1056
Stop using Brave Browser
(www.spacebar.news)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
1056 points (85.0% liked)
Firefox
17303 readers
25 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Even though I do not agree at all with the donation and support - out of the things that influence me into choosing a browser, 15 year-old private donations of appointed CEOs is pretty low on that list.
And the whole BAT thing is opt-in and they're very transparent about it. I don't get why people get so triggered when the C word - crypto - is involved.
I think the only relevant criticism I see is adding affiliate codes to urls (until they were caught).
The author also forgot the polemic of adding twitter and facebook trackers to the whitelist, and impersonating people in their ads. There are some interesting criticisms against brave, I don't understand why their detractors are obsessed with the CEO and crypto.
Exactly. They do a lot of things I don't like, which is why I don't use them. However, I do recommend them over Chrome if someone isn't willing to use Firefox (or Safari on iOS with an ad blocking extension).
That said, the ad replacement thing was an interesting idea, and if it got better click-through rate while preventing sites from stealing PII, they probably could've cut a profit sharing deal and users would've been better off vs the status quo. They could also have a "premium" option where they pay a certain amount for no ads, and that amount gets split with websites who would normally serve ads.
There are some good ideas there, but unfortunately the good ideas don't seem to have really worked out as intended. I still think they're better than Chrome, but things can change.
BAT can be distributed to publishers of content you go to based on percentage of visiting those sites. You can purchase BAT or subscribe to the ad program. Nobody in this thread knows even the basics of BAT, smh.
Yes, it's possible, but that's not how it works in reality.
I think it's a good idea, but with some missteps by Brave. They need to get sites on board before I can truly recommend them.
Well nobody is perfect, this thread is making that abundantly clear. If they were still doing all that shit years later everyone might have a point. Make mistakes and learn from it and move on is the only thing I can really ask of anyone. Brave is doing the right thing IMO. As to your comment about BAT, it’s the classic problem of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Not recommending it because it’s not being used so nobody’s recommending it lol.
I don't recommend it because there are better options. Firefox is privacy respecting, and since it still has an independent rendering and JavaScript engine, it's better for open web standards. On iOS, all browsers have the same rendering engine as per Apple's rules, so I recommend Safari with an ad blocker.
If Brave actually offered something tangibly better for the open web, I would recommend it. But it doesn't, so I recommend something that does.
However, if you need a chromium-based browser, I think Brave and Chromium are about on par, so I recommend both.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/
Here's the actual quote about search:
So it sends search queries to get search suggestions. I didn't see it mentioned one way or the other, but I'm assuming Firefox doesn't send any personally identifiable information with it, though the server probably can track you somewhat with your IP address.
Sending queries to partners is optional.
Wrong section but I misread it and its an opt in.
By default, pocket makes suggestions to you based on your browsing history and then the aggregate of that is sent to Mozilla. How is that privacy respecting again?
The aggregate of your interaction with sponsored content is sent to Mozilla (sponsored links you've seen, clicked on, and how many times you've clicked on them). Your browsing history is never sent, either in whole or aggregate. It also sends your region, country, state, and county, but not your IP or anything that could uniquely identify you.
Since you aren't being identified, nor can you likely be identified, it's privacy respecting. Other advertisers attempt to build a uniquely identifying profile on you where they grab as much information as they can. When compared, Pocket looks a lot better than every other advertiser.
Regardless, I'm not comfortable with Pocket, so I disable it. I can't disable advertisers tracking me.
But the data collection sounds like it's counter to its supposed goals. Multiple campaigns have been discussed that just make it believe they don't actually care about privacy considering all the ways they keep trying to do stuff is counter to that. Why stay? Tor Browser is available. Hell, Firefox itself is already able to take you pretty far and extensions can do the rest.
Why make the sacrifice of your personal data? Like, how many attempts at collecting personal data do you need to have occur before you realize it's always been their goal?
Of appointed CEOs who quit after 11 days to boot. But he was CTO prior.
But looks like he was largely ousted very fast with all the negative PR Mozilla was getting.
I would also imagine there are a lot of people that did not support same sex marriage back in 2008 that do now. I do not know the Eich personally, but it doesn't make sense to hold this stuff against people until we find out if they have or haven't changed their views.
15 years ago isn't that long ago - and there is a huge difference between "not supporting same sex marriage" and "donating against same sex marriage".
15 years is a long time. I know someone who did a complete 180 on their beliefs within a few years: from a conservative, homophobic, and religious pov to the exact opposite. I myself changed some political views I had 5 years ago.
I have no idea about Eich, but if I let this affect my choices of anything, frankly I won't do anything else in my life facing the millions of variables before me.
Sure, he donated $1000.
California voters approved prop 8 by a sizable majority. It was thrown out by the courts. That kind of dilutes my “oh no” over one persons donation. We’d need to boycott a good portion of Californians.
Today I think it’s relevant to point out he was an outspoken against masks, shutdowns, and was calling Fauci a liar. Basically everyone’s conservative family member in 2020.
It's not like he's backed down from his position against gay people over the years.