6 ms·

> The Brave Today news reader ranks stories locally for the user from hundreds of popular RSS feeds using an algorithm that weighs several factors, including th

by lebaux 6y ago

> The Brave Today news reader ranks stories locally for the user from hundreds of popular RSS feeds using an algorithm that weighs several factors, including the user’s browser history and article published date. What "algorithm" you ask? > We’re using Brave’s new private CDN to fetch RSS feeds anonymously via the browser and the browser’s personalization capabilities to rank the headlines for users with a simple algorithm that will make the experience interesting for everyone. This seems like spying... with extra steps. In the meantime, Vivaldi added good old, classic RSS reader (and email client). To their experiments[1] (not affiliated). Brave might be great, but it feels like Crypto AG[2] spinoff. https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-mail-technical-preview https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-mail-technical-preview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG

notahacker 6y ago
Not sure there are necessarily third parties involved, but given Brave's track record of lying about not tracking users (whilst actually inserting affiliate links onto websites they visited and collecting revenues and data from them) as well as lying about donations they solicited going to the parties whose name they solicited them in, I don't see why any privacy-conscious person should trust them
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  Affiliate links were in the address bar and not injected into the webpage. You are spreading lies.
  - byte1918 6y ago
    You are correct and it's equally as awful.
    - boogies 6y ago
      Equally as harmless. The affiliate codes don’t give anyone any information that they don’t already have (if you’re one of whatever tiny fraction of users edit their user agent strings, why the heck would you choose to accept the the URL suggestions‽ And if you really care about strict privacy, why would you use a Chromium-based browser in the first place, when invasive features have been discovered in Chromium’s codebase long after they were added before?). The sheer stupidity of the toxic FUD people spread about Brave makes me angry in its behalf (despite never using it beyond a test run myself).
    - jonathansampson 6y ago
      Showing suggestions in the browser isn't "equally as awful" as injecting them into pages (or modifying links on pages, as was claimed). The intent here was for users of Brave [who also happen to have an interest in product/service x] to support the former with their traffic to the latter. This isn't unethical; it's an clean and privacy-respecting way of supporting an effort.
- propogandist 6y ago
  Passing an affiliate code doesn’t mean they’re tracking the individual, it’s just meant to get credit for sales they’ve driven. Affiliates just get a payout of commission from the merchant, there’s no data-sharing beyond that. Affiliate cookies can be cleared by wiping browser cookies whereas Google’s data-mining (as present in Chrome) can’t be stopped. Affiliate marketing is means to generate revenue and a better than taking massive payouts from Google, which is the primary funding source for Mozilla Firefox. As a privacy conscious user I’d rather see a browser that be sustained without Google’s support. Given the co-creator of Mozilla (and .JS) is behind Brave, I trust it more than the fly by night browser.
  - wzdd 6y ago
    Brave is absolutely dependent on Google, now and in the future, continuing to release their millions of dollars of engineering effort on Chromium to the public for free. If Google were to stop updating Chromium, Brave could re-architect onto... what, exactly? Firefox becomes a less viable competitor every time Mozilla issues a press release. Perhaps they could revert to Webkit, which would make them 100% dependent on Apple instead. It's sad, but there is no way for a modern browser vendor to be independent of FAANG.
    - patrickaljord 6y ago
      That's like saying using linux is being dependent on redhat and intel. Big contributors to Chromium include Microsoft, Samsung and many other giant companies. If Google abandons Chromium, it will still be maintained by other companies as too many in the industry rely on it.
    - exolymph 6y ago
      Chromium seems like one of the least-likely-to-be-killed Google projects.
    - jonathansampson 6y ago
      Chromium isn't developed by Google alone; it has many contributors. Brave doesn't rely on Google. If they stopped contributing to Chromium, we could continue without them.
- jonathansampson 6y ago
  You're mistaken, or misleading. Brave has never tracked users, and Brave has also never inserted affiliate links into websites. Let's discuss these claims in a bit more depth. TRACKING Brave doesn't track users. I invite anybody reading to take a look at their network activity; in fact, I'll sit down and give anybody an introductory walk-through of Telerik Fiddler and show them how to inspect their own network activity, to observe in plain-text what Brave is doing, and with whom it is communicating. I do this regularly, and share results [1]. You don't have to take my word on it either; unaffiliated third-parties have published similar results [2]. [1] https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traffic-results/ https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traff... [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/brave-deemed-most-private-browser-in-terms-of-phoning-home/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/brave-deemed-most-private-brow... AFFILIATE LINKS Brave has never "inserted affiliate links onto website". This is quite misleading. What Brave did do was offer users who were performing a search from the address bar of the browser a list of suggested results. Among those results, Brave would at times show an affiliate option. We wrote about this on our blog (and included screenshots) for those interested [3]. Note, no data was involved. No network requests were made. There was no impact to privacy in any way, shape, or form. This was simply a suggestion offered in a drop-down beneath the address bar. Affiliate links are a clean way for browsers (or any app, really) to generate revenue. Open up Firefox, Vivaldi, or Opera and type 'hacker news' into the address bar. In Firefox, you'll be redirected to https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=hacker+news https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=hacker+ne... by default. Note the "client=firefox" in the query-string parameter list. In Opera you're sent to https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=hacker+news&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=hacker+news&sou... by default. Note the "client=opera" and "sourceid=opera" elements. Brave's mistake was matching a fully-qualified domain name. What we had planned for was showing a set of suggested URLs (some with an affiliate code) when a user searched for something like "binance". We mistakenly showed the same results when the user typed a fully-qualified domain name, like "binance.us" as well. That was unintended, and was corrected within 48 hours of identification. [3] https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ SOLICITING DONATIONS Brave is doing something quite different from other browsers; it aims to not only improve security on the Web, but also to offer novel support options to content creators everywhere in a privacy-respecting, and sustainable manner. Brave ships with a Tipping interface to empower users to send rewards (in the form of Basic Attention Tokens) to content creators. When we launched this model, Brave gave tokens to its users, and users could give those to the sites they visit. When a user tipped a site, the tokens would go to the Creator (if verified), or into a settlement wallet to be claimed at a later date. Brave would reach out to Creators, informing them of rewards (similar to the early days of PayPal). There were a couple issues here, which you can read about on our blog [4]. One was a UI issue. Brave marked verified domains with a checkmark (similar to Twitter's 'verified' accounts). We didn't have any special mark for non-verified properties. This was naive on our part. We remedied this by explicitly stating the status of the Creator in both cases. The second problem was allowing tokens to move out of the user's wallet when the Creator wasn't even verified. Personally, I'm incredibly thankful that this issue was found. Under that model, tons of tokens could be dropped into a wallet, and never claimed by anybody. In the update we produced within a couple days), this model was changed. Now unverified creators wouldn't receive anything; instead, tips issued to an unverified creator would stay on your device, and be retried for up to 90 days. If the Creator verified within that timeframe, they'd collect the tips. If they didn't, the tips could be sent to somebody else. Brave never solicited tips for anybody. There was simply a component of the browser which enabled users to send tips to sites and creators they appreciated. Brave's main fault here was with naive UI, and a contribution model which could have resulted in lost tokens. Thankfully, our users caught both issues and we were able to improve the feature quickly. [4] https://brave.com/rewards-update/ https://brave.com/rewards-update/ I hope this helps.
ketamine__ 6y ago
A locally run algorithm is spying? Brave is run by the CIA? Are these Google talking points?
- lebaux 6y ago
  I don't trust Brave, and especially Brave CDN. You might choose to, and it is fine. They don't really have an amazing track record as privacy first company. They do have a proven track record of "trying to monetize users".
  - whyleyc 6y ago
    Can you share examples of Brave having a poor privacy record? I've recently switched to it as my main browser, enjoy using it and have recommended to others who want to opt-out of the Google ecosystem. However, if there are examples of privacy abuse I may revisit.
    - d3nj4l 6y ago
      Brave converted urls into affiliate links: https://www.coindesk.com/brave-browsers-affiliate-link-controversy-explained https://www.coindesk.com/brave-browsers-affiliate-link-contr... Vivaldi is a pretty good chromium-based browser, if you want to stay away from Google but still need chromium. I'd still take Firefox any day, though.
      - midnitewarrior 6y ago
        Monitoring users without violating their privacy is the point of Brave. Affiliate links do not violate the integrity or the privacy of the browsing experience. These are great things, it keeps the browser free from cost while still protecting your privacy. It is how they continue to exist without financial support from Google.
        dkdk8283 6y ago
        Every Google search/purchase through Firefox that can be attributed back to FF funds Mozilla. No different really.
visarga 6y ago
The concept of having a middleman hiding the source from the destination while also not being able to read the contents (like Tor) is good in principle.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jonathansampson 6y ago
  Similar to ODoH, which aims to do the same with DNS.
contravariant 6y ago
Vivaldi looks nice, if I ever do decide to move to chromium I would seriously consider it.
- lebaux 6y ago
  It came a long way. I used firefox from version 2 but with time it felt less like a power user browser, more like a chrome copycat. Vivaldi has tons of features, with recent additions maybe even too much for average job. The major flaw is, as you mentioned, it is chromium based.
  - vorticalbox 6y ago
    I'll take chromium based for vivaldi excellent history management.
Aeolun 6y ago
If only vivaldi had an iPhone app. I need my bookmarks to be available anywhere.
- madspindel 6y ago
  This. They have an app for Android but refuses making one for iOS because of the Webkit requirement from Apple.
  - djeiasbsbo 6y ago
    That seems very understandable. I think the WebKit requirement will change in the near future though mostly for legal reasons.
    - egeozcan 6y ago
      If Firefox works on iOS, especially with the extension support... I'm in! I know many people love it but I hate Safari (no need to go into the reasons, it's about the freedom we're talking) and hate that restriction.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      I agree with that requirement being silly, but it does limit adoption.
pacamara619 6y ago
Vivaldi is also proprietary, which should be a dealbreaker for every IT person with half a brain.
- 1f60c 6y ago
  Heck, so is Safari. And Chrome.
  - patrickaljord 6y ago
    Brave is open source.
  - pacamara619 6y ago
    While Chrome is proprietary, Chromium and Brave are not.
lionkor 6y ago
If they have expenses but it's free, then you're the product.
- jlkuester7 6y ago
  I mean, yeah, they said it right in the press release: > Brave Today is supported by two new commercial offerings: Brave Offers and Promoted Content. They also said: > A premium ad-free version of Brave Today will be available soon. IMHO this is a pretty decent balance. Companies have to capture value from their work somehow. Brave's advertising strategy involves software on the local device using data on the local device to make a decision about what to show the user. (Not an ever expanding privacy invasive cloud-profile of the user). Additionally, if ads are not your thing, you can always pay for the premium version and everyone still wins!
  - lionkor 6y ago
    Yeah, I think the idea of just paying and therefor not having data stolen is really nice, and way too few companies do this.
    - jonathansampson 6y ago
      "Data stolen" isn't even remotely relevant here; Brave is built to preclude abuse. This is why we've gone to such great lengths to design the Private CDN in such a way to prevent us and others from knowing who is viewing/requesting what. Brave is "Can't be evil," as opposed to "don't be evil." We don't even want the capacity to do wrong.
ksec 6y ago
>In the meantime, Vivaldi added good old, classic RSS reader (and email client) I still dont understand why RSS isn't part of every browser. In the old days we have problem with syncing. Today most browser bookmark has online backup. You have a bunch of RSS links, that could be saved as Bookmarks / Favourite. The content are simply XML and all inks are synced to all Browsers. You laid them out like in Feedly and that is it. I could understand email being a lot more difficult, but RSS? Am I missing something?
- monadic3 6y ago
  RSS failed when it became another siphon to pull you onto their site to view ads. (I.e. only putting "above the fold" in the rss feed). Exporting your content nicely structured actively works against the business models of ad-supported sites, and there are no replacements for ad-transaction-supported monetization on the horizon. While Google has control of the market we aren't going to have any decent way of aggregating news.
monadic3 6y ago
> We’re using Brave’s new private CDN to fetch RSS feeds anonymously via the browser and the browser’s personalization capabilities to rank the headlines for users with a simple algorithm that will make the experience interesting for everyone. Can't get much simpler than "chronological", I hope they don't get too fancy with the same black box ordering that's ruined social media for news aggregation.
- jonathansampson 6y ago
  While we may experiment, it won't ever be a blackbox. The source is always available at github.com/brave/brave-browser and github.com/brave/brave-core. We'll be sure to document the process if it ever changes as well.

by lebaux 6y ago

notahacker 6y ago

Not sure there are necessarily third parties involved, but given Brave's track record of lying about not tracking users (whilst actually inserting affiliate links onto websites they visited and collecting revenues and data from them) as well as lying about donations they solicited going to the parties whose name they solicited them in, I don't see why any privacy-conscious person should trust them

ketamine__ 6y ago
Affiliate links were in the address bar and not injected into the webpage. You are spreading lies.
- byte1918 6y ago
  You are correct and it's equally as awful.
  - boogies 6y ago
    Equally as harmless. The affiliate codes don’t give anyone any information that they don’t already have (if you’re one of whatever tiny fraction of users edit their user agent strings, why the heck would you choose to accept the the URL suggestions‽ And if you really care about strict privacy, why would you use a Chromium-based browser in the first place, when invasive features have been discovered in Chromium’s codebase long after they were added before?). The sheer stupidity of the toxic FUD people spread about Brave makes me angry in its behalf (despite never using it beyond a test run myself).
  - jonathansampson 6y ago
    Showing suggestions in the browser isn't "equally as awful" as injecting them into pages (or modifying links on pages, as was claimed). The intent here was for users of Brave [who also happen to have an interest in product/service x] to support the former with their traffic to the latter. This isn't unethical; it's an clean and privacy-respecting way of supporting an effort.
propogandist 6y ago
Passing an affiliate code doesn’t mean they’re tracking the individual, it’s just meant to get credit for sales they’ve driven. Affiliates just get a payout of commission from the merchant, there’s no data-sharing beyond that. Affiliate cookies can be cleared by wiping browser cookies whereas Google’s data-mining (as present in Chrome) can’t be stopped. Affiliate marketing is means to generate revenue and a better than taking massive payouts from Google, which is the primary funding source for Mozilla Firefox. As a privacy conscious user I’d rather see a browser that be sustained without Google’s support. Given the co-creator of Mozilla (and .JS) is behind Brave, I trust it more than the fly by night browser.
- wzdd 6y ago
  Brave is absolutely dependent on Google, now and in the future, continuing to release their millions of dollars of engineering effort on Chromium to the public for free. If Google were to stop updating Chromium, Brave could re-architect onto... what, exactly? Firefox becomes a less viable competitor every time Mozilla issues a press release. Perhaps they could revert to Webkit, which would make them 100% dependent on Apple instead. It's sad, but there is no way for a modern browser vendor to be independent of FAANG.
  - patrickaljord 6y ago
    That's like saying using linux is being dependent on redhat and intel. Big contributors to Chromium include Microsoft, Samsung and many other giant companies. If Google abandons Chromium, it will still be maintained by other companies as too many in the industry rely on it.
  - exolymph 6y ago
    Chromium seems like one of the least-likely-to-be-killed Google projects.
  - jonathansampson 6y ago
    Chromium isn't developed by Google alone; it has many contributors. Brave doesn't rely on Google. If they stopped contributing to Chromium, we could continue without them.
jonathansampson 6y ago
You're mistaken, or misleading. Brave has never tracked users, and Brave has also never inserted affiliate links into websites. Let's discuss these claims in a bit more depth. TRACKING Brave doesn't track users. I invite anybody reading to take a look at their network activity; in fact, I'll sit down and give anybody an introductory walk-through of Telerik Fiddler and show them how to inspect their own network activity, to observe in plain-text what Brave is doing, and with whom it is communicating. I do this regularly, and share results [1]. You don't have to take my word on it either; unaffiliated third-parties have published similar results [2]. [1] https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traffic-results/ https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traff... [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/brave-deemed-most-private-browser-in-terms-of-phoning-home/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/brave-deemed-most-private-brow... AFFILIATE LINKS Brave has never "inserted affiliate links onto website". This is quite misleading. What Brave did do was offer users who were performing a search from the address bar of the browser a list of suggested results. Among those results, Brave would at times show an affiliate option. We wrote about this on our blog (and included screenshots) for those interested [3]. Note, no data was involved. No network requests were made. There was no impact to privacy in any way, shape, or form. This was simply a suggestion offered in a drop-down beneath the address bar. Affiliate links are a clean way for browsers (or any app, really) to generate revenue. Open up Firefox, Vivaldi, or Opera and type 'hacker news' into the address bar. In Firefox, you'll be redirected to https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=hacker+news https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=hacker+ne... by default. Note the "client=firefox" in the query-string parameter list. In Opera you're sent to https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=hacker+news&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=hacker+news&sou... by default. Note the "client=opera" and "sourceid=opera" elements. Brave's mistake was matching a fully-qualified domain name. What we had planned for was showing a set of suggested URLs (some with an affiliate code) when a user searched for something like "binance". We mistakenly showed the same results when the user typed a fully-qualified domain name, like "binance.us" as well. That was unintended, and was corrected within 48 hours of identification. [3] https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ SOLICITING DONATIONS Brave is doing something quite different from other browsers; it aims to not only improve security on the Web, but also to offer novel support options to content creators everywhere in a privacy-respecting, and sustainable manner. Brave ships with a Tipping interface to empower users to send rewards (in the form of Basic Attention Tokens) to content creators. When we launched this model, Brave gave tokens to its users, and users could give those to the sites they visit. When a user tipped a site, the tokens would go to the Creator (if verified), or into a settlement wallet to be claimed at a later date. Brave would reach out to Creators, informing them of rewards (similar to the early days of PayPal). There were a couple issues here, which you can read about on our blog [4]. One was a UI issue. Brave marked verified domains with a checkmark (similar to Twitter's 'verified' accounts). We didn't have any special mark for non-verified properties. This was naive on our part. We remedied this by explicitly stating the status of the Creator in both cases. The second problem was allowing tokens to move out of the user's wallet when the Creator wasn't even verified. Personally, I'm incredibly thankful that this issue was found. Under that model, tons of tokens could be dropped into a wallet, and never claimed by anybody. In the update we produced within a couple days), this model was changed. Now unverified creators wouldn't receive anything; instead, tips issued to an unverified creator would stay on your device, and be retried for up to 90 days. If the Creator verified within that timeframe, they'd collect the tips. If they didn't, the tips could be sent to somebody else. Brave never solicited tips for anybody. There was simply a component of the browser which enabled users to send tips to sites and creators they appreciated. Brave's main fault here was with naive UI, and a contribution model which could have resulted in lost tokens. Thankfully, our users caught both issues and we were able to improve the feature quickly. [4] https://brave.com/rewards-update/ https://brave.com/rewards-update/ I hope this helps.

ketamine__ 6y ago

A locally run algorithm is spying? Brave is run by the CIA? Are these Google talking points?

lebaux 6y ago
I don't trust Brave, and especially Brave CDN. You might choose to, and it is fine. They don't really have an amazing track record as privacy first company. They do have a proven track record of "trying to monetize users".
- whyleyc 6y ago
  Can you share examples of Brave having a poor privacy record? I've recently switched to it as my main browser, enjoy using it and have recommended to others who want to opt-out of the Google ecosystem. However, if there are examples of privacy abuse I may revisit.
  - d3nj4l 6y ago
    Brave converted urls into affiliate links: https://www.coindesk.com/brave-browsers-affiliate-link-controversy-explained https://www.coindesk.com/brave-browsers-affiliate-link-contr... Vivaldi is a pretty good chromium-based browser, if you want to stay away from Google but still need chromium. I'd still take Firefox any day, though.
    - midnitewarrior 6y ago
      Monitoring users without violating their privacy is the point of Brave. Affiliate links do not violate the integrity or the privacy of the browsing experience. These are great things, it keeps the browser free from cost while still protecting your privacy. It is how they continue to exist without financial support from Google.
      - dkdk8283 6y ago
        Every Google search/purchase through Firefox that can be attributed back to FF funds Mozilla. No different really.

visarga 6y ago

The concept of having a middleman hiding the source from the destination while also not being able to read the contents (like Tor) is good in principle.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jonathansampson 6y ago
Similar to ODoH, which aims to do the same with DNS.

contravariant 6y ago

Vivaldi looks nice, if I ever do decide to move to chromium I would seriously consider it.

lebaux 6y ago
It came a long way. I used firefox from version 2 but with time it felt less like a power user browser, more like a chrome copycat. Vivaldi has tons of features, with recent additions maybe even too much for average job. The major flaw is, as you mentioned, it is chromium based.
- vorticalbox 6y ago
  I'll take chromium based for vivaldi excellent history management.

Aeolun 6y ago

If only vivaldi had an iPhone app. I need my bookmarks to be available anywhere.

madspindel 6y ago
This. They have an app for Android but refuses making one for iOS because of the Webkit requirement from Apple.
- djeiasbsbo 6y ago
  That seems very understandable. I think the WebKit requirement will change in the near future though mostly for legal reasons.
  - egeozcan 6y ago
    If Firefox works on iOS, especially with the extension support... I'm in! I know many people love it but I hate Safari (no need to go into the reasons, it's about the freedom we're talking) and hate that restriction.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    I agree with that requirement being silly, but it does limit adoption.

pacamara619 6y ago

Vivaldi is also proprietary, which should be a dealbreaker for every IT person with half a brain.

1f60c 6y ago
Heck, so is Safari. And Chrome.
- patrickaljord 6y ago
  Brave is open source.
- pacamara619 6y ago
  While Chrome is proprietary, Chromium and Brave are not.

lionkor 6y ago

If they have expenses but it's free, then you're the product.

jlkuester7 6y ago
I mean, yeah, they said it right in the press release: > Brave Today is supported by two new commercial offerings: Brave Offers and Promoted Content. They also said: > A premium ad-free version of Brave Today will be available soon. IMHO this is a pretty decent balance. Companies have to capture value from their work somehow. Brave's advertising strategy involves software on the local device using data on the local device to make a decision about what to show the user. (Not an ever expanding privacy invasive cloud-profile of the user). Additionally, if ads are not your thing, you can always pay for the premium version and everyone still wins!
- lionkor 6y ago
  Yeah, I think the idea of just paying and therefor not having data stolen is really nice, and way too few companies do this.
  - jonathansampson 6y ago
    "Data stolen" isn't even remotely relevant here; Brave is built to preclude abuse. This is why we've gone to such great lengths to design the Private CDN in such a way to prevent us and others from knowing who is viewing/requesting what. Brave is "Can't be evil," as opposed to "don't be evil." We don't even want the capacity to do wrong.

ksec 6y ago

>In the meantime, Vivaldi added good old, classic RSS reader (and email client) I still dont understand why RSS isn't part of every browser. In the old days we have problem with syncing. Today most browser bookmark has online backup. You have a bunch of RSS links, that could be saved as Bookmarks / Favourite. The content are simply XML and all inks are synced to all Browsers. You laid them out like in Feedly and that is it. I could understand email being a lot more difficult, but RSS? Am I missing something?

monadic3 6y ago
RSS failed when it became another siphon to pull you onto their site to view ads. (I.e. only putting "above the fold" in the rss feed). Exporting your content nicely structured actively works against the business models of ad-supported sites, and there are no replacements for ad-transaction-supported monetization on the horizon. While Google has control of the market we aren't going to have any decent way of aggregating news.

monadic3 6y ago

> We’re using Brave’s new private CDN to fetch RSS feeds anonymously via the browser and the browser’s personalization capabilities to rank the headlines for users with a simple algorithm that will make the experience interesting for everyone. Can't get much simpler than "chronological", I hope they don't get too fancy with the same black box ordering that's ruined social media for news aggregation.

jonathansampson 6y ago
While we may experiment, it won't ever be a blackbox. The source is always available at github.com/brave/brave-browser and github.com/brave/brave-core. We'll be sure to document the process if it ever changes as well.