5 ms·

Haha, so to use extensions I have to download the source code, manually download the extensions with an npm package I have to install, and then use actual code

Haha, so to use extensions I have to download the source code, manually download the extensions with an npm package I have to install, and then use actual code to register it. It's nice that it supports extensions, but I probably would have skipped the blog post before there's a more convenient method. Also, the only distinguishing features mentioned seem to be a built in Adblocker and Https redirect?

jonathansampson 10y ago
Worth noting that this article is for developers wishing to assist the Brave team in determining whether an extension can be supported straight-away. This is not intended for your average user.
- the_duke 10y ago
  Ok that makes more sense then. Still, I would recommend implementing some crappy UI only enabled on dev to do this.
  - jonathansampson 10y ago
    That's a fair request; I'll take it to the team for consideration. Thank you for the feedback!
    - the_duke 10y ago
      That would most certainly make it easier to quickly test out various extensions.
      - jonathansampson 10y ago
        It's a challenging issue; Extensions run in multiple contexts. As such, some gaps in support may be realized in the browser's engine, the browser's chrome, or in UX/UI artifacts. We have been researching ways to more easily test extensions, and will continue to explore this in the future.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      If you implement tree style tabs as well as can handle javascript in multiple tabs without bringing the entire browser to its knees, I'll gladly switch from Firefox.
madsushi 10y ago
Part of Brave's adblocking was replacing site ads with their own ads, and then a slice of the ad revenue back to the user. So you'd get a 15% cut of the revenue and only see Brave-provided or Brave-approved ads. You could then choose to reinvest that and give the money back to the sites that you visit.
- jonathansampson 10y ago
  Brave does not do any ad-replacement; this is part of a potential opt-in model [in the future]. Today, out of the box, Brave blocs ads, trackers, prevents fingerprinting, and more. Brave Payments launched recently, which allows each user to fund their own Brave Wallet, and distribute micro-donations to sites they visit on a monthly basis.
  - deedorgreed 10y ago
    brave should do ad replacement implement horizontal ad targeting based on sites you visit and then pay publishers and users. users don't want to pay for content (we're spoiled by free), they don't really care about ads as long as they are relevant (to a point), and publishers are stuck right now implementing "native ads" which is just sneaky clickbait crap. brave is onto something but paying with bitcoin will reduce the value of the potential from an everyone market to a much much much smaller one.
    - bad_user 10y ago
      Blocking ads is one thing, lets just say for the sake of argument that users have a right to not execute stuff on their own computer. But replacing ads on websites is quite another. I don't understand how this wouldn't be downright copyright infringement made for profit reasons. And if they share that revenue with users, then users can get sued as well. I also think such a business model is incompatible with what it says on the box. On one hand, this browser is advertised as being more privacy friendly, on the other hand users would be willing to submit their browsing history to yet another third-party for ads targeting. Mozilla was harshly criticized on HN for wanting to include ads in Firefox with an implementation that was never communicating with any Mozilla servers, all the targeting being done offline. I surely hope HN isn't guilty of double standards.

jonathansampson 10y ago

Worth noting that this article is for developers wishing to assist the Brave team in determining whether an extension can be supported straight-away. This is not intended for your average user.

the_duke 10y ago
Ok that makes more sense then. Still, I would recommend implementing some crappy UI only enabled on dev to do this.
- jonathansampson 10y ago
  That's a fair request; I'll take it to the team for consideration. Thank you for the feedback!
  - the_duke 10y ago
    That would most certainly make it easier to quickly test out various extensions.
    - jonathansampson 10y ago
      It's a challenging issue; Extensions run in multiple contexts. As such, some gaps in support may be realized in the browser's engine, the browser's chrome, or in UX/UI artifacts. We have been researching ways to more easily test extensions, and will continue to explore this in the future.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    If you implement tree style tabs as well as can handle javascript in multiple tabs without bringing the entire browser to its knees, I'll gladly switch from Firefox.

madsushi 10y ago

Part of Brave's adblocking was replacing site ads with their own ads, and then a slice of the ad revenue back to the user. So you'd get a 15% cut of the revenue and only see Brave-provided or Brave-approved ads. You could then choose to reinvest that and give the money back to the sites that you visit.

jonathansampson 10y ago
Brave does not do any ad-replacement; this is part of a potential opt-in model [in the future]. Today, out of the box, Brave blocs ads, trackers, prevents fingerprinting, and more. Brave Payments launched recently, which allows each user to fund their own Brave Wallet, and distribute micro-donations to sites they visit on a monthly basis.
- deedorgreed 10y ago
  brave should do ad replacement implement horizontal ad targeting based on sites you visit and then pay publishers and users. users don't want to pay for content (we're spoiled by free), they don't really care about ads as long as they are relevant (to a point), and publishers are stuck right now implementing "native ads" which is just sneaky clickbait crap. brave is onto something but paying with bitcoin will reduce the value of the potential from an everyone market to a much much much smaller one.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    Blocking ads is one thing, lets just say for the sake of argument that users have a right to not execute stuff on their own computer. But replacing ads on websites is quite another. I don't understand how this wouldn't be downright copyright infringement made for profit reasons. And if they share that revenue with users, then users can get sued as well. I also think such a business model is incompatible with what it says on the box. On one hand, this browser is advertised as being more privacy friendly, on the other hand users would be willing to submit their browsing history to yet another third-party for ads targeting. Mozilla was harshly criticized on HN for wanting to include ads in Firefox with an implementation that was never communicating with any Mozilla servers, all the targeting being done offline. I surely hope HN isn't guilty of double standards.