Seriously.

Just gonna leave this here.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        8·
        2 years ago

        The referral links weren’t. That should have been a thought that crossed a developers’ mind and immediately left it. It definitely shouldn’t have made it into a test build, and it super shouldn’t have made it into a public release. That it ever made it that far is enough reason to never use the browser again. The developers have proven that they cannot be trusted with your privacy.

      • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
        5·
        2 years ago

        Sure, you have to sign up for it but you can’t remove the hardcoded crypto wallet extension and therefore can’t actually opt-out of having it shoved in your face (at least, it was the time i tried their browser and found it to be inferior in every way to just using Firefox and uBlock Origin).

  • ch1cken@kbin.social
    32·
    2 years ago

    Damn, 3 days 0 days without anti-brave browser propaganda, so lets break down this article:

    brandon eich

    Do you use linux? Go look up all the nasty stuff stallman’s said and firmly believes in. I don’t see people boycotting gnu which is a vital part of linux as a result of this, I myself still use it, because you should never mix politics with software. If the software works as it should, why do the author’s politics make a difference? A lot of praised artwork was made by artists who went mad. Similarly, I’ve heard the creator of lemmy has some questionable views, I don’t see people spreading anti-lemmy propaganda.

    The same also applies with microsoft, if you use windows. Or apple, with macos. They’re no saint either.

    The Ad Experiments

    is Opt in… Come on at least try out something before you write a whole article on it.

    Some ranting about the opt in crypto

    Mentioned above.

    adding affiliate codes to some URLs typed into the address bar

    Again shows that they never actually tried the browser, they’re just jumping on the hate bandwagon. It never “rewrote” url’s, or “hijacked” anything, it suggested them, which the user could optionally click on, this is a very significant difference to “hijacked”, or “rewrote” as that’d be malicious, whereas with this approach the user chooses. This was later removed.

    use vivaldi

    Vivaldi is not comparable brave in terms of all the hardening they’ve done. Firefox is a great alternative, and that’s what I myself use, but I always recommend brave to less tech-savvy people, especially if they’re coming from something like chrome.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      24·
      2 years ago

      I always recommend brave to less tech-savvy people,

      Why exactly? The tricks like “optional things to click” are explicitly targeted on less tech savvy people and defeat the point of privacy focused browsers.

      • umbraroze@kbin.social
        26·
        2 years ago

        I’ve literally installed Firefox and uBlock Origin for elderly people, and walked some other elderly people through installing them. In, like, 2 minutes. This is not difficult.

      • ch1cken@kbin.social
        6·
        2 years ago

        Why exactly?

        Because with firefox, they’d have to install arkenfox’s userjs, change some defaults like the search engine from being google out of the box & add ublock origin, for it to be an alternative. Which for some people is overly complicated, in which case brave comes in handy where you just install it and don’t need to change any settings. It doesn’t use google for search, sync & google safe browsing are implemented in a privacy respecting way, it has an adblock & some resistance to fingerprinting ootb.

        Now librewolf does exist as a firefox based browser with good defaults, but on windows unless you’re using a package manager, it won’t auto update.

        • hoodatninja@kbin.social
          26·
          2 years ago

          Just getting somebody on Firefox with ublock origin is enough IMO. I’m not going to also remove their ability to use Google search. Especially if they’re older. I am very privacy oriented but you have to make some compromises for people lol.

        • QHC@kbin.social
          12·
          2 years ago

          Those are choices, not requirements. Using Firefox is better than using Chrome. Doing the extra stuff is even better, but if doing that means someone gives up and goes back to Chrome, that doesn’t help, either.

          Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

    • umbraroze@kbin.social
      13·
      2 years ago

      Go look up all the nasty stuff stallman’s said and firmly believes in. I don’t see people boycotting gnu which is a vital part of linux as a result of this

      People are already aware of the shit Stallman does. Hell, you don’t need to read the shit he writes, dude’s a real-life creep.

      And besides: GNU project’s tools have continued popularity despite him. Do I need to remind you of XEmacs? EGLIBC? EGCS? A whole lot of projects that reminded GNU equivalents to “oh yeah, maybe we should get gud instead of being an inferiour code base” (XEmacs) or “oh yeah, this fork is clearly superiour, we should merge and call it official” (EGLIBC, EGCS). And now people are like “Hey guys, I just found this compiler called Clang and-” and GNU is like “FFFFF-”

      [Ad experiments and crypto] is opt in.

      If you download an ad blocker, I’m pretty certain that you don’t want to “opt in” to any advertisements by default.

      Hey, you thought that was easy to debunk? How about this: When Brave advertises that content creators are able to accept BAT crypto tokens as donations, should the content creators themselves first opt in? They most certainly didn’t. Brave specifically said that they would accept donations on behalf of all content creators and held the donations on their behalf until they would opt in.

      If these content creators never would actually opt in, what then, I wonder? Did they just deceive the fans of those content creators?

      This is dangerously close to the whole rhetoric NFT bros had during the peak. “Why, someone made illegitimate NFTs of your creations? Well you SHOULD have minted those NFTs while you had the chance. Oh, you prefer to NOT participate in this whole NFT ecosystem on principle? Have fun staying poor!”

    • fear@kbin.social
      10·
      2 years ago

      why do the author’s politics make a difference?

      In this case it makes a difference because there has been an alarming increase in harmful lies made by the far right. This is a purposeful spread of misinformation that many people hesitate to get involved with in any way, and for good reason.

      I do not trust the creator of Brave to be aligned with the far right and to still be guided by ethical conduct that I can trust. If you align yourself with people who lie and put others in danger for profit and control, you’re condoning such behavior and may be capable of it yourself.

    • 00@kbin.social
      3·
      2 years ago

      because you should never mix politics with technology.

      What does this mean?

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      2 years ago

      If these people really want to ban technology based on the views of the author then they might as well live in the stone age. And even then the tools they used was probably invented by some nasty people. The US space program was built by literal Nazi scientist. Most of the research on how humans survive in space was based on experiments done to Jews. The first immortalized human cell line and one of the most important cell lines in medical research are the HeLa cells taken from a black woman named Henrietta Lacks. She did not consent to have those cells taken nor was she or her family compensated. Are we gonna boycott cancer research because of this injustice? No? Only the things that make them feel uncomfortable?

  • jlarex@beehaw.org
    4·
    2 years ago

    Brave has always seemed shady as hell to me. I don’t understand why so many tech people keep recommending it.

  • JelloBrains@kbin.social
    4·
    2 years ago

    If you are basing the use of a product on the politics of people involved in the project, then you are going to end up with no products to use.

    If you are basing it on it being based on Chromium and having a crypto scam built in, then I get that. That being said, the browser isn’t super bad, just not good. Viva La Firefox.

    • Rossel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      2 years ago

      I wouldn’t be using Lemmy at all if I had to agree with the creators political views lol.

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    2 years ago

    I challenge anyone to cite an incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.

    Well for starters you donated $1,000 in support of prop 8

  • Echo71Niner@kbin.social
    3·
    2 years ago

    The article appears to be biased against Brave Browser and its associated company, presenting a negative viewpoint on various aspects of the browser’s development, functionality, partnerships, and the background of its founder. The tone is critical and skeptical at best.

  • freeplay@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    2 years ago

    Nah i love my built in adblock/open source/privacy features. You can turn off crypto stuff. Author can shove his politics up his ass.

  • NGC2346@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    2 years ago

    TL;DR : The Brave web browser has gained attention as an alternative to mainstream browsers, marketed for privacy and backed by cryptocurrency enthusiasts. However, it’s been criticized for its association with Brendan Eich, who faced backlash for supporting a proposition against same-sex marriage. Brave’s attempts at a privacy-centric approach included plans for a unique advertising model, which faced legal challenges. The browser’s cryptocurrency, BAT, faced volatility and its ad replacement system didn’t provide substantial rewards. Additionally, Brave collaborated with controversial crypto entities. Privacy concerns were raised when the browser added affiliate codes to URLs, and its complexity and associations have led critics to recommend other browsers like Firefox or Vivaldi for privacy-focused users.

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    1·
    2 years ago

    Okay, first and foremost: I do not use brave. I have used it years back (long before the URL-Rewrite-thing) and thought it felt weirdly bloated with stuff I didn’t use (a little like Opera). I would not recommend Brave to anyone at this point, because it’s… weird. I was out when they started to wave at you with their strange pseudo-currency-wallet that had to be set up and all. I would not recommend such a browser to someone who might then just ask me questions about the weird things the browser I told them to install does. No way, Jose!

    Now for the but: The article is bad. Like… baaaad.
    Let’s have a look, shall we?

    “Some higher-up of the company did something that is not moral”

    You do not become CEO of a company íf your moral compass is a high priority for you. Period. We still need to keep the perspective here: the donation shows views I really dislike, yes. But given how much many of those suited-up nutjobs in upper managements give to really shitty causes… these 1000 dollars were peanuts. Besides: How does a CEO with indefensible political views make the product bad?

    The Peter Thiel bonus fact:

    Can we stop to attribute any investments by large funds as a morally motivated thing? There was a guy at Peter Thiel’s fund who saw the project and went “Eyyy that’s gonna get us some Dollary-doos”. That’s it. That’s how business works. Those funds constantly shift tuckloads of money into truckloads of projects.

    There was a super stupid idea in the initial plans for the browser

    Yeah… thing is: They didn’t do it. You’d be surprised how many really “scummy” ideas get pitched in companies every day and how often some management-guy just kinda runs with them. That’s just business as usual really.

    BAT

    It is kinda weird, yes, but remember: At the time they started this, crypto was everywhere and it made the company money. I don’t see why the mere addition of this stuff is a reason that “Brave Browser is irredeemable”. It doesn’t interfere with the browser’s functionality, it just adds bloat. The article doesn’t distill that though. It just says “It has crypto in it”, goes on with something else and then concludes that “therefore bad” out of nowhere. What about the BAT thing makes the browser bad? Tell me, author!

    Brave had FTX-Partnership-stuff and didn’t apologize

    The apologize part is what baffles me.
    They some (probably paid) partnership with a company that tricked lots and lots of people. Why do they need to apologize for (unknowingly, naively perhaps) working with a firm that turned out to be fraudulent? Does your ISP have to apologize for every scammer who did scams over their landlines?

    Random listing of crypto stuff

    What is bad about this? Tell me, author! They went into the booming crypto sphere and got some users that way. I dislike the crypto-bubble as much as the next guy but why does that make the browser bad? My bank sponsored a local motocross-event. I do not like motocross. Is my bank account now bad, too?

    Please tell me why the product is bad if you want me to think that the product is bad.

    Affiliate scandal

    finally something of substance. Yeah, that one was a shitshow.

    But as much as I try to resist, I have to be nerdy here:
    This is not an argument now, I just could let this one slide.

    I’m not aware of another browser ever rewriting what the user types in the address bar.

    aren’t you now? So how does “does this browser rewrite stuff in the adress bar?” typed into my adress bar become
    https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=does+this+browser+rewrite+stuff+in+the+adress+bar%3F&atb=v388-6__&ia=web ? I didn’t type that.

    Again, not part of the argument, the affiliate-thing was bonkers and justifies scolding, just that one phrase ground me gears, as they say.

    Ultimately, Brave Browser is the apparatus of an advertising company

    hey, another real reason to dislike the product, to the point. See, author? you can do it! No need to ramble on for pages over pages without any point or conclusion! Just a few words do the trick!

    Brave Browser is irredeemable, and you should not use it under any circumstances.

    \ Tell me why!
    No really, that’s my main issue with the article: It lists a bunch of stuff and leaves it to the reader to assume that the listed stuff is devaluing the product of this company, basically because the tone of the article is “Brave bad”, but the article never reasons why the things brought forth makes the browser bad. it never concludes any point, just rambles on to the next like a slightly tipsy Thomas the Tank Engine between stops.