9 ms·

well, compared to undisclosed affiliate marketing for trading sites[1], soliciting of donations without consent[2] or the recent redirection through affiliate l

• Fiveplus 6y ago
  I'm already using Windows and despite me ticking all privacy checks - I am, as such, trusting MS with my data. Might as well switch over to Edge when I need a chromium-based browser. Threads like these move me in inch closer to that decision. (currently default: Firefox and secondary: Brave) ps: Edge's reader mode and narrator are top-notch.
  • bartread 6y ago
    I can definitely see the reasoning. I suppose I'm still debating whether it's good to have all my personal information with only one company or spread around a bit more. If I was going to plump for one company, Microsoft might not be the worst choice simply because their business model doesn't revolve around monetizing my personal information.
    • _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
      > Microsoft might not be the worst choice simply because their business model doesn't revolve around monetizing my personal information. Yet they seem intent on collecting as much data as possible.
      • thekyle 6y ago
        I know right. I don't get it. I would expect a company like Microsoft that makes most of their money selling to businesses would take privacy and security more seriously.
      • GloriousKoji 6y ago
        At least I know some of it will be used in an attempt to make their product's UI better for the user. Compared to google which continues to make their UI more hostile to users with each iteration.
        • _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
          I don't know why you would assume that Microsoft uses their ill-gotten user information to make their UX better and Google to make theirs worse. Is it just because Microsoft's products' UX cannot be made any worse?
    • methodsignature 6y ago
      my understanding is that most of the web reports back to Google anyways:(
      • input_sh 6y ago
        I mean, sure, but there's plenty of add-ons and filter lists that would make the web stop doing that.
  • lowwave 6y ago
    * when I need a chromium-based browser * Try ungoogled-chromium: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium Put uMatrix, HTTPS everywhere
    • gruez 6y ago
      That either requires you to spend hours building it yourself, or trust random people's builds.
  • bad_user 6y ago
    Edge synchronization doesn't do end to end encryption for your browsing history or bookmarks (for this reason alone you're actually better off with Chrome). Windows 10 also has a low entropy advertising ID, that via Edge is passed to Bing Ads for ads personalization. Firefox does not send your unencrypted browsing data to Microsoft and it does not send Windows 10's advertising ID to Bing Ads. --- You may trust Microsoft enough to run Windows 10, but it does not follow that Microsoft already has that data. And giving even more data to a company that already has plenty on you is always unwise. If you care about privacy or security for that matter, compartmentalization is key.
    • Fiveplus 6y ago
      I hadn't heard about the lack of E2E on Edge's sync, thanks for highlighting it here.
• bartread 6y ago
  I've disliked Brave from the beginning. Initially because of the pretentious - and frankly appropriated - name, but now for the much more substantive reasons you've cited. Seriously, if you want a browser that gives you control over your data and privacy, use Firefox. It doesn't do any of this shady nonsense.
  • 0xfffafaCrash 6y ago
    Brave is trash, but to say Firefox hasn't done shady things is a bit of joke after the whole incident where they sent full site URLs and interaction data over to Cliqz's servers for a random sampling of users in Germany while being neither opt-in nor clear to the users about what data was being sent.
    • lopis 6y ago
      Short sighted and terrible PR, yes, but to say that what Firefox was doing was shady, specially anything close to as shady as Brave, is being straight out disingenuous.
      • 0xfffafaCrash 6y ago
        I was pretty clear about my stance on Brave in the first three words of my comment, but I'm skeptical of any interpretation of user privacy which is so eager to excuse sending user browsing history without asking as not "shady" but simply "short sighted and bad PR" just because Mozilla's the one doing it
  • stevehawk 6y ago
    appropriated name?
    • bartread 6y ago
      Yes: the concept of browsing the web with your privacy preserved has literally zero to do with the concept of bravery. The name is clearly a statement but not one that's ever made any sense to me.
• patrickaljord 6y ago
  About [1], read the reply from the devs, seems reasonable and it was announced on their blog, it was temporary and could be turned off at anytime. Besides eToro is a well established site in Europe to buy stocks (no affiliations here), the reporter seems to really hate them for some reasons. [2] was fixed a while ago as mentioned in your link. [3] was also fixed quickly. I don't know if you've ever run a company but if you do, I hope your users won't attack you and remember every single mistakes you've ever made even if just 3. Disclaimer: I don't work for Brave and rarely use it sometimes as secondary browser.
  • freediver 6y ago
    I did run a company and I feared making mistakes. In principle the best way to avoid making kinds of mistakes your users will hate you for is to put user interest first. By looking at Brave's profile I can not say they are living by that principle 100%. For example, the decision to hijack links to insert their own affiliate links is not a mistake, it was a decision. These kind of decisions are not made by a developer in the team, it is a leadership level decision, coming from principles those leaders live by, and also one that does not put users first. On the contrary, it takes advantage of the users. The principle of 'forgiving mistakes' applies only to honest mistakes. Otherwise we would all be browsing with Chrome/posting on Facebook/[insert currently hated company on HN here] and forgiving them all their 'mistakes'.
    • patrickaljord 6y ago
      Putting your users interest first needs to be balanced with remaining profitable so you can keep existing. It's hard to put your user interest first when you don't exist anymore. This is why Firefox decided for example to support non-free mp4 or EME (DRM), even though it goes against their mission of supporting the open web. They decided that not supporting these features would kill their market share, relevance and revenue making it hard to support their users in the future. When Brave made the decision to insert affiliate, they saw it as a way to help with their revenue which helps their mission without hurting privacy too much (they still block more trackers than any other browser in the market including firefox). Still, they rectified this quickly showing that they are not stubborn and are ready to sacrifice revenue for their users. Anyway, it's not easy to balance all this and you will be hard put to find saints that do it all perfectly out there, good luck finding one though.
• lalaland1125 6y ago
  And that's just a short list of the shady things Brave has done. For example, Brave has also carried out an illegal security offering with their ICO.
• buboard 6y ago
  brave's biggest innovation is the introduction of direct payments. i hope that catches on, even if brave fails, because it will truly transform the economics of the internet.