8 ms·
Not OP, but I'd imagine that it is Brave seems to be a browser that advocates for the user (and presumably in the future, publishers too with the pay thing). As
by jsgo 7y ago
Not OP, but I'd imagine that it is Brave seems to be a browser that advocates for the user (and presumably in the future, publishers too with the pay thing). As such, the ideals seem more aligned with Firefox than Chrome (and by extension, Chromium).
Basically, you guys are in a weird space where your decisions aren't looked at purely from a technical lens, but also an ideological one.
- BrendanEich 7y agoWelcome to current year. But don't let browsers pretend to be neutral runtimes for the terrible third party scripts on which surveillance advertising depends. They are not neutral. The big-4 browsers in the west apart from Apple are partly or fully captured by $100B ad businesses. We are all in a weird space. Best to fight back at the endpoint with the right browser. Could be Safari, Firefox, or Chrome with opt outs and uBO and other defenses (but risks remain in Chrome especially), if you are not game for Brave.
- jsgo 7y agoNot saying you guys are wrong, just saying where it seems you get blowback for what another vendor doing more or less the same thing wouldn’t even register as a talking point. Not saying it’s fair, but it seems people hold you to something of a righteous/ideological expectation that Google et al can’t meet so they don’t even complain of it there. In my mind, considering the push you’re making, you’d validate that vanilla chromium meets the requirements to achieve said push. If it didn’t, it’d be a non-starter and you’d have went a different route (leveraging aspects of Firefox’s stack maybe if, again, it met requirements).