• j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        White list firewall. Because this is the real reason everyone has a right to ad block. Ads are hidden links to other websites. It’s like walking through a gauntlet of pick pockets bribing the credit card company just to make it to the checkout at your local grocery store, or some asshole you invite into your home that goes to the bathroom, opens a window, and lets a dozen random people in your home if they pay a dollar for the access. The entire system is based on stalking people. It is criminal.

        • berga@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It changes many default Firefox preferences in about:config to be as private as possible. The main selling point is resist fingerprinting (RFP). I highly suggest reading the wiki. It can break some websites, but you can configure it to fit your needs.

      • Bri Guy @sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I used Brave for a few years but recently switched to LibreFox. I really enjoyed Brave as a browser but couldn’t handle all the sketchy shit that seems to keep coming up

      • rndll@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        The only reason I haven’t switched to Firefox from Chrome fully is because for some reason Firefox for Android still doesn’t have tabs for large screen devices. Mozilla says it’s not a priority. 🤷

        • No1@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Firefox for Android removing the ability to open local html files killed it for me. Currently on Vivaldi.

            • No1@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              It was because of ‘security’, which was never explained. And it doesn’t make much sense when other browsers can and do alow it. I’ll see if I can dig up some historical links if I remember tomorrow.

              Last time I checked,there was still no acknowledgement of it and appeared to be no intention of ever addressing it. The fact that they’re now telling people to run a webserver suggests that nothing has changed ☹️

        • Nioxic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          So use edge

          Its chrome-based… but at least its not brave, and the adblocker(which is off by default…) is decent enough

          • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            If you think the things brave has done are bad, go read through the list of things microsoft has done. You really don’t want them to ever have a browser again, and certainly don’t want to personally use it.

    • mrsgreenpotato@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I am using Brave on iOS mainly because of its superb YouTube support - It has a built in ad block, can download videos offline and play minimized. Is there any way I can achieve this with any other browser? I would switch immediately.

  • blue_zephyr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    The fact that their founder wants to ban gay marriage is enough reason for me to avoid it like the plague.

      • blue_zephyr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        He made a thousand dollar donation in support of proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California that strips gay people of the right to marry. He then proceeded to argue that such a donation does not make him a bigot or an enemy of LGBTQ+ people, because he’s a delusional piece of filth.

        This effectively prevented gay people from marrying in California from 2008 to 2013 until the fascists that supported it were finally done trying to argue how this doesn’t violate the US constitution.

        So yeah, may he, his browser, and any pathethic excuse that pretends to be human being who supported this abomination rot in the deepest depths forever.

  • arc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Brave is a marching band of red flags. It claims privacy while injecting ads, affiliate codes and crypto into the browser. It’s kind of sad to see someone like Brendan Eich who should know better turn to the dark side and pretend this is all fine. It isn’t.

    Best advice I could give for anyone who wants privacy is use Firefox or a branch of it. Firefox is out of the box the most privacy conscious mainstream browser and add-ons make it more so. If you want absolute privacy you could even use a derivative like Tor Browser.

  • rog@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I dont know why anyone would leave chrome and land on something like brave.

    If youre ditching chrome, which you should, go to an actual different browser and use Firefox.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Chromium has metric shit tons of work done that seems to perform great. What I would love to see is for Mozilla to fork Chromium, staff it with enough people to maintain it, add/remove the features they feel are appropriate/inappropriate, and thus reuse the tons of free work Google and others have already done. As a software engineer, I don’t buy the argument that it’s easier to correctly implement every new web feature anew than maintaining a fork. Every large org that ships anything based on Android for example maintains a fork of an even bigger codebase. It’s not as complicated as people make it out to be. It’s not a new problem and there are strategies to manage it. If Mozilla does this, they’ll be able to play an active role in steering by far the biggest rendering engine’s direction, instead of playing opposition with no stake in it. Now downvote away! 😄

  • Raltoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The ceo is a bigoted asshole, Brave is chromium, it was initially funded by Peter Thiel and they’re literally just trying to make their own adsense network.

    The self-proclaimed privacy focused browser is tracking your browsing and want to serve you personalized ads, and I think they want to use that tracking data for AI training as well, meaning other people can potentially access it.

    And lets not forget about their crypto currency that you can earn by turning on special ads. Which they seemingly unironically called it “Basic Attent Tokens”…

    TL;DR: The company is basically a sham company trying to usher in a dystopia. Where you’ll get paid for staring at ads, while having all your data stolen and sold back to you.

  • stooovie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I have absolutely no idea how Brave got the reputation it has. It’s business model is disgusting and extortionate, it’s like paying for warez. Been clear as day since day one.

  • dexahtm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I thought it was nice that maybe a private browser would be mainstream but then on second thought… Something icky must be going on if it’s mainstream, i mean the whole crypto part was an instant warning for me. Proud Librewolf user over here!!!

  • Pantherina@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Damn didnt know it was that bad.

    They also lack any documentation about how to use their policies on Linux (where you can disable all the bloat). But it should be doable, I will give it another try.

    Is the browser even FOSS? Can you compile a working version yourself?

    I do that with Firefox and it is really cool.

  • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The fact that its main 2 gimmicks are a shitty ad blocker and integrated cryptocurrency should be enough of a red flag, honestly. Just use Firefox, people!

  • rodolfo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’ve read the article via Firefox, with NoScript enabled. Am I doing this right?

  • alvanrahimli@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Unfortunately, there are the ame stuff about Firefox too. Mozilla Foundation is such a corrupt organization with extreme shady finances.

    Foundation’s main income is royalties by google: 567M per year.

    Donations: 7M (which almost goes to the CEO’s bonuses)

    the CEO gets 700K salary and 4.6M bonuses. Lmao.

    I’d suggest, using Firefox but not donating to them.

  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    I want to try a thought experiment. Imagine that you observe this comment in reaction to the above:

    I just don’t get why the author is so pissed about their political contributions. Guess what, people who are involved in big business are usually right-wing and support right-wing organizations. Shocking. Who could have known. I don’t even want to imagine how the author comes to the conclusion that this is some big conspiracy but I think we all know what political spectrum that guy belongs to.

    What I just wrote is a mirror-image version of the top rated comment on that article from a few days ago about the Mozilla foundation funding left-wing organizations. Do you agree with one of those statements and not the other? If so, why?

    It is one-sided to say that someone involved in Brave should only be “allowed” to do so if he doesn’t support anything conservative. Just as would be one-sided and wrong to say that Mozilla shouldn’t be “allowed” to support left-wing organizations. Flipping it around, and looking at the reaction when it’s the other way around, is an easy way to analyze your own internal reactions on it.

    (Generally, I’m in agreement with the idea that you shouldn’t use Brave because of all these other shady things; just this one part jumped out at me as one thing that’s not like the others.)

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The fact that you would consider your counterfactual a mirror image is itself problematic.

      In the case of the Foundation, it supports exactly what it purports to support. They’re like the EFF and other civil rights organizations. If you consider the EFF left wing, I think that says a bit more about where you stand.

      The original article was outrage-bate blog spam, with random Capitalized Words and the prolific use of “scare quotes.” It doesn’t even say anything. No charges of misinformation. No citation of law. Just “They have a Billion Dollars!!” kinds of sentences.

      On the other hand, the CEO of a company - particularly a small company - lends his personality to the company. It often makes sense to co-identify them, given that the CEO has an incredible amount of influence.

      So if you are saying that libertarian software project : libertarian institutions :: conservative ideas : homophobic legislation, I guess you’re just really endorsing the position of judging the company by the politicians and politics it supports. If you see prop 8 as being as fundamental to the conservative position as internet freedom is to an organization specifically dedicated to preserving internet freedom, all I can say is that I hope more people start to see it that way.

    • Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Right wing is the one that actively and openly hurts people, so yeah I do see a difference tbh

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’re not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.

        I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn’t mean someone who’s on the other side suddenly shouldn’t be an executive of anything.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, it’s one-sided. Prop 8 was stupid and CA rightfully rejected that shit later.

      It’s good to be one-sided against stupid shit that is a crime against humanity. Gay marriage is now legal federally. Same as interracial marriage. Nazis got beat the fuck up in WW2. Slavery is over. Deal with it.

    • ventrix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Very good observation. The issue being, the way I see it, he supported a generally accepted hateful conservative rhetoric. Most left wing organizations do not promote hateful rhetorics.

    • themarty27@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Supporting politicians you like and supporting basic human rights being taken away on the basis of completely arbitrary factors outside one’s control are two very different things.

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’re not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.

        I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn’t mean someone who’s on the other side suddenly shouldn’t be an executive of anything.

        • themarty27@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s not even about sides. There is no left wing party in the USA - the Democrats are a right wing party. The problem with the GOP is not that they are right wing, it’s that they are extremists. A lot of their “policies” are not policies, they are crimes against humanity. 'People who are demographic X shouldn’t have the basic human right of Y" is not an opinion, a policy or justifiable in any way.

          And boycotting people as Eich is first and foremost an act of self-preservation.

          1. Eich is, evidently, a hateful cunt who invests into destroying the human rights of random people. By exposing your e-mail, bank accounts, your communications and your identity to him (by using his browser), you are inviting him to violate your rights as well.
          2. By using Brave’s shit, you giwe Eich money. Thot same money he later uses to fund the atrocities he and his peers commit. Thus, by using Brave’s shit, you are not only complacent in these crimes, but actively participating.
          3. Less relevant, but still, by using a Chromium-based browser, you help inflate Google’s oppressive market share in the browser space, letting them push shit like Mv3 or WEI. If Brave actually cared about making a private and secure browser and fighting Google’s monopoly, they’d base off Gecko or, better yet, build their own engine.
    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The two sides are not morally equal. Prop 8 was an awful, bigoted stain on California’s history and he was unrepentant. I am glad he no longer is at Firefox. And Brave is a sketchy company that makes clear it was a good decision to give him the boot. I can support companies with moral stances I agree with and not support companies that do bad things.

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    At one point they were scummy enough to automatically add their referral codes to any Amazon link you see. Lots of people today still mindlessly recommend Brave, and that’s what’s wrong in general with the “but the UX is so nice” mentality.

    • FatCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Its almost like UX is one of the most important things for a user of any given program. 🥴