4 ms·

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

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.
    - jonathansampson 6y ago
      Note, tips to unverified accounts [never leave your wallet]. If the intended recipient doesn't verify within 90 days, the rewards are merely unlocked in your wallet, and able to be tipped elsewhere.
- nobunaga 6y ago
  You have been provided evidence by multiple people on Brave's shady practices yet you are the one who seems to be such a fervent supporter in the face of much evidence provided to you that no other mainstream browser (besides chrome maybe) has shown so consistently even though they have been around longer than Brave. You tell people 'what have you been smoking' then when you are proven wrong, you still try to come up with excuses. I never even knew the CEO until I came across the last hacker news article on Brave's dodgy behavior. Stop making assumptions about people on the internet. Why should I research for you a topic which does not negate the shady practices that Brave has been at fault for? If you want to donate money using Brave go for it, the evidence of what Brave has done, and done so consistently on many fronts is out there. If you want to look into it, go for it, I am not your personal researcher, a lot has already been done for you.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    > such a fervent supporter in the face of much evidence Two different people talking about the exact same issue does not constitute "much evidence". I am not a supporter of the "browser". I am a supporter of having an alternative way to have a healthy economy on the internet that does not rely on Ad Tech. Tracking, privacy violations, the billions of dollars that go to waste due to ad fraud and the maintenance of an oligopoly that only exists due to it all... These are the real "shady practices" that we should be be pissed about, not "they added a button to the webpage that is actually aligned with their value proposition". If Brave ever gets to do something that violates user privacy or works as a hostile user-agent, then I would gladly be the front of the line to call out for "shady practices". But the points you are arguing are none of that. What you are doing is basically Googling for "Brave Controversies" and spitting out whatever confirms your biases. This is irresponsible and creates a self-reinforcing loop of bad, unfounded reputation for you people that are working on something you don't care about, but that is important to a growing number of people. > If you want to donate money using Brave go for it. It's not a matter of "donate money using Brave". Brave is not the point. Brave is just a tool to build something bigger: a way to have a global digital economy free from Surveillance Capitalism. If lynks gave me that, I would use it. But Apple and Microsoft is not interested in doing that, and Mozilla has shown nothing but some naive idealism and very kind words of support (while at the same time paying enormous amounts of money to its board members). I would love to go back to Firefox if they had something similar to the BAT network. I would love if Mozilla started offering paid services to foster and fund an open web free of tracking and privacy violations, but they don't. Brave (the company, through the browser) does. They have built a (completely opt-in and configurable) system that allows people to receive money for attention and which lets them use this to circulate in the economy, or even cash out. So when I ask you for an alternative, it's not because I want you to do the work for me. It's for you to realize that there is not any other system out there that compares to this, which then maybe will make you understand that the only reason I am "fervent supporter" of Brave is because it's the current best shot we have.
mastazi 6y ago
> one benefits the CEO financially Mozilla’s very existence is based on its financial ties with Google, those utm parameters are there because of that relationship. There are also other issues stemming from that problematic relationship e.g. Firefox privacy settings by default are more lenient towards Google than Facebook (you get a prompt inviting you to install the official Fb container, by contrast the unofficial Google container did not even get the “trusted” status, hence making it less visible to new users, even though it’s based on the same code). Firefox is a good browser but there are issues.

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.
  - jonathansampson 6y ago
    Note, tips to unverified accounts [never leave your wallet]. If the intended recipient doesn't verify within 90 days, the rewards are merely unlocked in your wallet, and able to be tipped elsewhere.
nobunaga 6y ago
You have been provided evidence by multiple people on Brave's shady practices yet you are the one who seems to be such a fervent supporter in the face of much evidence provided to you that no other mainstream browser (besides chrome maybe) has shown so consistently even though they have been around longer than Brave. You tell people 'what have you been smoking' then when you are proven wrong, you still try to come up with excuses. I never even knew the CEO until I came across the last hacker news article on Brave's dodgy behavior. Stop making assumptions about people on the internet. Why should I research for you a topic which does not negate the shady practices that Brave has been at fault for? If you want to donate money using Brave go for it, the evidence of what Brave has done, and done so consistently on many fronts is out there. If you want to look into it, go for it, I am not your personal researcher, a lot has already been done for you.
- rglullis 6y ago
  > such a fervent supporter in the face of much evidence Two different people talking about the exact same issue does not constitute "much evidence". I am not a supporter of the "browser". I am a supporter of having an alternative way to have a healthy economy on the internet that does not rely on Ad Tech. Tracking, privacy violations, the billions of dollars that go to waste due to ad fraud and the maintenance of an oligopoly that only exists due to it all... These are the real "shady practices" that we should be be pissed about, not "they added a button to the webpage that is actually aligned with their value proposition". If Brave ever gets to do something that violates user privacy or works as a hostile user-agent, then I would gladly be the front of the line to call out for "shady practices". But the points you are arguing are none of that. What you are doing is basically Googling for "Brave Controversies" and spitting out whatever confirms your biases. This is irresponsible and creates a self-reinforcing loop of bad, unfounded reputation for you people that are working on something you don't care about, but that is important to a growing number of people. > If you want to donate money using Brave go for it. It's not a matter of "donate money using Brave". Brave is not the point. Brave is just a tool to build something bigger: a way to have a global digital economy free from Surveillance Capitalism. If lynks gave me that, I would use it. But Apple and Microsoft is not interested in doing that, and Mozilla has shown nothing but some naive idealism and very kind words of support (while at the same time paying enormous amounts of money to its board members). I would love to go back to Firefox if they had something similar to the BAT network. I would love if Mozilla started offering paid services to foster and fund an open web free of tracking and privacy violations, but they don't. Brave (the company, through the browser) does. They have built a (completely opt-in and configurable) system that allows people to receive money for attention and which lets them use this to circulate in the economy, or even cash out. So when I ask you for an alternative, it's not because I want you to do the work for me. It's for you to realize that there is not any other system out there that compares to this, which then maybe will make you understand that the only reason I am "fervent supporter" of Brave is because it's the current best shot we have.

mastazi 6y ago

> one benefits the CEO financially Mozilla’s very existence is based on its financial ties with Google, those utm parameters are there because of that relationship. There are also other issues stemming from that problematic relationship e.g. Firefox privacy settings by default are more lenient towards Google than Facebook (you get a prompt inviting you to install the official Fb container, by contrast the unofficial Google container did not even get the “trusted” status, hence making it less visible to new users, even though it’s based on the same code). Firefox is a good browser but there are issues.