14 ms·

Isn’t it strange that an article that has a very specific title immediately changes the topic and starts promoting brave—a browser that practically nobody uses,

by onyva 7y ago

Isn’t it strange that an article that has a very specific title immediately changes the topic and starts promoting brave—a browser that practically nobody uses, and has a controversial business model—while there are companies like Mozilla, that have proven record of protecting users’ privacy online? It’s not the first time I’ve seen this aggressive, misleading, promotional articles, which makes you wonder about if Eich and friends are desperate to hype their Ware by injecting brave into this clickbait articles?

tannhaeuser 7y ago
Yes I've noticed it as well. But I don't want to give it airtime and lead us into offtopic discussions so I've downvoted you (sorry).
- ryanlol 7y ago
  I know nobody comes here to read the articles, but I still feel that this is going a bit far.
mosselman 7y ago
I also noticed this. To be fair Mozilla is mentioned. I wonder what the motivation is, are they planning on building revenue through Brave’s reward program? Anyway, I wanted to give this more airtime so I upvoted you ;)
- onyva 7y ago
  True. Though there’s nothing to suggest the a for profit like brave should be users’ first option in the fight for user privacy online... what’s their record? If anything this man in the middle concept is even worse because it creates an illusion of safety where there’s non. Sort of like Adblock and it’s symbiotic relationship with advertisers. They’re part of the same ecosystem and Mozilla is definitely not part of.
  - d0gbread 7y ago
    If you're looking for a record on something new you'll never see anything new.
stirlo 7y ago
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html If you don’t have enough brand awareness to get your PR out there just latch your story onto someone that does...
- onyva 7y ago
  Exactly what I was thinking...
- enz 7y ago
  I never noticed that pg's article. Thanks for sharing, now I'll try my first "PR chase" with the article of this thread.
kipqi 7y ago
Mozilla has a proven record of remotely installing extensions on your browser to advertise TV shows[0] and sending your entire browsing history to a third party ad company[1]. A clean record indeed. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robot-arg-plugin-firefox-looking-glass https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo... [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Nothing wrong with the first instance. I'd much rather Mozilla have independence and deal with one tiny advert. At least they were "transparent" about the second one. But sending my browsing history to a company I've never heard of is a big ask. At least I can choose to have Chrome sync with Google, this wasn't ever asked.
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    You'd prefer that Mozilla could install any extension they want? You do realize that sets precedent that they're free to sell forced extension installs that run universally on every page? Give an inch, take a mile. It's always like that every time by every single company in existence.
    - onyva 7y ago
      You sound like a Fox News host spewing talking points. Mozilla has a proven track record and a purpose, which is users rights online. Stupid or bad decisions will be made. It’s to be expected. This though doesn’t negate and change anything about my trust in them. Definitely not when compared with the likes of Brave with its tiresome PR. I suggest renaming brave AdBuddy.
      - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
        Based on your non sequitur bleating about Fox News we can now confirm beyond any doubt whatsoever that you definitely don’t actually have a problem with Brave but rather you just hate its conservative creator Brandon Eich and in a blind rage you are stapling together barely coherent sentences to try to hurt him somehow.
stonogo 7y ago
> companies like Mozilla, that have proven record of protecting users’ privacy online? No they don't. They just have a proven record of not being good at exploiting the massive amount of surveillance data they collect. Anyone who thinks Mozilla is on the side of the user in privacy matters should start by asking why they support the beacon API.
- makomk 7y ago
  You could probably say the same about Apple - iAd was pretty intrusive in terms of the amount of data it collected, especially compared to what Apple allowed from third-party ad platforms at the time, but they failed to make a business out of it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jraph 7y ago
Yeah I'm fed up with unwarranted mentions of Brave. Indeed they are always "aggressive, misleading, promotional", and nothing close to informational. The article was supposed to be about Apple and Webkit, and Brave is just off-topic. Brave is not a privacy-focused browser. It is an ad-focused browser and the business model of Brave is just this: ads, through Basic Attention Tokens. Privacy and BATs are in conflict and Brave will never be incentivized to respect the privacy of all its users. If you want privacy for you and for everyone, competition except Chrome is already better. Brave is not a solution for a browser user's problem.
- onyva 7y ago
  Just the newspeak idea alone of "Basic Attention Tokens" ... makes me think of the dystopic "Maniac" and AdBuddy.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    Hate to say it but at least AdBuddy doesnt follow you around. They just share random ads.
- bad_user 7y ago
  Competition that's preferably not based on Chromium, because Chromium's marketshare gives Google incredible leverage on the market. Witness how they are pushing AMP. At this point there are only two browsers left: Firefox and Safari.
  - SquareWheel 7y ago
    AMP works in all browsers. It doesn't rely on anything Chromium-specific.
    - vorticalbox 7y ago
      It still lets one company set the standard for the web even if what they push does work on all browsers.
patrickaljord 7y ago
Mozilla doesn't block ads and trackers by default so I would say Brave takes protecting users privacy more seriously as they block all that by default. They also provide tor browsing as an option for even more privacy with the possibility to browse onion sites. Something Firefox has refused to do for some reasons.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Partially incorrect. The last Firefox release enables tracker blocking by default on new profiles. You can switch it on at any time in your existing profile if you’d rather not wait for Firefox to do so for existing profiles.
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    Okay, let's ignore the last 5 years that they haven't. Sure moving forward they do but they sure did take their time getting there.
    - floatingatoll 7y ago
      Sounds good. I appreciate your willingness to move on.
- hyper_reality 7y ago
  When using Tor it is important to be indistinguishable from other Tor users. If you can be fingerprinted by user agent, screen size, fonts, add-ons, or numerous other indicators, then the anonymity set of your browsing behaviour essentially becomes just you. That's why the Tor browser is setup to be as homogeneous as possible. Using Tor within Brave does not provide the privacy that users might expect, and Brave even point that out in their website. Hiding your IP is a good start alongside blocking known trackers, but it's only one component of properly avoiding tracking online. Mozilla is investigating Tor integration: https://blog.torproject.org/mozilla-research-call-tune-tor-integration-and-scale https://blog.torproject.org/mozilla-research-call-tune-tor-i...
- deleted 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
DennisP 7y ago
You make it sound like the whole article is a bait and switch. I went to see, and it was two sentences about Brave, right after mentioning Chrome and ad blockers. Then it goes back to Apple. They also mentioned Mozilla towards the end. Do you think Mozilla, Chrome, and ad blockers were also part of this marketing effort, or is it possible that all this was just normal context?
- onyva 7y ago
  Brave’s zero market share would suggest to me that if it should be mentioned, it would be more of a side note. For years when dealing with Linux and free software the argument given by these type of publications was that they’re not worth mentioning or considering, because they had no market share. When did Brave (AdBuddy) become the defender of users rights and online safety? And why would a browser with no users be mentioned in every article you read lately about browsers? How can it have such an impact on editors still not on users?
  - d0gbread 7y ago
    A new browser, a notable founder, a modern technology, a new ad model in an increasingly privacy-focused world. Seems clear why that would capture attention. Whether individually you like it or not.
Chris_Chambers 7y ago
Firefox is constantly preloaded with new creepy malware-esque tracking garbage marketed as a feature. “Pocket” hijacks the New Tab page and is a nightmare to disable. No one asked for “Hello” and yet there it is, some weird unrelated networked app bolted on and shoved down our throats. There’s no excuse for any of this. Firefox is trash and so is your opinion, and judging from your comment history, that’s a general rule for you. In fact, your comment history gives us precisely the context we need to see why you’re so salty about the existence of Brave. You’re one of those “people” who hate Blonald Blumpf and all cis male whites because reddit told you to, or maybe it was your psychotic professors or some zines you read in the bathroom at your antifa friend’s house. Naturally you will hate Brandon Eich since he was once caught admitting he didn’t want to worship the LGBT mind virus. Again, let’s be clear, you don’t actually have a problem with Brave, you’re deliberately lying about that; your only actual goal is to hurt Brandon Eich somehow because you hate him, because you’re insane.
klauslovgreen 7y ago
Yes it often feels like fake news/promotion. Question is if any of these companies can be trusted. It is getting increasingly hard for users to make an educated decision about which tools are safe to use (if any) and the consequences associated with such choices in the long run. Any links to best practise in this space?

by onyva 7y ago

tannhaeuser 7y ago

Yes I've noticed it as well. But I don't want to give it airtime and lead us into offtopic discussions so I've downvoted you (sorry).

ryanlol 7y ago
I know nobody comes here to read the articles, but I still feel that this is going a bit far.

mosselman 7y ago

I also noticed this. To be fair Mozilla is mentioned. I wonder what the motivation is, are they planning on building revenue through Brave’s reward program? Anyway, I wanted to give this more airtime so I upvoted you ;)

onyva 7y ago
True. Though there’s nothing to suggest the a for profit like brave should be users’ first option in the fight for user privacy online... what’s their record? If anything this man in the middle concept is even worse because it creates an illusion of safety where there’s non. Sort of like Adblock and it’s symbiotic relationship with advertisers. They’re part of the same ecosystem and Mozilla is definitely not part of.
- d0gbread 7y ago
  If you're looking for a record on something new you'll never see anything new.

stirlo 7y ago

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html If you don’t have enough brand awareness to get your PR out there just latch your story onto someone that does...

onyva 7y ago
Exactly what I was thinking...
enz 7y ago
I never noticed that pg's article. Thanks for sharing, now I'll try my first "PR chase" with the article of this thread.

kipqi 7y ago

Mozilla has a proven record of remotely installing extensions on your browser to advertise TV shows[0] and sending your entire browsing history to a third party ad company[1]. A clean record indeed. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robot-arg-plugin-firefox-looking-glass https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo... [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...

cameronbrown 7y ago
Nothing wrong with the first instance. I'd much rather Mozilla have independence and deal with one tiny advert. At least they were "transparent" about the second one. But sending my browsing history to a company I've never heard of is a big ask. At least I can choose to have Chrome sync with Google, this wasn't ever asked.
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  You'd prefer that Mozilla could install any extension they want? You do realize that sets precedent that they're free to sell forced extension installs that run universally on every page? Give an inch, take a mile. It's always like that every time by every single company in existence.
  - onyva 7y ago
    You sound like a Fox News host spewing talking points. Mozilla has a proven track record and a purpose, which is users rights online. Stupid or bad decisions will be made. It’s to be expected. This though doesn’t negate and change anything about my trust in them. Definitely not when compared with the likes of Brave with its tiresome PR. I suggest renaming brave AdBuddy.
    - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
      Based on your non sequitur bleating about Fox News we can now confirm beyond any doubt whatsoever that you definitely don’t actually have a problem with Brave but rather you just hate its conservative creator Brandon Eich and in a blind rage you are stapling together barely coherent sentences to try to hurt him somehow.

stonogo 7y ago

> companies like Mozilla, that have proven record of protecting users’ privacy online? No they don't. They just have a proven record of not being good at exploiting the massive amount of surveillance data they collect. Anyone who thinks Mozilla is on the side of the user in privacy matters should start by asking why they support the beacon API.

makomk 7y ago
You could probably say the same about Apple - iAd was pretty intrusive in terms of the amount of data it collected, especially compared to what Apple allowed from third-party ad platforms at the time, but they failed to make a business out of it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jraph 7y ago

Yeah I'm fed up with unwarranted mentions of Brave. Indeed they are always "aggressive, misleading, promotional", and nothing close to informational. The article was supposed to be about Apple and Webkit, and Brave is just off-topic. Brave is not a privacy-focused browser. It is an ad-focused browser and the business model of Brave is just this: ads, through Basic Attention Tokens. Privacy and BATs are in conflict and Brave will never be incentivized to respect the privacy of all its users. If you want privacy for you and for everyone, competition except Chrome is already better. Brave is not a solution for a browser user's problem.

onyva 7y ago
Just the newspeak idea alone of "Basic Attention Tokens" ... makes me think of the dystopic "Maniac" and AdBuddy.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  Hate to say it but at least AdBuddy doesnt follow you around. They just share random ads.
bad_user 7y ago
Competition that's preferably not based on Chromium, because Chromium's marketshare gives Google incredible leverage on the market. Witness how they are pushing AMP. At this point there are only two browsers left: Firefox and Safari.
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  AMP works in all browsers. It doesn't rely on anything Chromium-specific.
  - vorticalbox 7y ago
    It still lets one company set the standard for the web even if what they push does work on all browsers.

patrickaljord 7y ago

Mozilla doesn't block ads and trackers by default so I would say Brave takes protecting users privacy more seriously as they block all that by default. They also provide tor browsing as an option for even more privacy with the possibility to browse onion sites. Something Firefox has refused to do for some reasons.

floatingatoll 7y ago
Partially incorrect. The last Firefox release enables tracker blocking by default on new profiles. You can switch it on at any time in your existing profile if you’d rather not wait for Firefox to do so for existing profiles.
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  Okay, let's ignore the last 5 years that they haven't. Sure moving forward they do but they sure did take their time getting there.
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    Sounds good. I appreciate your willingness to move on.
hyper_reality 7y ago
When using Tor it is important to be indistinguishable from other Tor users. If you can be fingerprinted by user agent, screen size, fonts, add-ons, or numerous other indicators, then the anonymity set of your browsing behaviour essentially becomes just you. That's why the Tor browser is setup to be as homogeneous as possible. Using Tor within Brave does not provide the privacy that users might expect, and Brave even point that out in their website. Hiding your IP is a good start alongside blocking known trackers, but it's only one component of properly avoiding tracking online. Mozilla is investigating Tor integration: https://blog.torproject.org/mozilla-research-call-tune-tor-integration-and-scale https://blog.torproject.org/mozilla-research-call-tune-tor-i...
deleted 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

DennisP 7y ago

You make it sound like the whole article is a bait and switch. I went to see, and it was two sentences about Brave, right after mentioning Chrome and ad blockers. Then it goes back to Apple. They also mentioned Mozilla towards the end. Do you think Mozilla, Chrome, and ad blockers were also part of this marketing effort, or is it possible that all this was just normal context?

onyva 7y ago
Brave’s zero market share would suggest to me that if it should be mentioned, it would be more of a side note. For years when dealing with Linux and free software the argument given by these type of publications was that they’re not worth mentioning or considering, because they had no market share. When did Brave (AdBuddy) become the defender of users rights and online safety? And why would a browser with no users be mentioned in every article you read lately about browsers? How can it have such an impact on editors still not on users?
- d0gbread 7y ago
  A new browser, a notable founder, a modern technology, a new ad model in an increasingly privacy-focused world. Seems clear why that would capture attention. Whether individually you like it or not.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

Firefox is constantly preloaded with new creepy malware-esque tracking garbage marketed as a feature. “Pocket” hijacks the New Tab page and is a nightmare to disable. No one asked for “Hello” and yet there it is, some weird unrelated networked app bolted on and shoved down our throats. There’s no excuse for any of this. Firefox is trash and so is your opinion, and judging from your comment history, that’s a general rule for you. In fact, your comment history gives us precisely the context we need to see why you’re so salty about the existence of Brave. You’re one of those “people” who hate Blonald Blumpf and all cis male whites because reddit told you to, or maybe it was your psychotic professors or some zines you read in the bathroom at your antifa friend’s house. Naturally you will hate Brandon Eich since he was once caught admitting he didn’t want to worship the LGBT mind virus. Again, let’s be clear, you don’t actually have a problem with Brave, you’re deliberately lying about that; your only actual goal is to hurt Brandon Eich somehow because you hate him, because you’re insane.

klauslovgreen 7y ago

Yes it often feels like fake news/promotion. Question is if any of these companies can be trusted. It is getting increasingly hard for users to make an educated decision about which tools are safe to use (if any) and the consequences associated with such choices in the long run. Any links to best practise in this space?