4 ms·

BS. Do a Google search on Firefox. The querystring has an identifier for Firefox. It's no different than what happened with Brave, except that Brave acknowledg

BS. Do a Google search on Firefox. The querystring has an identifier for Firefox. It's no different than what happened with Brave, except that Brave acknowledged it was bug behavior and that the identifier is only for the browser, not user data. As for ways to donate to content creators, please do tell: is there any solution out there that let us be rewarded by getting privacy-preserving ads and to contribute the proceeds further to other people?

LawnGnome 6y ago
Having a source identifier in a query string isn't remotely the same thing as hijacking links or injecting content into a page.
- rglullis 6y ago
  The ads are via notifications. There has NEVER been link hijacking or content injecting on a page, what are you smoking?
  - LawnGnome 6y ago
    Link hijacking: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-web-browser-is-hijacking-links-and-inserting-affiliate-codes/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-we... Content injection: https://community.brave.com/t/does-brave-inject-buttons-onto-reddit-and-other-sites-3/91188 https://community.brave.com/t/does-brave-inject-buttons-onto...
    - rglullis 6y ago
      The first was not link hijacking. It was a bug, acknowledged and fixed. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. The second... You are technically right, but I thought you meant the browser was injecting their own ads on someone else's page. The tip button does none of that, it does not disturb the user or gets in the way of any action, can be disabled and is there to help the creators network. I don't see anything to get worked up about.
nobunaga 6y ago
Its very different IMO, one benefits the CEO financially the other is an identifier for tracking purposes. One was done without informing the user the other is a common methodology that many websites do with parameters such utm_ (not that I am advocating for tracking). They are, IMO, very different practices. Im sure you disagree but when you modify a URL for financial gain without informing your users and then backtrack only when you get caught out, its a different ball game. Im not going to get in to the game of finding specific ways to donate to content creators. There are ways to do it. If you want to do it anonymously, I am sure you can do so as well, I have never been interested in doing so. If the reason you want to use brave is to donate money anonymously, more power to you, personally, I would caution people against using it due to their past shady behaviour (The affiliate link is just one of many examples).
- rglullis 6y ago
  Sorry, this seems like just an attempt for you to rationalize your double standard. > There are ways to do it. It's more than "donating anonymously". I asked if you can point an alternative that lets me monetize my attention and give it forward. Show me any system as straightforward as Brave that lets me give 2-3€ every month to wikipedia and archive.org and any one else I desire. > The affiliate link is just one of many examples. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. I see you already failed at providing an alternative for supporting content creators, will you also back out of showing what "many examples" you are talking about? PS.: Curious that you single out the CEO. If you don't want to use Brave for having a beef with the CEO it's one thing, but at least be honest about instead of making it about the product.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Does wikipedia actually get the money from your attention? That appears to be the foundational problem behind Brave's BAT approach: it's not opt-in for the website.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      Yes, they do. The recurrent donations can only be given to verified accounts. You can send tips to unverified accounts (different thing from a monthly donation), and if the target does not verify their account in 90 days you get the funds back.

LawnGnome 6y ago

Having a source identifier in a query string isn't remotely the same thing as hijacking links or injecting content into a page.

rglullis 6y ago
The ads are via notifications. There has NEVER been link hijacking or content injecting on a page, what are you smoking?
- LawnGnome 6y ago
  Link hijacking: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-web-browser-is-hijacking-links-and-inserting-affiliate-codes/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-we... Content injection: https://community.brave.com/t/does-brave-inject-buttons-onto-reddit-and-other-sites-3/91188 https://community.brave.com/t/does-brave-inject-buttons-onto...
  - rglullis 6y ago
    The first was not link hijacking. It was a bug, acknowledged and fixed. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. The second... You are technically right, but I thought you meant the browser was injecting their own ads on someone else's page. The tip button does none of that, it does not disturb the user or gets in the way of any action, can be disabled and is there to help the creators network. I don't see anything to get worked up about.

nobunaga 6y ago

Its very different IMO, one benefits the CEO financially the other is an identifier for tracking purposes. One was done without informing the user the other is a common methodology that many websites do with parameters such utm_ (not that I am advocating for tracking). They are, IMO, very different practices. Im sure you disagree but when you modify a URL for financial gain without informing your users and then backtrack only when you get caught out, its a different ball game. Im not going to get in to the game of finding specific ways to donate to content creators. There are ways to do it. If you want to do it anonymously, I am sure you can do so as well, I have never been interested in doing so. If the reason you want to use brave is to donate money anonymously, more power to you, personally, I would caution people against using it due to their past shady behaviour (The affiliate link is just one of many examples).

rglullis 6y ago
Sorry, this seems like just an attempt for you to rationalize your double standard. > There are ways to do it. It's more than "donating anonymously". I asked if you can point an alternative that lets me monetize my attention and give it forward. Show me any system as straightforward as Brave that lets me give 2-3€ every month to wikipedia and archive.org and any one else I desire. > The affiliate link is just one of many examples. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. I see you already failed at providing an alternative for supporting content creators, will you also back out of showing what "many examples" you are talking about? PS.: Curious that you single out the CEO. If you don't want to use Brave for having a beef with the CEO it's one thing, but at least be honest about instead of making it about the product.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Does wikipedia actually get the money from your attention? That appears to be the foundational problem behind Brave's BAT approach: it's not opt-in for the website.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Yes, they do. The recurrent donations can only be given to verified accounts. You can send tips to unverified accounts (different thing from a monthly donation), and if the target does not verify their account in 90 days you get the funds back.