9 ms·

Brave is doing some of the best anti-Corporatist work in the community right now.

dymk 7y ago
They replace other ad network ads with their own ~ads~ crypto currency. They monetize the content of others and don't tell them. If you have a youtube channel, they will swap out ads and collect the ad revenue without telling the channel that they're doing so. I'm not particularly impressed with their business. In fact I'm pretty disgusted with it.
- saltedshiv 7y ago
  Are you saying that I should be required to execute all code on a web page? That's the eventual point this train of thought will lead you to.
  - woodruffw 7y ago
    This seems like an unreasonable interpretation; it’s much more likely that ‘dymk wants to execute the bare minimum amount of arbitrary code on a web page.
- brandnewlow 7y ago
  Citation please.
  - dymk 7y ago
    https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/crypto-news/spotlight/famous-youtuber-tom-scott-frustrated-with-brave/ https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/crypto-news/spotlight/famous-yout... Tom Scott was not happy with Brave. They were collecting ad revenue for Youtubers who had never opted into their platform. He had to go make a stink to their CEO, and finally after lots of pushing back, the CEO ceded that maybe this is not the best thing to do! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
    - justsee 7y ago
      Actually I followed that whole episode as it unfolded and your comments across this thread are all sorts of wrong. Tom Scott ended up being happy with Brave resolving an early product misstep. You should really be across an issue - and its resolution - before deciding to use it to cast shade on a software project. For more reasonable-minded developer folk Eich addressed this again recently on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1139384765700685824 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1139384765700685824
  - muckrakerz 7y ago
    The link provided does not address your claims. Full stop.
- leereeves 7y ago
  It's potentially even worse than that. Exploiting this grey area in the law will lead to a response from the courts and lawmakers. That response might well require that browsers display pages exactly as the publisher intends. In other words, the end of ad blockers and other tools, thanks to Brave. (Not at all unlikely given that Google seems to want that too.)
  - jupp0r 7y ago
    > That response might well require that browsers display pages exactly as the publisher intends. IANAL, but I highly doubt that the government will mandate what browsers people run on their computers. Outside of North Korea, of course.
    - _jal 7y ago
      Wait for it; there will be mandated software on 1st-world machines in our lifetimes. Root on your machine is already a bit of a fiction because of government action (the cpu management engine); look for that to become more explicit after the first really big blackout/other catastrophe caused by a computer security failure. Unrestricted mathematics are too dangerous to be allowed to normal people.
    - fiblye 7y ago
      They won’t mandate a specific browser, but they can regulate functionality. Piracy is already considered theft. Viewing webpages without ads is basically “stealing” web content. I would not be surprised in the slightest if some big advertiser runs with this idea and lobbies for strict legislation. And they likely would succeed, quite honestly. Congress doesn’t understand adblocking or the internet, but they have a vague idea of digital piracy.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    It feels to me like this could be legislated based on profiting on others' copyright. The issue here is one party making money, without consent of any form, based on another party's published materials.
- ajna91 7y ago
  It depends. Are Brave's ads more similar to the banner ads of the old days? If they are not so intrusive and privacy violating like modern ad-networks, that would still be a net win in my opinion. As for the hypothetical youtuber, they are always free to put product ads directly in their videos if they can/want to. However, if they can only make money via abusive 3rd party trackers, that's on them.
  - rchaud 7y ago
    I've had Brave as my mobile browser since early 2017 and the only ads I've ever seen on it are the random Google Adsense ad that slipped through. These instances are in the single digits, in 2.5 years. im in Canada, so that might have an effect.
- mintplant 7y ago
  This is untrue, as far as I'm aware. Brave blocks ads and trackers by default, and you can opt into a separate "Brave Rewards" program which pays you in crypto-currency tokens in exchange for receiving ads via push notifications and the New Tab page (not inline with web content). https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/ https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/ Users can then choose to contribute some or all of those funds back to the publishers/creators they visit that have signed up to Brave's platform. They try to do this all in as privacy-preserving a manner as possible. https://brave.com/creators/ https://brave.com/creators/
  - dymk 7y ago
    No, the Brave browser does not try to verify that the page that it's replacing ads on has opted into Brave's "rewards" thing. They'll s/page_ads/brave_ads/ and collect a check regardless of if that revenue is going to the page owner or not. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
    - prophesi 7y ago
      Could you please stop spreading misinformation? As the surrounding commentors have mentioned, Brave Rewards is completely opt-in for users _and_ they do verify whether the page is a part of the program _and_ they don't replace ads with their own.
    - muckrakerz 7y ago
      Why would they have to? The user has opted in. From your link: "Starting today, users of Brave’s latest release of the desktop browser for macOS, Windows, and Linux can choose to view privacy-preserving Brave Ads by opting into Brave Rewards" [emphasis mine] Stop spreading FUD.
      - briandear 7y ago
        Does the content creator get a cut from Brave?
- muckrakerz 7y ago
  Yes. I want a citation for this. As far as I'm aware this is completely untrue.
  - dymk 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
  - ppeetteerr 7y ago
    Found one https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-begins-controversial-ad-repeal-and-replace-tests.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-... And on their own site: https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/ https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/
    - BrendanEich 7y ago
      Your second link is to our blog post about user ads, which do not go in slots on publisher pages. Your first link is to a tech journalist who misreports what we actually do, for reasons I cannot fathom and won't guess at. Anyway, we do not replace publisher ads we block. Check it out for yourself.
  - chance_state 7y ago
    For at least one of those claims, >They monetize the content of others and don't tell them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
  - muckrakerz 7y ago
    That isn't what he is claiming though. He's claiming that they do this without the users consent. If I want a page re-skinned in purple to hell with what the content provider wants. It is also reasonable, as Eich pointed out, to act as a mediator for unrequested donations. Which is what Brave does. Would it be nice to reject these donations? Sure. But we don't demand that with any other transmission service. If Eich and the user concede to the terms and if you accept the money, what is the problem moral or otherwise?
- colordrops 7y ago
  There is always tons of venom of this exact sort thrown at Brave on HN, yet I've used Brave and have not seen any ads that have been spoken of. Even if they did replace, to be frank, the advertising industry already is disgusting and I'd have no problem with it (well at least no more problem than I already do) In any case it's a great browser, at least better than Chrome when it comes to privacy, and I personally won't fall for the propaganda. Just like Tesla, there is a lot of "old" money that is threatened by the upstart so there is also a lot of negative sentiment.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - sprafa 7y ago
    What’s wrong with Firefox?
    - oldwinebottles 7y ago
      Too freaking slow.
      - beatgammit 7y ago
        Have you tried it recently? It has gotten a lot faster, so much so that some people say it's faster than Chrome in many cases. Personally, I find it more than adequate, and I agree with their mission a lot more than the other browser vendors.
        9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
        It's been years people suggest the same "have you tried recently", but it doesn't come even close to the snappiness of any chromium based browser when I use it.
        pault 7y ago
        Have you tried using it recently? The quantum rewrite they released last year is incomparable to the previous releases. I use FF at home and Chrome at work and I can tell you that there is no noticeable difference in performance. The only time you'll notice the difference is when you use google apps that are written specifically for Chrome, but I personally prefer to avoid trusting the biggest adtech company in the world with my personal data. Plus, FF supports vertical tabs, Chrome doesn't.
- Meekro 7y ago
  The majority of ad revenue goes to the site, not to Brave[1]. The user gets a cut for having to see the ad, and Brave gets a cut as well. But even if you're right, why is it unethical for me to install software on my own computer to render websites differently than the creator intended? For example, by removing ads? Or replacing ads with different ads? Or rendering all ads upside down? [1] https://brave.com/how-brave-works-for-you/ https://brave.com/how-brave-works-for-you/
  - jay_kyburz 7y ago
    Because it's monetizing other peoples content. In my view, it's the same as cutting and pasting somebody else's content onto my own site with my own ads. Even if I promise to give most of the money I make back to the original content creator, I really have no right to the small part I skim. Update: Sorry didn't mean to suggest it was unethical for you to view a page any way you want, but I think the creators of the Brave browsers are scuzzy. Update Two: I see now that Brave have updated the policy and will only collect funds for creators that have opted in.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - pault 7y ago
      Also, as others have pointed out in this thread, they don't replace ads on websites with their own. It blocks ads, and if you want you can view Brave ads in exchange for their cryptocurrency and optionally donate them to participating publishers. I'd say this is no worse than a regular ad blocker, but you at least have the choice to attempt to remunerate the publisher for the lost revenue.
      - BrendanEich 7y ago
        That's right -- user first. Users will do right by their favorite publishers.
  - hjek 7y ago
    > But even if you're right, why is it unethical for me to install software on my own computer to render websites differently than the creator intended? It's not unethical for you to run that program, but what is being argued is that Brave (the company) is acting unethically, for example by taking donations on behalf of other people without their consent[0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  How is that any different from Google? They're both monetizing the content others placed on the internet.
  - dymk 7y ago
    Google pays for the YouTube servers that content creators upload their content to. What does Brave pay for?
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      Does Google pay for all the servers on all the websites that Google's search engine indexes and makes money selling ads against?
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    The content producers who distributed their videos on YouTube agreed to Google's monetization terms. They did not agree to Brave's. I cannot unilaterally make copies of Harry Potter books, sell them for a dollar, and give a cut (even a 50% cut to make the Brave analogy complete — they like to say they give a larger cut to publishers without mentioning that it is a larger cut of a much smaller pie) to JK Rowling. Even Brave eventually understood why this was wrong.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      But Google should be allowed to unilaterally copy snippets of data from all the websites on the internet into their search results? People bending themselves backwards to hate Brave for doing things that are really not that different from what the big boys do.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > But Google should be allowed to unilaterally copy snippets of data from all the websites on the internet into their search results? No, and they don't. See meta nosnippet and robots.txt. If the big boys did what Brave did, they would be sued to oblivion.
- hirundo 7y ago
  See https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds for a description of their current and past policy. Currently: "If a publisher has not verified ownership, then a user’s contributions will be held in reserve inside the browser for 90 days. The browser routinely updates an internal list of all verified publishers to determine whether a property can receive contributions. At the end of the 90 day period, any contributions marked for unverified publishers will be released back to the wallet. No funds leave the browser except to go to verified creators." Previously: "Previous versions ... would then hold contributed funds for those publishers in escrow until they’d verified. [And] Funds that were contributed from user-funded wallets will be held indefinitely, until the publisher verifies and transfers them to their own wallet." That sounds like they had a suboptimal policy, realized it, and fixed it. If they _keep_ their 5% cut, or the interest on it, from contributions to unverified creators, I'll share your criticism.
  - dymk 7y ago
    That's still terrible. If I'm a Youtube content creator who doesn't want anything to do with Brave, they're still going to remove the ads that I want on my videos to monetize my content, and hold any of the BAT that Brave users contribute to me hostage.
    - hirundo 7y ago
      Is uBlock terrible?
      - dymk 7y ago
        Are you a content creator, with your income stream at least partly gained through advertisements?
      - tapoxi 7y ago
        Yes? Generating and serving content isn't free. If you don't want the ads, don't visit the page or pay for an ad-free version.
- codehalo 7y ago
  None of what you said is true. I'm puzzled by the constant lies and FUD spread here against Brave. What exactly is the agenda?
  - snazz 7y ago
    The reason that Brave doesn’t get a great rap around here is because it trips the sketchy detector. They make a marketing image of themselves as the protectors of privacy and whatnot and then the browser includes (or included) a lot of features that seem to go contrary to the stated mission.
  - Analemma_ 7y ago
    There's no agenda, just proper reasoning. Think about it in terms of Bayesian probability: it's a cryptocurrency product, and pretty much everything in the crypto space is a scam, so right off the bat when you hear about Brave, before you even know anything your prior probability that it's a scam is 95%. Then they got busted 'keeping the money' and not telling the creators, and the posterior jumps to 99.5%. I know they mostly fixed that, but at that point the trust was gone and it's not worth anyone's time to give a second chance. It sucks, but at the same time, if you're going to be an honest actor in crypto, you better cross every t and dot every i, because bad actors are everywhere and so smart people just assume bad faith and are arguably correct to do so.
    - potlato 7y ago
      If your proper reasoning involves the premise: "it's a cryptocurrency product, and pretty much everything in the crypto space is a scam," you might want to adjust want you call "proper reasoning."
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        Sure! But one product doesn't adjust it very far. So next time I hear something is a "cryptocurrency product", instead of 95% scam alert I'll be at 93-94% scam alert.
    - 7y ago
walterbell 7y ago
Does Brave still whitelist Facebook trackers? Is there a way to opt-out of Facebook tracking on Brave for iOS? https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/1108 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/1108
- theferalrobot 7y ago
  Did you read the link you posted? They block many facebook tracking components but there are some things they aren't touching right now because some website depend on facebook for logins.
  - walterbell 7y ago
    How can people, who are not using those websites, avoid Facebook tracking on the rest of the web?
    - prophesi 7y ago
      Install one of the many chromium extensions that block/obfuscate such tracking.
      - walterbell 7y ago
        Sadly not an option on iOS, which is the reason for using Brave in the first place.
        prophesi 7y ago
        Honestly, blocking ads/trackers on mobile has always been a tricky business. You could set up Pi-Hole on your home network. Or see if there's something similar to this on iOS: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/dnsfilter.android/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/dnsfilter.android/
        beatgammit 7y ago
strawberryfan 7y ago
Brave is going big. It will overtake Firefox in the near future. That will be a good day for Brendan Eich.
Proven 7y ago
Negative. They pre-collected donations for random Web sites without owners' knowledge. I don't care about any technical reasons; a child would know it is wrong and wouldn't do it. Also the ICO was shady. uBlock Origin is anti-corporativist. Brave certainly isn't.

dymk 7y ago

They replace other ad network ads with their own ~ads~ crypto currency. They monetize the content of others and don't tell them. If you have a youtube channel, they will swap out ads and collect the ad revenue without telling the channel that they're doing so. I'm not particularly impressed with their business. In fact I'm pretty disgusted with it.

saltedshiv 7y ago
Are you saying that I should be required to execute all code on a web page? That's the eventual point this train of thought will lead you to.
- woodruffw 7y ago
  This seems like an unreasonable interpretation; it’s much more likely that ‘dymk wants to execute the bare minimum amount of arbitrary code on a web page.
brandnewlow 7y ago
Citation please.
- dymk 7y ago
  https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/crypto-news/spotlight/famous-youtuber-tom-scott-frustrated-with-brave/ https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/crypto-news/spotlight/famous-yout... Tom Scott was not happy with Brave. They were collecting ad revenue for Youtubers who had never opted into their platform. He had to go make a stink to their CEO, and finally after lots of pushing back, the CEO ceded that maybe this is not the best thing to do! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
  - justsee 7y ago
    Actually I followed that whole episode as it unfolded and your comments across this thread are all sorts of wrong. Tom Scott ended up being happy with Brave resolving an early product misstep. You should really be across an issue - and its resolution - before deciding to use it to cast shade on a software project. For more reasonable-minded developer folk Eich addressed this again recently on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1139384765700685824 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1139384765700685824
- muckrakerz 7y ago
  The link provided does not address your claims. Full stop.
leereeves 7y ago
It's potentially even worse than that. Exploiting this grey area in the law will lead to a response from the courts and lawmakers. That response might well require that browsers display pages exactly as the publisher intends. In other words, the end of ad blockers and other tools, thanks to Brave. (Not at all unlikely given that Google seems to want that too.)
- jupp0r 7y ago
  > That response might well require that browsers display pages exactly as the publisher intends. IANAL, but I highly doubt that the government will mandate what browsers people run on their computers. Outside of North Korea, of course.
  - _jal 7y ago
    Wait for it; there will be mandated software on 1st-world machines in our lifetimes. Root on your machine is already a bit of a fiction because of government action (the cpu management engine); look for that to become more explicit after the first really big blackout/other catastrophe caused by a computer security failure. Unrestricted mathematics are too dangerous to be allowed to normal people.
  - fiblye 7y ago
    They won’t mandate a specific browser, but they can regulate functionality. Piracy is already considered theft. Viewing webpages without ads is basically “stealing” web content. I would not be surprised in the slightest if some big advertiser runs with this idea and lobbies for strict legislation. And they likely would succeed, quite honestly. Congress doesn’t understand adblocking or the internet, but they have a vague idea of digital piracy.
- rocqua 7y ago
  It feels to me like this could be legislated based on profiting on others' copyright. The issue here is one party making money, without consent of any form, based on another party's published materials.
ajna91 7y ago
It depends. Are Brave's ads more similar to the banner ads of the old days? If they are not so intrusive and privacy violating like modern ad-networks, that would still be a net win in my opinion. As for the hypothetical youtuber, they are always free to put product ads directly in their videos if they can/want to. However, if they can only make money via abusive 3rd party trackers, that's on them.
- rchaud 7y ago
  I've had Brave as my mobile browser since early 2017 and the only ads I've ever seen on it are the random Google Adsense ad that slipped through. These instances are in the single digits, in 2.5 years. im in Canada, so that might have an effect.
mintplant 7y ago
This is untrue, as far as I'm aware. Brave blocks ads and trackers by default, and you can opt into a separate "Brave Rewards" program which pays you in crypto-currency tokens in exchange for receiving ads via push notifications and the New Tab page (not inline with web content). https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/ https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/ Users can then choose to contribute some or all of those funds back to the publishers/creators they visit that have signed up to Brave's platform. They try to do this all in as privacy-preserving a manner as possible. https://brave.com/creators/ https://brave.com/creators/
- dymk 7y ago
  No, the Brave browser does not try to verify that the page that it's replacing ads on has opted into Brave's "rewards" thing. They'll s/page_ads/brave_ads/ and collect a check regardless of if that revenue is going to the page owner or not. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
  - prophesi 7y ago
    Could you please stop spreading misinformation? As the surrounding commentors have mentioned, Brave Rewards is completely opt-in for users _and_ they do verify whether the page is a part of the program _and_ they don't replace ads with their own.
  - muckrakerz 7y ago
    Why would they have to? The user has opted in. From your link: "Starting today, users of Brave’s latest release of the desktop browser for macOS, Windows, and Linux can choose to view privacy-preserving Brave Ads by opting into Brave Rewards" [emphasis mine] Stop spreading FUD.
    - briandear 7y ago
      Does the content creator get a cut from Brave?
muckrakerz 7y ago
Yes. I want a citation for this. As far as I'm aware this is completely untrue.
- dymk 7y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
- ppeetteerr 7y ago
  Found one https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-begins-controversial-ad-repeal-and-replace-tests.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-... And on their own site: https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/ https://brave.com/brave-ads-launch/
  - BrendanEich 7y ago
    Your second link is to our blog post about user ads, which do not go in slots on publisher pages. Your first link is to a tech journalist who misreports what we actually do, for reasons I cannot fathom and won't guess at. Anyway, we do not replace publisher ads we block. Check it out for yourself.
- chance_state 7y ago
  For at least one of those claims, >They monetize the content of others and don't tell them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
- muckrakerz 7y ago
  That isn't what he is claiming though. He's claiming that they do this without the users consent. If I want a page re-skinned in purple to hell with what the content provider wants. It is also reasonable, as Eich pointed out, to act as a mediator for unrequested donations. Which is what Brave does. Would it be nice to reject these donations? Sure. But we don't demand that with any other transmission service. If Eich and the user concede to the terms and if you accept the money, what is the problem moral or otherwise?
colordrops 7y ago
There is always tons of venom of this exact sort thrown at Brave on HN, yet I've used Brave and have not seen any ads that have been spoken of. Even if they did replace, to be frank, the advertising industry already is disgusting and I'd have no problem with it (well at least no more problem than I already do) In any case it's a great browser, at least better than Chrome when it comes to privacy, and I personally won't fall for the propaganda. Just like Tesla, there is a lot of "old" money that is threatened by the upstart so there is also a lot of negative sentiment.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sprafa 7y ago
  What’s wrong with Firefox?
  - oldwinebottles 7y ago
    Too freaking slow.
    - beatgammit 7y ago
      Have you tried it recently? It has gotten a lot faster, so much so that some people say it's faster than Chrome in many cases. Personally, I find it more than adequate, and I agree with their mission a lot more than the other browser vendors.
      - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
        It's been years people suggest the same "have you tried recently", but it doesn't come even close to the snappiness of any chromium based browser when I use it.
        pault 7y ago
        Have you tried using it recently? The quantum rewrite they released last year is incomparable to the previous releases. I use FF at home and Chrome at work and I can tell you that there is no noticeable difference in performance. The only time you'll notice the difference is when you use google apps that are written specifically for Chrome, but I personally prefer to avoid trusting the biggest adtech company in the world with my personal data. Plus, FF supports vertical tabs, Chrome doesn't.
Meekro 7y ago
The majority of ad revenue goes to the site, not to Brave[1]. The user gets a cut for having to see the ad, and Brave gets a cut as well. But even if you're right, why is it unethical for me to install software on my own computer to render websites differently than the creator intended? For example, by removing ads? Or replacing ads with different ads? Or rendering all ads upside down? [1] https://brave.com/how-brave-works-for-you/ https://brave.com/how-brave-works-for-you/
- jay_kyburz 7y ago
  Because it's monetizing other peoples content. In my view, it's the same as cutting and pasting somebody else's content onto my own site with my own ads. Even if I promise to give most of the money I make back to the original content creator, I really have no right to the small part I skim. Update: Sorry didn't mean to suggest it was unethical for you to view a page any way you want, but I think the creators of the Brave browsers are scuzzy. Update Two: I see now that Brave have updated the policy and will only collect funds for creators that have opted in.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - pault 7y ago
    Also, as others have pointed out in this thread, they don't replace ads on websites with their own. It blocks ads, and if you want you can view Brave ads in exchange for their cryptocurrency and optionally donate them to participating publishers. I'd say this is no worse than a regular ad blocker, but you at least have the choice to attempt to remunerate the publisher for the lost revenue.
    - BrendanEich 7y ago
      That's right -- user first. Users will do right by their favorite publishers.
- hjek 7y ago
  > But even if you're right, why is it unethical for me to install software on my own computer to render websites differently than the creator intended? It's not unethical for you to run that program, but what is being argued is that Brave (the company) is acting unethically, for example by taking donations on behalf of other people without their consent[0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
ForHackernews 7y ago
How is that any different from Google? They're both monetizing the content others placed on the internet.
- dymk 7y ago
  Google pays for the YouTube servers that content creators upload their content to. What does Brave pay for?
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Does Google pay for all the servers on all the websites that Google's search engine indexes and makes money selling ads against?
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  The content producers who distributed their videos on YouTube agreed to Google's monetization terms. They did not agree to Brave's. I cannot unilaterally make copies of Harry Potter books, sell them for a dollar, and give a cut (even a 50% cut to make the Brave analogy complete — they like to say they give a larger cut to publishers without mentioning that it is a larger cut of a much smaller pie) to JK Rowling. Even Brave eventually understood why this was wrong.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    But Google should be allowed to unilaterally copy snippets of data from all the websites on the internet into their search results? People bending themselves backwards to hate Brave for doing things that are really not that different from what the big boys do.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > But Google should be allowed to unilaterally copy snippets of data from all the websites on the internet into their search results? No, and they don't. See meta nosnippet and robots.txt. If the big boys did what Brave did, they would be sued to oblivion.
hirundo 7y ago
See https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds https://brave.com/faq/#unclaimed-funds for a description of their current and past policy. Currently: "If a publisher has not verified ownership, then a user’s contributions will be held in reserve inside the browser for 90 days. The browser routinely updates an internal list of all verified publishers to determine whether a property can receive contributions. At the end of the 90 day period, any contributions marked for unverified publishers will be released back to the wallet. No funds leave the browser except to go to verified creators." Previously: "Previous versions ... would then hold contributed funds for those publishers in escrow until they’d verified. [And] Funds that were contributed from user-funded wallets will be held indefinitely, until the publisher verifies and transfers them to their own wallet." That sounds like they had a suboptimal policy, realized it, and fixed it. If they _keep_ their 5% cut, or the interest on it, from contributions to unverified creators, I'll share your criticism.
- dymk 7y ago
  That's still terrible. If I'm a Youtube content creator who doesn't want anything to do with Brave, they're still going to remove the ads that I want on my videos to monetize my content, and hold any of the BAT that Brave users contribute to me hostage.
  - hirundo 7y ago
    Is uBlock terrible?
    - dymk 7y ago
      Are you a content creator, with your income stream at least partly gained through advertisements?
    - tapoxi 7y ago
      Yes? Generating and serving content isn't free. If you don't want the ads, don't visit the page or pay for an ad-free version.
codehalo 7y ago
None of what you said is true. I'm puzzled by the constant lies and FUD spread here against Brave. What exactly is the agenda?
- snazz 7y ago
  The reason that Brave doesn’t get a great rap around here is because it trips the sketchy detector. They make a marketing image of themselves as the protectors of privacy and whatnot and then the browser includes (or included) a lot of features that seem to go contrary to the stated mission.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  There's no agenda, just proper reasoning. Think about it in terms of Bayesian probability: it's a cryptocurrency product, and pretty much everything in the crypto space is a scam, so right off the bat when you hear about Brave, before you even know anything your prior probability that it's a scam is 95%. Then they got busted 'keeping the money' and not telling the creators, and the posterior jumps to 99.5%. I know they mostly fixed that, but at that point the trust was gone and it's not worth anyone's time to give a second chance. It sucks, but at the same time, if you're going to be an honest actor in crypto, you better cross every t and dot every i, because bad actors are everywhere and so smart people just assume bad faith and are arguably correct to do so.
  - potlato 7y ago
    If your proper reasoning involves the premise: "it's a cryptocurrency product, and pretty much everything in the crypto space is a scam," you might want to adjust want you call "proper reasoning."
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Sure! But one product doesn't adjust it very far. So next time I hear something is a "cryptocurrency product", instead of 95% scam alert I'll be at 93-94% scam alert.
  - 7y ago

walterbell 7y ago

Does Brave still whitelist Facebook trackers? Is there a way to opt-out of Facebook tracking on Brave for iOS? https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/1108 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/1108

theferalrobot 7y ago
Did you read the link you posted? They block many facebook tracking components but there are some things they aren't touching right now because some website depend on facebook for logins.
- walterbell 7y ago
  How can people, who are not using those websites, avoid Facebook tracking on the rest of the web?
  - prophesi 7y ago
    Install one of the many chromium extensions that block/obfuscate such tracking.
    - walterbell 7y ago
      Sadly not an option on iOS, which is the reason for using Brave in the first place.
      - prophesi 7y ago
        Honestly, blocking ads/trackers on mobile has always been a tricky business. You could set up Pi-Hole on your home network. Or see if there's something similar to this on iOS: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/dnsfilter.android/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/dnsfilter.android/
        beatgammit 7y ago

strawberryfan 7y ago

Brave is going big. It will overtake Firefox in the near future. That will be a good day for Brendan Eich.

Proven 7y ago

Negative. They pre-collected donations for random Web sites without owners' knowledge. I don't care about any technical reasons; a child would know it is wrong and wouldn't do it. Also the ICO was shady. uBlock Origin is anti-corporativist. Brave certainly isn't.