5 ms·

No solution, but I think we'll never find one if debate, about problems with web privacy, suggests Mozilla is the answer - until they put into actions their wor

No solution, but I think we'll never find one if debate, about problems with web privacy, suggests Mozilla is the answer - until they put into actions their words, they shouldn't be seen as the way to go. Whilst I have reservations about Brave, from a privacy standpoint they appear to be more trustworthy and some of the actions they are involved with, like complaints to regulators are far beyond anything we've seen of Mozilla - sure they may have corporate motives, but right now they appear to align far better with consumer privacy. There are forks of Firefox that are trying to improve on delivery of privacy https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/policy/purebrowser/ https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/policy/purebrowser/ https://github.com/intika/Librefox https://github.com/intika/Librefox I am not wholly comfortable using Brave because of its dependency on Chromium, too much of a dependency on a single web rendering engine reminds me of IE days. I would suggest to anyone, install them both and more, you might love browsing the web in emacs (someone must) - if you find a website that doesn't work on Firefox and you need Chrome, then why not use Brave instead? Personally I'm trying both, I also bought a Librem Laptop so I have PureBrowser too and I'm not afraid to throw some of my money and inconvenience at products that are better at protecting my privacy: for techies we can all do this with relative ease. For non-techies, which is where we really need the sea of change (and who are unlikely to read this), then we can advise them towards Apple's products and make them aware of products like Brave so it can be their "backup" browser if not their first choice - not perfect, but I'd prefer my family to browse using Safari, Firefox (with privacy settings I have to sit down and sort out for them) or Brave; than Chrome.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> Whilst I have reservations about Brave, from a privacy standpoint they appear to be more trustworthy and some of the actions they are involved with, like complaints to regulators are far beyond anything we've seen of Mozilla - sure they may have corporate motives, but right now they appear to align far better with consumer privacy. There's a lot for me to think about in your post, and most of it I agree with, but I wanted to comment on this bit. While I agree that Firefox has made some very problematic decisions over the years, Brave is far worse in my opinion. My biggest 3 objections are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20830069#20833942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20830069#20833942
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- BrendanEich 7y ago
  I can't find anything from you at that link. Would you mind inlining your biggest 3 objections? Thanks.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    It looks like my post fell off the front page, so the hashtag link doesn't work. :/ Copy-pasting my comment here: Looking into this only briefly, it didn't take long to find a lot of very questionable decisions made by Brave: 1. They're positioning themselves as both an advertiser and a privacy advocate[1], which strikes me as more of a strategy for bootstrapping revenue than a trustworthy moral position. The entire point of crypto micropayments is to pay for content with crypto rather than attention/privacy. Why should I view Brave's ads rather than the other ads on the internet from advertisers who also claim their ads respect privacy? The fact that Brave has decided to get into bed with advertisers at all shows they're committed to profit, not to users: micropayments are just a way to diversify for Brave, which will quickly fall to the wayside if it fails to provide the revenue they want. 2. The entire concept of a Brave Verified Publisher stinks. It positions Brave as a censor. If this system takes off, then suddenly Brave has control over who gets paid for content on the internet, and can censor content they don't like. And this isn't hypothetical, they plan to do this: their TOS[2] explicitly contains a code of conduct which contains a long list of things they will terminate your account for: they promise to use their power as censors to enforce of US copyright/patent law and also a wide variety of subjective social norms. This also shows their commitment to being an advertiser rather than an application that serves users: if you're serving users then you let them pay for the content they want to pay for, but if you're serving advertisers, then you can't let advertisers brands be seen as supporting questionable content. 3. BAT based in Ethereum seems to be basically a way to ride the wave of cryptocurrency hype while still positioning themselves as a central authority/middleman. If they weren't trying to position themselves as a middleman, they would just make the micropayments in Ether directly, or better yet, in a cryptocurrency that doesn't have a history of forking the blockchain to fix an bug in a major users' contract[3]. If they weren't trying to ride cryptocurrency hype, they'd just allow micropayments via a much-simpler-and-more-reliable REST API or similar since they're already the central authority anyway. I don't think we can trust Brave with our privacy or attention. I don't think we can trust Brave with the decision of who gets paid for content. I don't think we need Brave as a middleman to pay content publishers. I don't like the state of how content is paid for on the internet, but I don't think Brave is the solution. It's disappointing to me that Wikipedia has decided to associate their name with Brave's. A big part of why I respect Wikipedia is their long-standing policy of keeping independent from advertisers, and it seems naive of them to have not realized that Brave is an advertiser. I can understand why Wikipedia has made this decision, but I still think it is a compromise of Wikipedia's values, and I hope they'll reverse their decision in the future. [1] https://brave.com/brave-ads-waitlist/ https://brave.com/brave-ads-waitlist/ [2] https://brave.com/terms-of-use/ https://brave.com/terms-of-use/ [3] https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-executes-blockchain-hard-fork-byzantium https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-executes-blockchain-hard-f...

kerkeslager 7y ago

> Whilst I have reservations about Brave, from a privacy standpoint they appear to be more trustworthy and some of the actions they are involved with, like complaints to regulators are far beyond anything we've seen of Mozilla - sure they may have corporate motives, but right now they appear to align far better with consumer privacy. There's a lot for me to think about in your post, and most of it I agree with, but I wanted to comment on this bit. While I agree that Firefox has made some very problematic decisions over the years, Brave is far worse in my opinion. My biggest 3 objections are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20830069#20833942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20830069#20833942

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
BrendanEich 7y ago
I can't find anything from you at that link. Would you mind inlining your biggest 3 objections? Thanks.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  It looks like my post fell off the front page, so the hashtag link doesn't work. :/ Copy-pasting my comment here: Looking into this only briefly, it didn't take long to find a lot of very questionable decisions made by Brave: 1. They're positioning themselves as both an advertiser and a privacy advocate[1], which strikes me as more of a strategy for bootstrapping revenue than a trustworthy moral position. The entire point of crypto micropayments is to pay for content with crypto rather than attention/privacy. Why should I view Brave's ads rather than the other ads on the internet from advertisers who also claim their ads respect privacy? The fact that Brave has decided to get into bed with advertisers at all shows they're committed to profit, not to users: micropayments are just a way to diversify for Brave, which will quickly fall to the wayside if it fails to provide the revenue they want. 2. The entire concept of a Brave Verified Publisher stinks. It positions Brave as a censor. If this system takes off, then suddenly Brave has control over who gets paid for content on the internet, and can censor content they don't like. And this isn't hypothetical, they plan to do this: their TOS[2] explicitly contains a code of conduct which contains a long list of things they will terminate your account for: they promise to use their power as censors to enforce of US copyright/patent law and also a wide variety of subjective social norms. This also shows their commitment to being an advertiser rather than an application that serves users: if you're serving users then you let them pay for the content they want to pay for, but if you're serving advertisers, then you can't let advertisers brands be seen as supporting questionable content. 3. BAT based in Ethereum seems to be basically a way to ride the wave of cryptocurrency hype while still positioning themselves as a central authority/middleman. If they weren't trying to position themselves as a middleman, they would just make the micropayments in Ether directly, or better yet, in a cryptocurrency that doesn't have a history of forking the blockchain to fix an bug in a major users' contract[3]. If they weren't trying to ride cryptocurrency hype, they'd just allow micropayments via a much-simpler-and-more-reliable REST API or similar since they're already the central authority anyway. I don't think we can trust Brave with our privacy or attention. I don't think we can trust Brave with the decision of who gets paid for content. I don't think we need Brave as a middleman to pay content publishers. I don't like the state of how content is paid for on the internet, but I don't think Brave is the solution. It's disappointing to me that Wikipedia has decided to associate their name with Brave's. A big part of why I respect Wikipedia is their long-standing policy of keeping independent from advertisers, and it seems naive of them to have not realized that Brave is an advertiser. I can understand why Wikipedia has made this decision, but I still think it is a compromise of Wikipedia's values, and I hope they'll reverse their decision in the future. [1] https://brave.com/brave-ads-waitlist/ https://brave.com/brave-ads-waitlist/ [2] https://brave.com/terms-of-use/ https://brave.com/terms-of-use/ [3] https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-executes-blockchain-hard-fork-byzantium https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-executes-blockchain-hard-f...