well on its default settings.
Firefox banned the gab extension. They are opposed to free speech
Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with a 5 years old situation. If it did, Brave would never be in "recommended" in the first place. Grow up.
Im entitled to my own opinion. Ive seen leftist companies do whatever they can to score a political victory. I think you'd be naive to think there arent some out there that know the history of brave and its founder and smear it because of that.
Look at what just happened to gab on F-droid. Im not in favor or companies making decisions for me. If I dont want to see something ill ignore it my god damn self, I dont need google or some other moronic company playing nanny.
This all seems a bit bizarre and not much is known as to why Brave wants to be delisted from privacytools.io and the admins for Privacytools.io kind of seem hand-wavvy about how they delisted it...
This all seems a bit bizarre and not much is known as to why Brave wants to be delisted from privacytools.io and the admins for Privacytools.io kind of seem hand-wavvy about how they delisted it because Firefox is at near parity with Brave so why bother having it?
This whole thing seems clear as mud even after spending time reading through various threads. In short, if you use and like Brave, keep using it I guess. No mention of any real compromises or whatnot.
Yeah, I don't get it. I use firefox but brave has always seemed to brand itself as privacy focused chrome + that weird advertising cryptocurrency. Wouldn't it be their best interest to be on...
Yeah, I don't get it. I use firefox but brave has always seemed to brand itself as privacy focused chrome + that weird advertising cryptocurrency. Wouldn't it be their best interest to be on privacytools.io?
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/657 This is a bad move from Brave, IMO. They should rather better themselves than distance themselves from the privacy conscious community.
[Discussion] Remove Brave #657
[...]
Reasoning: we, the maintainers of Brave, do not have the necessary bandwidth to
respond to all complaints and/or trolling about Brave as a result of it
being listed on privacytools.io.
I would normally agree... but after spending some time looking through https://reddit.com/r/privacy I'm going to have to agree with Brave on this one. The community there is borderline (and...
I would normally agree... but after spending some time looking through https://reddit.com/r/privacy I'm going to have to agree with Brave on this one. The community there is borderline (and sometimes way past the borderline) tinfoil hat territory with tales of personal anguish for handing over a Ralph's card to the checkout lady to get a discount on lettuce. I agree with being privacy focused, but I wouldn't want to deal with the greater privacy community at large.
You know, I really like suggesting Brave, but not actually using Brave. Here is why: As a tech-savvy user myself I am pretty concerned with my privacy and I love a good browser. So far nothing...
You know, I really like suggesting Brave, but not actually using Brave. Here is why:
As a tech-savvy user myself I am pretty concerned with my privacy and I love a good browser. So far nothing comes close to Firefox for me, even after I took a break from it when Chrome just showed up and Firefox had RAM issues. But the Firefox I'm using and the Firefox that Mozilla envisions are really really different. If I would get a new PC I would have to set at least a dozen flags, change all kinds of settings and install a handful of plugins. The setup process includes getting plugins not listed on mozilla website, manually editing config files, reconfiguring addons, setting up KeePass connection, finding and flipping hidden flags and so on.
So what happens when a less tech savvy person, like my aunt asks me what browser to use? Well, I can just assume she doesn't care about 2/3 of stuff that I'm doing, the 1/3 that involves installing ublock, privacy possum, Honey, etc is too much for someone who can barely find one single setting. But Brave makes it really easy, it shows you a wizard when you start, it blocks ads by default, its interface is a lot more clean, and common addons are right there in the settings section to toggle. I don't know any other browser that can do that for people, and well, with all the semi-shady shit that they do with crypto and ads it provides by far the most user-friendly experience. I'll keep recommending Brave, just because any other recommendation will fall on death ears, while Brave makes for a lasting and enjoyable experience.
Hmm, I've been using Brave for awhile now after seeing someone suggesting it several months ago and I generally like it. I never knew anything about the alt-right thing people are claiming,...
Hmm, I've been using Brave for awhile now after seeing someone suggesting it several months ago and I generally like it. I never knew anything about the alt-right thing people are claiming, although that's concerning.
I guess maybe this means I'm back to searching for another chromium type browser.
This shows that they cater to the community and don't really care about the actual privacy of their tools. Yeah, you can download Firefox and do this, this, this, this and this to make it secure....
This shows that they cater to the community and don't really care about the actual privacy of their tools. Yeah, you can download Firefox and do this, this, this, this and this to make it secure. Something like Brave is important so normal, less techie people can download a browser with privacy in mind. It comes with a solid tracker and ad blocker. Also, it literally has Tor built in.
Literally no explanation to why they delisted this browser more privacy focused than Firefox.
Looking into it myself, it actually appears do be a system concerned with preventing censorship. Whether or not it is popular among a certain ideological group is another matter.
Looking into it myself, it actually appears do be a system concerned with preventing censorship. Whether or not it is popular among a certain ideological group is another matter.
Dissenter is designed specifically for the alt-right, in spite of what they say. They're the ones who are crazy about 'free speech.' But if you want to get into it, there's more details that might...
Dissenter is designed specifically for the alt-right, in spite of what they say. They're the ones who are crazy about 'free speech.' But if you want to get into it, there's more details that might help you.
For one, it's made by the people who brought us gab, which is basically the social network for the alt-right.
But even without that, it's pretty easy to figure out what kind of comments are going to show up on it. Dissenter creates a comment section even when there isn't one on the page, so you're not going to be part of the larger community when there is a comment section. So why would you want to comment there instead? Because you are saying something you know specifically wouldn't be allowed by the comment moderators. And guess where a lot of those kinds of comments tend to come with?
Thanks for the explanation. That is a good point. It's an unfortunate bug that anonymity and anti-censorship, a double-edged sword, is being overwhelmed by hateful rhetoric.
And guess where a lot of those kinds of comments tend to come with?
Thanks for the explanation. That is a good point. It's an unfortunate bug that anonymity and anti-censorship, a double-edged sword, is being overwhelmed by hateful rhetoric.
It's because most social networks (like Reddit and Twitter) are already pretty anti-censorship and pro-free speech. The big exceptions are their rules against content that harasses or actively...
It's because most social networks (like Reddit and Twitter) are already pretty anti-censorship and pro-free speech. The big exceptions are their rules against content that harasses or actively harms other users, and content that is flat out illegal in countries they operate in. This means that the only people really complaining about being censored on these services are people who are active toxic elements in these communities, and people breaking the law in their locale. Naturally, the few communities without these rules are almost exclusively the domain of people you probably don't want to be interacting with. They are toxic cesspools not because they are bastions of free speech, but because they are the only places that won't kick users out for harming other users.
Yea that was exactly my thinking. I'm struggling to come up with a solution other than allowing full free speech everywhere, in the same way offline life is like, and letting the community shame...
Yea that was exactly my thinking. I'm struggling to come up with a solution other than allowing full free speech everywhere, in the same way offline life is like, and letting the community shame those people into changing their tone, as opposed to finding their own niche.
Offline life isn't like that. If I go to a McDonald's and start telling fat people to kill themselves, I will be made to leave the store. The meatspace definition of "Free Speech" that people...
Offline life isn't like that. If I go to a McDonald's and start telling fat people to kill themselves, I will be made to leave the store.
The meatspace definition of "Free Speech" that people claim is being violated by the likes of Reddit is a falsehood. The first amendment prohibits the government from dictating what you can and cannot say, but it does not prevent public spaces from having rules against unruly behavior and kicking people out for harassing others.
Right, but in meat-space they (the haters) have no where else to go. They can't just find a McDonald's alternative where they can be hateful, at the very least not on the same scale (maybe a few...
Right, but in meat-space they (the haters) have no where else to go. They can't just find a McDonald's alternative where they can be hateful, at the very least not on the same scale (maybe a few locals?). Their options are either a) isolate themselves or b) reform and integrate. Usually a person doesn't last long with option (a).
No, you're missing the point. Meatspace is finite, cyberspace is not. Plug one hole on the internet and another will show up. Worse yet, you concentrate the "bad guys" in one small area and that's...
No, you're missing the point. Meatspace is finite, cyberspace is not. Plug one hole on the internet and another will show up. Worse yet, you concentrate the "bad guys" in one small area and that's how you get an institution with expertise to be shared (like most prison systems).
Except, they don't tend to create news spaces to congregate in. They tend to disperse, for a few reasons. Biggest is that they tend to also be low-income and/or low education level, so the setting...
Except, they don't tend to create news spaces to congregate in. They tend to disperse, for a few reasons. Biggest is that they tend to also be low-income and/or low education level, so the setting up of a new space is a near insurmountable challenge.
Just like your other comment, this is a baseless assumption. You're basically saying everyone bad is too stupid to use the internet. Underestimating and generalizing your enemy is how you lose the...
Just like your other comment, this is a baseless assumption. You're basically saying everyone bad is too stupid to use the internet. Underestimating and generalizing your enemy is how you lose the war.
There's a lot of people using tor browser and onion services. Do you have an idea what happens when you force someone to use onion services? They stick to echo chambers where their ideas are...
There's a lot of people using tor browser and onion services.
Do you have an idea what happens when you force someone to use onion services?
They stick to echo chambers where their ideas are unchallenged and encouraged. This creates a feedback loop that leads to easy radicalization of an individual. Not exclusive to onion services obviously, the same process goes on *chans, Gab, Voat, Reddit, albeit much slower.
They gain a lot of great knowledge about things that are forbidden to talk about. They learn how to hide their actions properly, how to get and use drugs/weapons.
They become incredibly dangerous, when all you had to do is debate them like a normal human being capable of understanding that people make mistakes.
They most often, though, just stop using the service, however. Deplatforming works. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work
They most often, though, just stop using the service, however.
Why are you making all these baseless assumptions? You're not helping the discussion. And citing one source, especially one with a history of mixed quality in journalism, is not an effective way...
They most often, though, just stop using the service, however
Why are you making all these baseless assumptions? You're not helping the discussion. And citing one source, especially one with a history of mixed quality in journalism, is not an effective way to convince others.
Then you overestimate the power of that research. We won't really know all the consequences of deplatforming for many years to come. Especially given the hidden corners where excluded people are...
Then you overestimate the power of that research. We won't really know all the consequences of deplatforming for many years to come. Especially given the hidden corners where excluded people are gathering. As in my comment about the prison system vs rehab, which is also where my predictions are coming from.
No they don't. They used to spend their time with that service. What do you think they would do after they stopped using the service? When someone is in a state where they believe any bullshit...
They most often, though, just stop using the service, however.
No they don't. They used to spend their time with that service. What do you think they would do after they stopped using the service? When someone is in a state where they believe any bullshit they encounter and they get banned on some platform, they don't change their views - they change a platform.
Deplatforming works.
Unless you care to explain what 'works' means, that's a moot point.
In meatspace, yes. That allows for a society to function properly. However, in cyberspace, there is no effective isolation. It only makes the situation worse by forcing like-minded "bad" people to...
In meatspace, yes. That allows for a society to function properly. However, in cyberspace, there is no effective isolation. It only makes the situation worse by forcing like-minded "bad" people to cluster and learn from each other because there is always a way out of isolation.
When people have to put up with toxic users on a platform, it makes the experience unpleasant and they may choose to leave. The reason I use the big popular platforms less and less is because the...
When people have to put up with toxic users on a platform, it makes the experience unpleasant and they may choose to leave. The reason I use the big popular platforms less and less is because the increased toxicity brought by these users makes spending my time there unpleasant, despite continued attempts by these platforms to silence them.
There really isn't an easy answer to this problem, but allowing hate speech and harassment isn't going to cut it if creating a pleasant experience for users is part of your goal.
Alright then, I think we found our fundamental disagreement - I'm not looking for pleasant experiences in online conversations, at least not as a requirement. I don't consider that to be an...
There really isn't an easy answer to this problem, but allowing hate speech and harassment isn't going to cut it if creating a pleasant experience for users is part of your goal.
Alright then, I think we found our fundamental disagreement - I'm not looking for pleasant experiences in online conversations, at least not as a requirement. I don't consider that to be an inherent good. I'm most interested in open discussion. If I want a more pleasant version then I will go to a comedy show.
Though by no means do I think everyone shares my perspective (obviously).
It's not really a bug. That's a "feature". Removing individual shame from the equation promotes people saying and doing shameful things. Shame is a way for a society/community to "self-correct"....
It's an unfortunate bug that anonymity and anti-censorship, a double-edged sword, is being overwhelmed by hateful rhetoric.
It's not really a bug. That's a "feature". Removing individual shame from the equation promotes people saying and doing shameful things.
Shame is a way for a society/community to "self-correct". Now a "bug" to that is shame can also be turned into a control mechanism too.
Precisely my point above regarding meatspace. But, when you deplatform someone or censor content you also block the mechanism for shame. Instead, you fuel their fire (e.g. "they don't want the...
Shame is a way for a society/community to "self-correct". Now a "bug" to that is shame can also be turned into a control mechanism too.
Precisely my point above regarding meatspace. But, when you deplatform someone or censor content you also block the mechanism for shame. Instead, you fuel their fire (e.g. "they don't want the people to hear my voice, I must be on to something" thinking) and let them find other avenues. Public discourse is where people may reform their thinking.
Except, what really happens is they lose their platform, and the group falls apart. I will hazard less than 1/4 of the previous users of 8ch still use the Onion service.
Except, what really happens is they lose their platform, and the group falls apart. I will hazard less than 1/4 of the previous users of 8ch still use the Onion service.
I seriously doubt these are valid claims. One is an assumption and the other is a wild guess. There are plenty of up and coming platforms. Just look at what happened with so many of the Reddit and...
I seriously doubt these are valid claims. One is an assumption and the other is a wild guess. There are plenty of up and coming platforms. Just look at what happened with so many of the Reddit and tumblr alternatives.
Yep... let's look at what happened to them. I've not heard of them. I hear gab is doing so good, that they cannot even make a mobile app, and instead are relying on the fediverse.
Yep... let's look at what happened to them.
I've not heard of them. I hear gab is doing so good, that they cannot even make a mobile app, and instead are relying on the fediverse.
Nothing? There's a myriad of *chans that aren't going anywhere, not even including big resources like voat. Gab seems to be growing pretty fast, so not sure what your point is. It certainly isn't...
Yep... let's look at what happened to them.
Nothing? There's a myriad of *chans that aren't going anywhere, not even including big resources like voat. Gab seems to be growing pretty fast, so not sure what your point is. It certainly isn't relying on fediverse, if we're talking about the same fediverse that denied them federation. They had a mobile app for ages.
Maybe you should spare a minute and check if what you heard is right.
Again, you're assuming you have perfect knowledge of the entire social media ecosystem. This overconfidence is analogous to the 2016 election when the mainstream opinion of the left/Dems was that...
Again, you're assuming you have perfect knowledge of the entire social media ecosystem. This overconfidence is analogous to the 2016 election when the mainstream opinion of the left/Dems was that there was no chance in hell that the GOP/Trump would win. A combination of shaky evidence and believing what you want to be true, instead of a little bit of healthy skepticism and trying on the perspective of the opposition.
No, nothing I said was supposition. Everything I said is just factual. They are relying on the code and clients, and possible network uptake of the fediverse. As for gab growing, the only source...
No, nothing I said was supposition. Everything I said is just factual. They are relying on the code and clients, and possible network uptake of the fediverse.
As for gab growing, the only source for that is Gab, a for-profit venture, with a history of unreliable information being put out by the founder.
This discussion is not about the software and hardware. On that point I agree, but also don't care. I'm pointing at the whole system - you are making assumptions on the dynamics without sufficient...
This discussion is not about the software and hardware. On that point I agree, but also don't care. I'm pointing at the whole system - you are making assumptions on the dynamics without sufficient knowledge.
The word “fediverse” (federated universe) refers to the network of all Mastodon servers and other projects, users of which are able to talk to each other seamlessly. Fediverse does not create code...
It's relying on the code and clients created by the fediverse.
Are states rights not what led the way for civil rights and, in the near future, will bring re-legalization of psychedelic medicine on the federal level?
Are states rights not what led the way for civil rights and, in the near future, will bring re-legalization of psychedelic medicine on the federal level?
States' rights are a real and important thing, but the phrase is often used as a coded way of discussing prejudice. Use in this manner relies on people interpreting it in good faith so that the...
States' rights are a real and important thing, but the phrase is often used as a coded way of discussing prejudice. Use in this manner relies on people interpreting it in good faith so that the conversation appears to be neutral of prejudice. It gives the term the appearance of respectability so that its more harmful implications can go unchecked.
No need to be snarky or sarcastic. Your short comment left a lot more questions than answers, hence my follow-up. And yet, you still haven't explained how a system in itself can be alt-right as...
No need to be snarky or sarcastic. Your short comment left a lot more questions than answers, hence my follow-up.
And yet, you still haven't explained how a system in itself can be alt-right as opposed to by chance being used by a certain group.
That wasn't snarky. You questioned my use of the term "system". I explained that. The system was created by, and for, alt-right extremist to be able to voice their hate speech on articles where...
That wasn't snarky. You questioned my use of the term "system". I explained that.
The system was created by, and for, alt-right extremist to be able to voice their hate speech on articles where said hate speech was not tolerated.
I'm surprised anyone is arguing it's removal, when, like you said, Brave is requesting it. But, Brave is the only browser I know of that their alt-right commenting system "Dissenter" works on.
I'm surprised anyone is arguing it's removal, when, like you said, Brave is requesting it.
But, Brave is the only browser I know of that their alt-right commenting system "Dissenter" works on.
Can anyone explain why people like Brave? It looks like browser-as-an-MLM-scheme to me.
Not a Brave user, but it's a privacy conscious browser for casual users, as opposed to hardened firefox where you have to set up everything by yourself.
The digital currency stuff is what keeps me away from using it, at all.
Brendan Eich is what keeps me from using Brave. He is a massive homophobe who supported Prop 8 and
was ousted"voluntarily stepped down" as CEO of Mozilla as a result. And since then he has even repeatedly said on HN and reddit that everyone against Prop 8 were really the ones on "the wrong side of history", and he is really "the one being persecuted". Guy is a total unrepentant asshole IMO and so I refuse to support anything he is involved in, no matter how much I agree with the project in principle.What is Prop 8?
A quick google brought this up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
better not use anything that uses javascript then.
I posted an earlier comment about it here, if you're interested, but the short of it is that I see Brave as Better Chrome right now. Many people I know won't use Firefox on account of the friction of switching and dealing with its differences, but using something functionally identical but more private is an easy sell for them, and Brave fits that -- at least for now.
People are just lazy, switching to Firefox is not hard.
Can you explain why you don't like Brave? I use brave on all my devices and have not had any issues. The chromium core doesn't really bother me. I am not opposed to FF but seems like a lot of setup for an equally private browsing experience.
Ok so basically you personally don’t like the people and business model? To answer your original question, I like the product and calling it an MLM is just disingenuous.
I never understood why it was listed there in the first place. People keep on suggesting it because blocks trackers and ads, and I guess that might sort-of fly on mobile, but (1) there are more flexible, more open alternatives (Firefox, which supports extensions even on mobile) and (2) they added BAT and their own ad network a while ago, which is... slightly problematic.
And then there's this.
Ah, reddit. Never change.
Events led to the delisting posted by an admin. Apparently brave requested to remove them.:\
This all seems a bit bizarre and not much is known as to why Brave wants to be delisted from privacytools.io and the admins for Privacytools.io kind of seem hand-wavvy about how they delisted it because Firefox is at near parity with Brave so why bother having it?
This whole thing seems clear as mud even after spending time reading through various threads. In short, if you use and like Brave, keep using it I guess. No mention of any real compromises or whatnot.
Yeah, I don't get it. I use firefox but brave has always seemed to brand itself as privacy focused chrome + that weird advertising cryptocurrency. Wouldn't it be their best interest to be on privacytools.io?
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/657
This is a bad move from Brave, IMO. They should rather better themselves than distance themselves from the privacy conscious community.
Except, the only real way to better themselves is to not be an ad company, finding a new way to spy on users, really.
Can't argue with you on that, bud
I would normally agree... but after spending some time looking through https://reddit.com/r/privacy I'm going to have to agree with Brave on this one. The community there is borderline (and sometimes way past the borderline) tinfoil hat territory with tales of personal anguish for handing over a Ralph's card to the checkout lady to get a discount on lettuce. I agree with being privacy focused, but I wouldn't want to deal with the greater privacy community at large.
You know, I really like suggesting Brave, but not actually using Brave. Here is why:
As a tech-savvy user myself I am pretty concerned with my privacy and I love a good browser. So far nothing comes close to Firefox for me, even after I took a break from it when Chrome just showed up and Firefox had RAM issues. But the Firefox I'm using and the Firefox that Mozilla envisions are really really different. If I would get a new PC I would have to set at least a dozen flags, change all kinds of settings and install a handful of plugins. The setup process includes getting plugins not listed on mozilla website, manually editing config files, reconfiguring addons, setting up KeePass connection, finding and flipping hidden flags and so on.
So what happens when a less tech savvy person, like my aunt asks me what browser to use? Well, I can just assume she doesn't care about 2/3 of stuff that I'm doing, the 1/3 that involves installing ublock, privacy possum, Honey, etc is too much for someone who can barely find one single setting. But Brave makes it really easy, it shows you a wizard when you start, it blocks ads by default, its interface is a lot more clean, and common addons are right there in the settings section to toggle. I don't know any other browser that can do that for people, and well, with all the semi-shady shit that they do with crypto and ads it provides by far the most user-friendly experience. I'll keep recommending Brave, just because any other recommendation will fall on death ears, while Brave makes for a lasting and enjoyable experience.
Hmm, I've been using Brave for awhile now after seeing someone suggesting it several months ago and I generally like it. I never knew anything about the alt-right thing people are claiming, although that's concerning.
I guess maybe this means I'm back to searching for another chromium type browser.
Can I ask why you need a chromium type browser?
It's just what I prefer. I know firefox has come a long way and is usually the suggested browser now, but I'm not sure I can quite get used to it.
Nah, keep using it if you like it.
Though if you do want to explore other Chromium browsers, check out Opera. It has some really cool features.
Or Vivaldi. Still closed source but made in the spirit of the original opera.
If you don't mind the build step, Ungoogled Chromium sounds really nice to me.
But that still contributes to the problem of Blink becoming the new IE6.
Well, that's not relevant for answering the question here, no?
On Android, I sometimes use Bromite whenever Firefox acts up. Don't know for other platforms, though.
This shows that they cater to the community and don't really care about the actual privacy of their tools. Yeah, you can download Firefox and do this, this, this, this and this to make it secure. Something like Brave is important so normal, less techie people can download a browser with privacy in mind. It comes with a solid tracker and ad blocker. Also, it literally has Tor built in.
Literally no explanation to why they delisted this browser more privacy focused than Firefox.
Is their explanation that they have some complaints and Firefox is better? It certainly does not seem like a open explanation to their reasoning.
And a bunch of folk on reddit who are clamoring for brave, since it's the only browser that supports their alt-right commenting system.
Could you explain that further? And what is a right/left commenting system anyways?
Dissenter. It's a commenting system for right wing extremists.
Looking into it myself, it actually appears do be a system concerned with preventing censorship. Whether or not it is popular among a certain ideological group is another matter.
Dissenter is designed specifically for the alt-right, in spite of what they say. They're the ones who are crazy about 'free speech.' But if you want to get into it, there's more details that might help you.
For one, it's made by the people who brought us gab, which is basically the social network for the alt-right.
But even without that, it's pretty easy to figure out what kind of comments are going to show up on it. Dissenter creates a comment section even when there isn't one on the page, so you're not going to be part of the larger community when there is a comment section. So why would you want to comment there instead? Because you are saying something you know specifically wouldn't be allowed by the comment moderators. And guess where a lot of those kinds of comments tend to come with?
Thanks for the explanation. That is a good point. It's an unfortunate bug that anonymity and anti-censorship, a double-edged sword, is being overwhelmed by hateful rhetoric.
It's because most social networks (like Reddit and Twitter) are already pretty anti-censorship and pro-free speech. The big exceptions are their rules against content that harasses or actively harms other users, and content that is flat out illegal in countries they operate in. This means that the only people really complaining about being censored on these services are people who are active toxic elements in these communities, and people breaking the law in their locale. Naturally, the few communities without these rules are almost exclusively the domain of people you probably don't want to be interacting with. They are toxic cesspools not because they are bastions of free speech, but because they are the only places that won't kick users out for harming other users.
Yea that was exactly my thinking. I'm struggling to come up with a solution other than allowing full free speech everywhere, in the same way offline life is like, and letting the community shame those people into changing their tone, as opposed to finding their own niche.
Offline life isn't like that. If I go to a McDonald's and start telling fat people to kill themselves, I will be made to leave the store.
The meatspace definition of "Free Speech" that people claim is being violated by the likes of Reddit is a falsehood. The first amendment prohibits the government from dictating what you can and cannot say, but it does not prevent public spaces from having rules against unruly behavior and kicking people out for harassing others.
Right, but in meat-space they (the haters) have no where else to go. They can't just find a McDonald's alternative where they can be hateful, at the very least not on the same scale (maybe a few locals?). Their options are either a) isolate themselves or b) reform and integrate. Usually a person doesn't last long with option (a).
Exactly. Instead of trying to "fix" digital areas, we should make them emulate meatspace more, and that's a huge reason why deplatforming works.
No, you're missing the point. Meatspace is finite, cyberspace is not. Plug one hole on the internet and another will show up. Worse yet, you concentrate the "bad guys" in one small area and that's how you get an institution with expertise to be shared (like most prison systems).
Except, they don't tend to create news spaces to congregate in. They tend to disperse, for a few reasons. Biggest is that they tend to also be low-income and/or low education level, so the setting up of a new space is a near insurmountable challenge.
Just like your other comment, this is a baseless assumption. You're basically saying everyone bad is too stupid to use the internet. Underestimating and generalizing your enemy is how you lose the war.
No, it's just what happens. How popular do you think onion services are? How many people use tor browser?
There's a lot of people using tor browser and onion services.
Do you have an idea what happens when you force someone to use onion services?
They most often, though, just stop using the service, however.
Deplatforming works. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work
Why are you making all these baseless assumptions? You're not helping the discussion. And citing one source, especially one with a history of mixed quality in journalism, is not an effective way to convince others.
It's not baseless, though. There has been research done on what happens when extremists get deplatformed...
Then you overestimate the power of that research. We won't really know all the consequences of deplatforming for many years to come. Especially given the hidden corners where excluded people are gathering. As in my comment about the prison system vs rehab, which is also where my predictions are coming from.
No they don't. They used to spend their time with that service. What do you think they would do after they stopped using the service? When someone is in a state where they believe any bullshit they encounter and they get banned on some platform, they don't change their views - they change a platform.
Unless you care to explain what 'works' means, that's a moot point.
I really don't see a problem with this. Engage in antisocial behavior, don't be surprised when society isolates you from social interactions.
In meatspace, yes. That allows for a society to function properly. However, in cyberspace, there is no effective isolation. It only makes the situation worse by forcing like-minded "bad" people to cluster and learn from each other because there is always a way out of isolation.
When people have to put up with toxic users on a platform, it makes the experience unpleasant and they may choose to leave. The reason I use the big popular platforms less and less is because the increased toxicity brought by these users makes spending my time there unpleasant, despite continued attempts by these platforms to silence them.
There really isn't an easy answer to this problem, but allowing hate speech and harassment isn't going to cut it if creating a pleasant experience for users is part of your goal.
Alright then, I think we found our fundamental disagreement - I'm not looking for pleasant experiences in online conversations, at least not as a requirement. I don't consider that to be an inherent good. I'm most interested in open discussion. If I want a more pleasant version then I will go to a comedy show.
Though by no means do I think everyone shares my perspective (obviously).
It's not really a bug. That's a "feature". Removing individual shame from the equation promotes people saying and doing shameful things.
Shame is a way for a society/community to "self-correct". Now a "bug" to that is shame can also be turned into a control mechanism too.
Precisely my point above regarding meatspace. But, when you deplatform someone or censor content you also block the mechanism for shame. Instead, you fuel their fire (e.g. "they don't want the people to hear my voice, I must be on to something" thinking) and let them find other avenues. Public discourse is where people may reform their thinking.
Except, what really happens is they lose their platform, and the group falls apart. I will hazard less than 1/4 of the previous users of 8ch still use the Onion service.
I seriously doubt these are valid claims. One is an assumption and the other is a wild guess. There are plenty of up and coming platforms. Just look at what happened with so many of the Reddit and tumblr alternatives.
Yep... let's look at what happened to them.
I've not heard of them. I hear gab is doing so good, that they cannot even make a mobile app, and instead are relying on the fediverse.
Nothing? There's a myriad of *chans that aren't going anywhere, not even including big resources like voat.
Gab seems to be growing pretty fast, so not sure what your point is. It certainly isn't relying on fediverse, if we're talking about the same fediverse that denied them federation. They had a mobile app for ages.
Maybe you should spare a minute and check if what you heard is right.
It's relying on the code and clients created by the fediverse.
And, Gab says it's growing. I'm not one to trust an untrustworthy source, though.
Again, you're assuming you have perfect knowledge of the entire social media ecosystem. This overconfidence is analogous to the 2016 election when the mainstream opinion of the left/Dems was that there was no chance in hell that the GOP/Trump would win. A combination of shaky evidence and believing what you want to be true, instead of a little bit of healthy skepticism and trying on the perspective of the opposition.
No, nothing I said was supposition. Everything I said is just factual. They are relying on the code and clients, and possible network uptake of the fediverse.
As for gab growing, the only source for that is Gab, a for-profit venture, with a history of unreliable information being put out by the founder.
This discussion is not about the software and hardware. On that point I agree, but also don't care. I'm pointing at the whole system - you are making assumptions on the dynamics without sufficient knowledge.
The word “fediverse” (federated universe) refers to the network of all Mastodon servers and other projects, users of which are able to talk to each other seamlessly. Fediverse does not create code and clients, that's just not what the word means. Gab absolutely does not rely on fediverse in its current form.
Well, okay?.. it's only tangentially relevant to your initial premise,
which is outright false.
that's a front. just like "states' rights."
Are states rights not what led the way for civil rights and, in the near future, will bring re-legalization of psychedelic medicine on the federal level?
States' rights are a real and important thing, but the phrase is often used as a coded way of discussing prejudice. Use in this manner relies on people interpreting it in good faith so that the conversation appears to be neutral of prejudice. It gives the term the appearance of respectability so that its more harmful implications can go unchecked.
It was created by the creators of Gab, in order to enable extremists to be able to collaborate, where they were no longer welcomed elsewhere.
I don't think so: ubergeek said system not audience.
Yes, a set of tools assembled in a certain fashion is called "a system".
No need to be snarky or sarcastic. Your short comment left a lot more questions than answers, hence my follow-up.
And yet, you still haven't explained how a system in itself can be alt-right as opposed to by chance being used by a certain group.
That wasn't snarky. You questioned my use of the term "system". I explained that.
The system was created by, and for, alt-right extremist to be able to voice their hate speech on articles where said hate speech was not tolerated.
I was explaining to Keegan that you meant what you said by system and that you did not mean audience.
ah, got ya. I must have mis-read your comment.
Yea. But no hard feelings. I meant no hostility towards you.
I'm surprised anyone is arguing it's removal, when, like you said, Brave is requesting it.
But, Brave is the only browser I know of that their alt-right commenting system "Dissenter" works on.
Why wouldn't it work on any Chromium-based browser?
Ah, nevermind. I guess they were all ornery because it got pulled from the Mozilla and Google extensions pages.