I read the comments … did you read any replies to those comments?
The one I assume you are referring to changed my mind about as much as this one did.
(which is to say not at all)
People are free to use what they like.
I will just repeat again that this is a ‘privacy browser’ supposedly … and it will load facebook trackers while you are on an unrelated site, such as pinterest. This is just one of many many things that brave has done that seems antithetical to its stated purpose. This feature/bug/whatever has been present as a ‘temporary’ workaround for 3 years. And at this point it will take a lot more than the team simply saying ‘we are taking this seriously and might change it’ for my position to change.
But if you like it and you trust them and all that… go ahead. Controlling that or deciding that for you has never been any component of my criticism.
I read the comments … did you read any replies to those comments?
I don’t see any response to the Brave employee’s comment… did I miss it? This is what I’m talking about:
Brave blocked them, people complained as it broke an sdk which fb uses for oauth (login to some sites). Same issue on Firefox https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1226498
connect.facebook.com is for the Facebook JS SDK.
We actually do block Facebook requests explicitly used for tracking:
theres more here
…Which seems to have gotten even better. Brave CTO is claiming they block better than ublock+disconnect combined. Which … just… does … not seem true.
[oh wait… gotta pay attention to particulars … their claim apparently only includes using the single ‘easyprivacy’ list in ublock (which is less than half of the blocking ublock does by default)]
Here is Brave CTO Brian Bondy’s response for anyone following. I personally think it is reasonable and self-reflective. Brian Bondy is former Mozilla, by the way. cscs, I actually think he is saying something slightly different than what you said up above if you read it carefully. He’s saying the current solution is as good as ublock with easyprivacy, and separately, that this whitelist only exists in one particular component of Brave responsible for Disconnect-like functionality. And then he goes on to say they’re looking to improve this with a more advanced privacy solution.
Hi Im Brave’s CTO.
There’s a balance between breaking the web and being as strict as possible. Saying we fully allow Facebook tracking isn’t right 1, but we admittedly need more strict-mode like settings for privacy conscious users.
We do block Facebook at least as good as uBlock origin with EasyPrivacy. The referenced code is in a separate component which does the same as Disconnect blocking.
We’re taking this seriously internally and we’ll iterate on where we are to improve the situation. We’re looking at if we can polyfill a local JS resource instead for example as one option if it doesn’t make further requests.
coming from ‘mozilla-we hire government informants and put them in security positions-firefox’ doesnt automatically mean anything to me.
But hey really … I posted the info. You can feel about it how you want.
There is a reason I used a giant beating a dead horse gif.
To be more clear, I trust Google almost not at all. I just trust Brave even less than that.
Your non-Brave source for this information is…? I mean, one of the domains is
Even if what you are saying is 100% correct, any browser serious about privacy would block things like “Social sign-on” by default and let the user opt-in.
Keep in mind, we are not responding to this one incident in vacuum. We are responding to a consistent pattern of behavior from the Brave organization since the beginning.
Anyway, it seems we all have strong opinions on this and I have said everything I need to say so I am going to let this thread carry on without me. Well…at least until the next time they demonstrate some bad behavior.
Making the internet more ethical?
I think they are also working seriously on world peace, gender equality and fighting poverty.
Brave they are…
No, they are not.
Brave is a scam, “privacy” and “ethics” are deliberate marketing lies blatantely used in an attempt to attract a gullible idiotic user base.
Yes, more ethical. Because today, the basic incentive structure of the platforms that are dominating the web is the mining of user data and other perverse incentives. Content producers and media companies are now being funded by contracted hit pieces and fake news. And people who want to produce F/OSS or decent content cannot get paid. It is horrible.
Brave, along with other Web 3.0 / Ethereum blockchain related products believe in creating decentralized platforms and new incentives to solve these problems. I find it to be extremely innovative and exciting. There’s also GitCoin to create incentives and bounties for open-source. Ujo for a decentralized platform where artists control their media, etc.
Brave like any project makes mistakes, and “gotcha” dogmatists will always find something that they can pounce on. It is easy to denounce people who are trying to shift the whole infrastructure of the internet. It is a lot harder to do that actual work.
funny side disclaimer: because it came up earlier in this thread, I feel obligated to mentioned that as of 3 weeks ago, I made a career switch to a company building on the Ethereum blockchain (not Brave). I mention it because someone accused me of working for Brave (I don’t, I just believe in it ideologically), so I wanted to disclose that I now work for an Ethereum related company.
And on the other hand, “Brave” is in the Repositories.
With this, you could do here closed
and continue there
As we say where I’m from " That dog don’t hunt . " In regards to Brave’s marketing , if I want snake oil I’ll make my own .
I really don’t care what browser the peeps want to use, that’s their business. I really only have one comment to make.
If brave is really a privacy centric browser, why would their user base care if it broke the ability to go to a facebook domain. Anyone concerned about privacy would never be a facebook member in the first place. So why wouldn’t that be the default in a browser supposedly designed those concerned about their privacy?
I believe this is because Brave is trying to balance usability and mass adoption with privacy. Balancing those two things is an important principle if the goal is to disrupt and replace Facebook and Google with new decentralized structures (which is the stated goal of the Web 3.0 movement).
Speaking for myself, I’m required to use Facebook and Twitter for work, no matter how much I hate them. If these services were completely blocked, I would be forced to use a less secure platform to do my work.
Are you sure that Firefox (with add-ons) and its derivatives would be any less secure than Brave?
This made me laugh, a lot, a whole lot. I think most of us here think that pretty much any option at this point would be more secure than Brave.
This is the absolute definitive Brave killer !
I would never have used this crap due to their original lies, but if any proof of those lies would lack, this is the ultimate proof.
Could Brave be erased from repos and replaced by Beaker Browser ?
Already done (not necessarily for this reason, I don't remember why actually). See announcement here:
Considering that maintaining a web browser needs constant and rigorous effort to provide security fixes quick enough, I think it is unlikely, especially if is already on AUR and is not too painful to build.
If you have solid arguments in favor of its inclusion, you can still try to do a package request here: https://forum.manjaro.org/c/manjaro-development/package-request
Read this before doing so:
Got the point and glad it's ousted !
For beaker browser it's just a teasing at this stage, but I think this kind of tool is the future of the web. Firefox should also quickly include dat:// and not depend on an extension for IFPS
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.