8 ms·

I hear a lot of praise for Brave but I don't really get what's so great about it and the fact that it's cryptocurrency-related triggers all kinds of red flags a

by simias 8y ago

I hear a lot of praise for Brave but I don't really get what's so great about it and the fact that it's cryptocurrency-related triggers all kinds of red flags and make it difficult for me to heed the praise. Are the fans genuine or do they have a vested interest in pumping BAT? Trying to be a little more constructive, can somebody explain what's so great about it compared to Firefox? Because as far as I can tell it's just yet another Chromium derivative with built-in ad blocker, I don't really see what's so novel or exciting about that. Also AFAIK the source is available but it's not technically under an Open Source license? Then of course there's the whole BAT thing which as far as I understand it replaces ads with... other ads but it's cryptocurrency based so it's better somehow? I never quite got that. So what am I missing here? Why is Brave better than Firefox + uBlock origin?

pedrocx486 8y ago
I use it simply because it's de-Googlyfied and because of the integrated mix of adblock/https everywhere/NoScript without the need to install plugins and Tor tabs (without the need to switch browsers). I have absolutely no idea what the BAT thing is. It's disabled on my install since I never even clicked on it.
StudentStuff 8y ago
Not sure if there is much better in Brave than Firefox + Containers + uMatrix, unless you like ads in your browser injected by the browser developer. There are ethical concerns, half the Mozilla board resigned over Brendan Eich's appointment as CEO of Mozilla, and Brave is his new venture after essentially being ejected from Mozilla: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla I want nothing to do with such a divisive character like Brendan, thus I'll steer clear of Brave.
- geowwy 8y ago
  Brave is a little better than Firefox in terms of trustworthiness: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html Neither is great though.
  - simias 8y ago
    This is clearly an opinion piece, not really an attempt at an objective evaluation of the browser's "trustworthiness" using objective metrics: >There is probably no corporation that has fooled its userbase more and for longer than Mozilla. Pretending to be your friend, it has for years ruined the customizability, privacy, and usability of its browser. The marketing team was, and still is, in full swing trying to spin every one of its shitty decisions positively. [...] The amount of spyware in both these browsers is massive - FF has the most, but it can all be disabled through an user.js script There's no denying that there have been some fuck ups in Mozilla in the past but it seems to me like the author has an axe to grind here. If they don't then they should at least reference their claims. I mean they call IE, Chrome and Opera "Botnet web browsers". I suppose they're referencing the 4chan meme and not actually saying that these browsers contain botnet code but I'm not sure if that makes it better.
    - geowwy 8y ago
      It's not just an opinion that Firefox regularly phones home. It also uses privacy-hostile services such as Google Search by default. It has an economic incentive to do that since Google, etc. are the ones who fund them. As the website says your best options are GNU IceCat or Ungoogled Chromium with uMatrix and HTTPS Everywhere.
      - simias 8y ago
        I have my problems with some of Mozilla's marketing and technical decisions but saying that the browser contains a "massive" amount of spyware is ludicrous and doesn't exactly inform the reader. If the author listed more precisely their problems (like you just did for instance) then the reader could make an informed choice. Saying "Chrome is a botnet and Firefox is filled with spyware" is hogwash and disqualifies this page completely IMO.
      - kerberos84 8y ago
        It is not an evil thing to have "google search by default" and fund this browser with the money from google. Because people don't want to pay for it. Firefox doesn't stop you from changing the default search engine easily.
- brandnewlow 8y ago
  Citation for "ads in your browser injected by the browser developer"? I work at Brave and don't think this is something the browser does.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    Pay to Surf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#History
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  "ads injected" is false, we don't do anything without user and (if involved; our main opt-in model is user-private ads not in publisher slots) publisher consent. Mozilla itself says, and I say, that "half the board" did not resign over me. See https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat..., and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651 for a detailed breakdown from me based on what I can say that others involved also said. Mozilla (same FAQ link) testifies that I was not "ejected" and was welcome to stay at an unspecified C-level executive position. If you don't believe them, I can't help you. On "divisive", beware false division and fake cover stories or excuses. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13429898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13429898
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    The state of how you are viewed makes me want nothing to do with you, regardless of Mozilla's invitation to retain you and put you in a corner at the C level.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      Are you holding that against Mozilla too? In my experience it is best to avoid following one's filter bubble on "how someone is viewed", especially in today's tribal regressive-left world. But YMMV!
      - StudentStuff 8y ago
        Nope, just like how I don't hold what Jake Appelbaum may or may have not done against the Tor Project. I know we (the general public) will likely never have a good grasp of what happened inside Mozilla or the Tor Project when either of these events occurred. Nice pot shot with the tribal regressive-left bit btw. Sadly inaccurate though.
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        The truly cheap shot here is lumping me in with the utterly unrelated case of Jake Appelbaum, who has had many accusations against him, while I have had zero. False equivalence piled on false claims looks like malice, so no point in arguing.
petre 8y ago
Opera mobile now also has a cryptocurrency wallet amongst other features that get disabled or ignored. I've only tried the mobile Brave version and reverted back to Opera after it has failed to block a Google ad in a floating div. Otherwise it was a quite nice experience and had easily acessible switches for scripts, ads, popups. Pehraps you could opt in to see ads and get BAT but I'm quite ignorant about that since I don't want any ads. Firefox mobile + uBlock origin was quite underwhelming last time I tried it, although I use it daily on the desktop. Never quite used Chrome on the desktop, not on a regular basis anyway.
Lio 8y ago
Just blocking ads with ublock solves the problem of annoying ads but leaves the problem of website revenue. Ads solve the problem of how to fund websites without subscriptions but create the problem of annoying ads of no relevance. Google and Facebook mitigate the problem of annoying adverts by trying to make them relevant. That comes at the cost of their constant surveillance without permission, and use of that information to try to “influence” people’s opinions in unrelated ways. The big lie of recent years has been “we value your privacy” followed some details of how “we” don’t. BATs try to solve all of these problems by placing control of personal information back with the user. If I give you a cryptographic representation of my interests you can serve me ads without having to know the intimate details of my life. You only need to know how to deal with the token. What’s more I can compartmentalise my interests by sending different tokens at different times. Google could get involved in this sort of research but I suspect that their interests go far beyond just serving ads.
- simias 8y ago
  >If I give you a cryptographic representation of my interests you can serve me ads without having to know the intimate details of my life. You only need to know how to deal with the token. >What’s more I can compartmentalise my interests by sending different tokens at different times. I'm really perplex. People who care enough about their privacy to make use of something like that are probably those who don't want ads or tracking at all anyway. The rest of the population obviously doesn't care. I personally can't imagine ever willingly enabling ads in my browser. You want me to pay for your service? Then ask for my credit card number, I may give it to you. If you prefer to beg for me to turn my ad blocker off then be my guest but I won't do it. The idea of installing Brave, curating several "tokens" containing my interests and selecting what to send to which website is frankly preposterous to me and of dubious value for the advertisers.
  - omnimus 8y ago
    Well you should maybe think about the content creators. If they live off the ads then you just killed their living. Bat is about micro transactions - you load Brave with 20usd and leave it to distribute money. It is actually great usecase for crypto. I doubt you want to be giving out your credit card to sites you read and micro transaction services would also invade your privacy by paying for you. All crypto is not bad and BAT is pretty legit in my opinion.
hawski 8y ago
On desktops I don't see any reason to use Brave, but on smartphones it's a different story. Advantages of Brave on mobile in comparison to Firefox: - Single package with add blocking and HTTPS upgrading - Better handling of offline cache - Those little PIP clouds to disambiguate a tap - I always understand how to long press to show context menu instead of selecting - I believe scrolling is smoother on Brave - I prefer card/tab layout on Brave - Less crashes Advantages of Firefox over Brave on mobile: - Same browser I use on desktop - helpful with Firefox account and it's FOSS - I can disable JavaScript and images when I'm on severely limited connection like right now - Extensions - I like text search better - Better location bar search - Usable reader mode Now saying all this I would like to have a pure HTML browser, at least for bad mobile connections. It would be lightinnig fast and would show me offline version first and upgrade to more recent version if needed or it was downloaded after all. It would be like a permanent reader mode. So my font, my colors, my line length, no obnoxious position:fixed bars. One of the things on my to-do list.
- edtechdev 8y ago
  Use Firefox Focus browser on mobile. It is more privacy focused than Firefox and other browsers, and blocks ads instead of replacing them with its own like the Brave browser does.
  - AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
    Firefox Focus isn't really designed to be a "long-term" browser, in my experience. My normal FF on Android has like 12 different tabs open at any given time, and I maintain logins on a few sites. Firefox Focus doesn't really intend for you to have more than one tab open at once (although it does support it), and its default functionality is to delete the browser history as soon as you close it. I use Focus for quick, one-time things: open a quick article from my news feed, login to pay my credit card bill, etc., and then trash it.
    - idle_zealot 8y ago
      Yes, Focus is specifically designed for use as a default browser to quickly and safely open links and perform one-off tasks. It's recommended that it be used alongside another browser for more long-term sessions and cases where you want history preserved.
NelsonMinar 8y ago
Brave's big thing is they get to keep some of the revenue from the ads they've removed and replaced for themselves. I think that's a bad thing, not a good thing, but it is why the company exists.
jesusthatsgreat 8y ago
Because it blocks ads by default, everywhere across all platforms. Sure you can use Chrome / Firefox / Safari and install extensions and plugins that do something similar but end users don't want to jump through hoops and play whack a mole with ads. If a browser proactively fights ads for them out of the box, it enriches their lives without them needing any additional technical knowledge.
SuoDuanDao 8y ago
BAT doesn't replace ads with ads - it leaves that part of the website blank like a conventional adblocker. You pay a monthly fee of your choice to the browser, and it distributes that via the ad network to the sites you visit. It's a 'set and forget' way of supporting your favourite sites. User experience wise it's no better than Firefox + uBlock origin, it's purely a moral choice.
- codehalo 8y ago
  >You pay a monthly fee of your choice to the browser... You DON'T pay a monthly fee for anything. That statement was terribly misleading.
  - SuoDuanDao 8y ago
    Monthly fee of your choice, regular donation... I may have been imprecise about what happens at the back end, but I think I described the user experience fairly well.
carry_bit 8y ago
I really like how Brave has private tabs instead of private windows. It's a small thing, but it makes it easy to mix-and-match.
cyphunk 8y ago
Not about BAT,cryptocurrency. It's all about usable privacy. Makes it easy for me to quarantine Google services, social media, from each other. Privacy as the killer feature is what makes it killer
philwelch 8y ago
The primary use case for BAT seems to be a micropayment scheme that replaces ad revenue. Of course, micropayments are still payments and people still don't want to pay for content, so you can also pay them (in BAT) for watching your ads, and then they can spend those BAT somewhere else. As dubious as I am of cryptocurrency in general, display advertising is evil and needs to be destroyed, and BAT is the best (only?) micropayments alternative out there, as far as I can tell.

by simias 8y ago

pedrocx486 8y ago

I use it simply because it's de-Googlyfied and because of the integrated mix of adblock/https everywhere/NoScript without the need to install plugins and Tor tabs (without the need to switch browsers). I have absolutely no idea what the BAT thing is. It's disabled on my install since I never even clicked on it.

StudentStuff 8y ago

Not sure if there is much better in Brave than Firefox + Containers + uMatrix, unless you like ads in your browser injected by the browser developer. There are ethical concerns, half the Mozilla board resigned over Brendan Eich's appointment as CEO of Mozilla, and Brave is his new venture after essentially being ejected from Mozilla: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla I want nothing to do with such a divisive character like Brendan, thus I'll steer clear of Brave.

geowwy 8y ago
Brave is a little better than Firefox in terms of trustworthiness: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html Neither is great though.
- simias 8y ago
  This is clearly an opinion piece, not really an attempt at an objective evaluation of the browser's "trustworthiness" using objective metrics: >There is probably no corporation that has fooled its userbase more and for longer than Mozilla. Pretending to be your friend, it has for years ruined the customizability, privacy, and usability of its browser. The marketing team was, and still is, in full swing trying to spin every one of its shitty decisions positively. [...] The amount of spyware in both these browsers is massive - FF has the most, but it can all be disabled through an user.js script There's no denying that there have been some fuck ups in Mozilla in the past but it seems to me like the author has an axe to grind here. If they don't then they should at least reference their claims. I mean they call IE, Chrome and Opera "Botnet web browsers". I suppose they're referencing the 4chan meme and not actually saying that these browsers contain botnet code but I'm not sure if that makes it better.
  - geowwy 8y ago
    It's not just an opinion that Firefox regularly phones home. It also uses privacy-hostile services such as Google Search by default. It has an economic incentive to do that since Google, etc. are the ones who fund them. As the website says your best options are GNU IceCat or Ungoogled Chromium with uMatrix and HTTPS Everywhere.
    - simias 8y ago
      I have my problems with some of Mozilla's marketing and technical decisions but saying that the browser contains a "massive" amount of spyware is ludicrous and doesn't exactly inform the reader. If the author listed more precisely their problems (like you just did for instance) then the reader could make an informed choice. Saying "Chrome is a botnet and Firefox is filled with spyware" is hogwash and disqualifies this page completely IMO.
    - kerberos84 8y ago
      It is not an evil thing to have "google search by default" and fund this browser with the money from google. Because people don't want to pay for it. Firefox doesn't stop you from changing the default search engine easily.
brandnewlow 8y ago
Citation for "ads in your browser injected by the browser developer"? I work at Brave and don't think this is something the browser does.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Pay to Surf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#History
BrendanEich 8y ago
"ads injected" is false, we don't do anything without user and (if involved; our main opt-in model is user-private ads not in publisher slots) publisher consent. Mozilla itself says, and I say, that "half the board" did not resign over me. See https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat..., and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651 for a detailed breakdown from me based on what I can say that others involved also said. Mozilla (same FAQ link) testifies that I was not "ejected" and was welcome to stay at an unspecified C-level executive position. If you don't believe them, I can't help you. On "divisive", beware false division and fake cover stories or excuses. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13429898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13429898
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  The state of how you are viewed makes me want nothing to do with you, regardless of Mozilla's invitation to retain you and put you in a corner at the C level.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    Are you holding that against Mozilla too? In my experience it is best to avoid following one's filter bubble on "how someone is viewed", especially in today's tribal regressive-left world. But YMMV!
    - StudentStuff 8y ago
      Nope, just like how I don't hold what Jake Appelbaum may or may have not done against the Tor Project. I know we (the general public) will likely never have a good grasp of what happened inside Mozilla or the Tor Project when either of these events occurred. Nice pot shot with the tribal regressive-left bit btw. Sadly inaccurate though.
      - BrendanEich 8y ago
        The truly cheap shot here is lumping me in with the utterly unrelated case of Jake Appelbaum, who has had many accusations against him, while I have had zero. False equivalence piled on false claims looks like malice, so no point in arguing.

petre 8y ago

Opera mobile now also has a cryptocurrency wallet amongst other features that get disabled or ignored. I've only tried the mobile Brave version and reverted back to Opera after it has failed to block a Google ad in a floating div. Otherwise it was a quite nice experience and had easily acessible switches for scripts, ads, popups. Pehraps you could opt in to see ads and get BAT but I'm quite ignorant about that since I don't want any ads. Firefox mobile + uBlock origin was quite underwhelming last time I tried it, although I use it daily on the desktop. Never quite used Chrome on the desktop, not on a regular basis anyway.

Lio 8y ago

Just blocking ads with ublock solves the problem of annoying ads but leaves the problem of website revenue. Ads solve the problem of how to fund websites without subscriptions but create the problem of annoying ads of no relevance. Google and Facebook mitigate the problem of annoying adverts by trying to make them relevant. That comes at the cost of their constant surveillance without permission, and use of that information to try to “influence” people’s opinions in unrelated ways. The big lie of recent years has been “we value your privacy” followed some details of how “we” don’t. BATs try to solve all of these problems by placing control of personal information back with the user. If I give you a cryptographic representation of my interests you can serve me ads without having to know the intimate details of my life. You only need to know how to deal with the token. What’s more I can compartmentalise my interests by sending different tokens at different times. Google could get involved in this sort of research but I suspect that their interests go far beyond just serving ads.

simias 8y ago
>If I give you a cryptographic representation of my interests you can serve me ads without having to know the intimate details of my life. You only need to know how to deal with the token. >What’s more I can compartmentalise my interests by sending different tokens at different times. I'm really perplex. People who care enough about their privacy to make use of something like that are probably those who don't want ads or tracking at all anyway. The rest of the population obviously doesn't care. I personally can't imagine ever willingly enabling ads in my browser. You want me to pay for your service? Then ask for my credit card number, I may give it to you. If you prefer to beg for me to turn my ad blocker off then be my guest but I won't do it. The idea of installing Brave, curating several "tokens" containing my interests and selecting what to send to which website is frankly preposterous to me and of dubious value for the advertisers.
- omnimus 8y ago
  Well you should maybe think about the content creators. If they live off the ads then you just killed their living. Bat is about micro transactions - you load Brave with 20usd and leave it to distribute money. It is actually great usecase for crypto. I doubt you want to be giving out your credit card to sites you read and micro transaction services would also invade your privacy by paying for you. All crypto is not bad and BAT is pretty legit in my opinion.

hawski 8y ago

On desktops I don't see any reason to use Brave, but on smartphones it's a different story. Advantages of Brave on mobile in comparison to Firefox: - Single package with add blocking and HTTPS upgrading - Better handling of offline cache - Those little PIP clouds to disambiguate a tap - I always understand how to long press to show context menu instead of selecting - I believe scrolling is smoother on Brave - I prefer card/tab layout on Brave - Less crashes Advantages of Firefox over Brave on mobile: - Same browser I use on desktop - helpful with Firefox account and it's FOSS - I can disable JavaScript and images when I'm on severely limited connection like right now - Extensions - I like text search better - Better location bar search - Usable reader mode Now saying all this I would like to have a pure HTML browser, at least for bad mobile connections. It would be lightinnig fast and would show me offline version first and upgrade to more recent version if needed or it was downloaded after all. It would be like a permanent reader mode. So my font, my colors, my line length, no obnoxious position:fixed bars. One of the things on my to-do list.

edtechdev 8y ago
Use Firefox Focus browser on mobile. It is more privacy focused than Firefox and other browsers, and blocks ads instead of replacing them with its own like the Brave browser does.
- AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
  Firefox Focus isn't really designed to be a "long-term" browser, in my experience. My normal FF on Android has like 12 different tabs open at any given time, and I maintain logins on a few sites. Firefox Focus doesn't really intend for you to have more than one tab open at once (although it does support it), and its default functionality is to delete the browser history as soon as you close it. I use Focus for quick, one-time things: open a quick article from my news feed, login to pay my credit card bill, etc., and then trash it.
  - idle_zealot 8y ago
    Yes, Focus is specifically designed for use as a default browser to quickly and safely open links and perform one-off tasks. It's recommended that it be used alongside another browser for more long-term sessions and cases where you want history preserved.

NelsonMinar 8y ago

Brave's big thing is they get to keep some of the revenue from the ads they've removed and replaced for themselves. I think that's a bad thing, not a good thing, but it is why the company exists.

jesusthatsgreat 8y ago

Because it blocks ads by default, everywhere across all platforms. Sure you can use Chrome / Firefox / Safari and install extensions and plugins that do something similar but end users don't want to jump through hoops and play whack a mole with ads. If a browser proactively fights ads for them out of the box, it enriches their lives without them needing any additional technical knowledge.

SuoDuanDao 8y ago

BAT doesn't replace ads with ads - it leaves that part of the website blank like a conventional adblocker. You pay a monthly fee of your choice to the browser, and it distributes that via the ad network to the sites you visit. It's a 'set and forget' way of supporting your favourite sites. User experience wise it's no better than Firefox + uBlock origin, it's purely a moral choice.

codehalo 8y ago
>You pay a monthly fee of your choice to the browser... You DON'T pay a monthly fee for anything. That statement was terribly misleading.
- SuoDuanDao 8y ago
  Monthly fee of your choice, regular donation... I may have been imprecise about what happens at the back end, but I think I described the user experience fairly well.

carry_bit 8y ago

I really like how Brave has private tabs instead of private windows. It's a small thing, but it makes it easy to mix-and-match.

cyphunk 8y ago

Not about BAT,cryptocurrency. It's all about usable privacy. Makes it easy for me to quarantine Google services, social media, from each other. Privacy as the killer feature is what makes it killer

philwelch 8y ago

The primary use case for BAT seems to be a micropayment scheme that replaces ad revenue. Of course, micropayments are still payments and people still don't want to pay for content, so you can also pay them (in BAT) for watching your ads, and then they can spend those BAT somewhere else. As dubious as I am of cryptocurrency in general, display advertising is evil and needs to be destroyed, and BAT is the best (only?) micropayments alternative out there, as far as I can tell.