3 ms·

Genuinely curious, how is Brave "more privacy-focused and less politics-focused" than Mozilla Firefox?

by vesche 6y ago

merlinscholz 6y ago
I think this comment chain from yesterday presents both sides pretty well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839923
- vesche 6y ago
  This comment chain is seriously confusing, did you or any of these other people even read the article: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d... The article is perhaps poorly titled, and the modern age headline-skimmers will take it at face value. The article isn't calling for more extreme action or censorship... It's saying that deplatforming isn't the solution and what we should do is have transparency of advertisers & algorithms and support / fund research into studies on disinformation. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with the substance of the article. Ok, so no political issues... Still waiting on the privacy argument.
  - merlinscholz 6y ago
    An example for the privacy focused argument is the EFF panopticlick (I think they renamed it recently) test, which shows that, while Firefox is definitely good, Brave seems to be a little bit better in some aspects. And again, I want to repeat that I do not think that Firefox is a bad browser in any way, I just disagree with some of Mozilla's business decisions. The browser itself is great. Also, Brave doesn't phone home as much as Firefox: 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...
    - vesche 6y ago
      I initially responded to this thread with being legitimately "genuinely curious" as to why you think Brave > Firefox, as it seems a lot of people have that same thought. However, every time I get into a dialogue like this there isn't any proof in the pudding. I'm sure Brave is a decent browser, but there doesn't seem to be any real reason to switch. I've been using Firefox for more than a decade, it's open-source, from a non-profit, great community, frequently updated, on-par with Chrome in-terms of performance/speed. Everything I hear is just hollow words- "I just disagree with some of Mozilla's business decisions" / "it's more privacy-focused than Mozilla Firefox" / "it's less politically focused than Mozilla Firefox" / "Brave seems to be a little bit better in some aspects"
      - merlinscholz 6y ago
        Why don't you count these examples as arguments if I may ask? Even small things being better in one or another browser are still arguments if both browsers are good. Also, for me, the company behind the browser matters too, especially since donations to mozilla barely go to the Firefox dev team. I get that those are not good arguments for everybody, but just dismissing them just because you do not care about them that much seems a little bit harsh.
        vesche 6y ago
        Well so far you've given me a political article you misinterpreted based on a headline and I did try googling the EFF Panopticlick study on browsers- and there's an article from 2017 but no data or stats I can find? You haven't told me why you disagree with the company / business decisions so I have nothing to go off there... I'm not being harsh, you just haven't presented anything beyond empty words.
        merlinscholz 6y ago
        As I said, in my opinion Mozilla does invest too much into side projects, upper-level managers and marketing and too little into the browser development and web development itself (for example the MDN layoffs). That's also why I stopped donating to them. The panopticlick test (now renamed to coveryourtracks) is not a study, but a test you can actually do yourself with different browsers: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ Also, I presented an article from zdnet (backed by a study), about the phoning home of the different browsers: 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... And at this point I don't think it is worth it for me to invest more time arguing anymore, since you seemingly did not read my comments. There are plenty of other comments addressing all the "issues" you were talking about.
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    People in the other thread clearly read the article more thoroughly than you read the other thread. Everyone in that thread knows what the article says. You’re just rehashing arguments here that they’ve already responded to there. And you’re not even addressing any of their points.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > It's saying that deplatforming isn't the solution It's saying deplatforming is not going far enough to be the solution. And it advocates (among other things) "amplifying factual voices", which for a browser platform can mean only one thing - abandoning neutrality and privileging certain type of content - one that the gatekeepers agree with and thus call "factual" - while excluding other types of content, that they disagree with and thus call "misleading". To remove all doubt, they bring Facebook - which exercises clear viewpoint-driven editorial control over the content, even if unconsistently, haphazardly and ineffectually - as an example of what they're looking for. For a browser platform, advocating such approach means they plan to install themselves as the gatekeepers of the Internet, choosing what information you are and aren't allowed to see. While once currently can route easily around Facebook censorship, once browsers join the game, it won't be so easy. And of course, for anybody who values unrestricted access to information as much as privacy, it is the reason to avoid using platforms that advocate such principles.
    - merlinscholz 6y ago
      I could not have put it better myself. Once a browser gets political, you can bet for others to join them. And allowing a browser to control what articles/arguments you see is allowing the company behind the browser to control you politically. I think we can all agree this would not end well.
    - vesche 6y ago
      First of all, I'll say that I _obviously_ don't want to live in some sort of Orwellian, Ministry of Truth, 1984-esque dystopia. However, I think there's an unnecessary amount of fearmongering going on currently about organizations pushing back against disinformation. There certainly is a disinformation problem and from a U.S. perspective it is quite obviously a foreign adversary and malicious actor problem. It seems that this Mozilla article is too vague, open-ended, and short to be processed correctly. I personally interpreted the article differently than you did, which doesn't mean either of us interpreted it incorrectly.
      - smsm42 6y ago
        I'm sure you don't want to have minitrue. Just as I am sure most people who made Russian revolution didn't really intend to have Gulag, Joseph Stalin, Hungary of 1956 and Prague of 1968. These things however have certain logic of its own, and gatekeeping tends to unfold into the direction of minitrue. That's just the internal logic of the things - and we can see it unfolding right now. First it was promoting the rightthinkers, then demoting the wrongthinkers, then banning the wrongthinkers from a platform, then banning the wrongthinkers from all platforms, then banning all mentions of wrongthinkers, then banning services that allow wrongthinkers, then destroying all services that allow wrongthinkers... Pretty soon there's just no place where wrongthink can happen, and how it's different from minitrue? That it's a trillion-dollar corporation that is doing it, not the government? DO I really care? The result is the same.
jjcon 6y ago
Brave phones home less than Firefox does (Firefox is as bad as chrome is this respect) 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...

Genuinely curious, how is Brave "more privacy-focused and less politics-focused" than Mozilla Firefox?

by vesche 6y ago

Genuinely curious, how is Brave "more privacy-focused and less politics-focused" than Mozilla Firefox?

I think this comment chain from yesterday presents both sides pretty well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839923

vesche 6y ago
This comment chain is seriously confusing, did you or any of these other people even read the article: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d... The article is perhaps poorly titled, and the modern age headline-skimmers will take it at face value. The article isn't calling for more extreme action or censorship... It's saying that deplatforming isn't the solution and what we should do is have transparency of advertisers & algorithms and support / fund research into studies on disinformation. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with the substance of the article. Ok, so no political issues... Still waiting on the privacy argument.
- merlinscholz 6y ago
  An example for the privacy focused argument is the EFF panopticlick (I think they renamed it recently) test, which shows that, while Firefox is definitely good, Brave seems to be a little bit better in some aspects. And again, I want to repeat that I do not think that Firefox is a bad browser in any way, I just disagree with some of Mozilla's business decisions. The browser itself is great. Also, Brave doesn't phone home as much as Firefox: 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...
  - vesche 6y ago
    I initially responded to this thread with being legitimately "genuinely curious" as to why you think Brave > Firefox, as it seems a lot of people have that same thought. However, every time I get into a dialogue like this there isn't any proof in the pudding. I'm sure Brave is a decent browser, but there doesn't seem to be any real reason to switch. I've been using Firefox for more than a decade, it's open-source, from a non-profit, great community, frequently updated, on-par with Chrome in-terms of performance/speed. Everything I hear is just hollow words- "I just disagree with some of Mozilla's business decisions" / "it's more privacy-focused than Mozilla Firefox" / "it's less politically focused than Mozilla Firefox" / "Brave seems to be a little bit better in some aspects"
    - merlinscholz 6y ago
      Why don't you count these examples as arguments if I may ask? Even small things being better in one or another browser are still arguments if both browsers are good. Also, for me, the company behind the browser matters too, especially since donations to mozilla barely go to the Firefox dev team. I get that those are not good arguments for everybody, but just dismissing them just because you do not care about them that much seems a little bit harsh.
      - vesche 6y ago
        Well so far you've given me a political article you misinterpreted based on a headline and I did try googling the EFF Panopticlick study on browsers- and there's an article from 2017 but no data or stats I can find? You haven't told me why you disagree with the company / business decisions so I have nothing to go off there... I'm not being harsh, you just haven't presented anything beyond empty words.
        merlinscholz 6y ago
        As I said, in my opinion Mozilla does invest too much into side projects, upper-level managers and marketing and too little into the browser development and web development itself (for example the MDN layoffs). That's also why I stopped donating to them. The panopticlick test (now renamed to coveryourtracks) is not a study, but a test you can actually do yourself with different browsers: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ Also, I presented an article from zdnet (backed by a study), about the phoning home of the different browsers: 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... And at this point I don't think it is worth it for me to invest more time arguing anymore, since you seemingly did not read my comments. There are plenty of other comments addressing all the "issues" you were talking about.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  People in the other thread clearly read the article more thoroughly than you read the other thread. Everyone in that thread knows what the article says. You’re just rehashing arguments here that they’ve already responded to there. And you’re not even addressing any of their points.
- smsm42 6y ago
  > It's saying that deplatforming isn't the solution It's saying deplatforming is not going far enough to be the solution. And it advocates (among other things) "amplifying factual voices", which for a browser platform can mean only one thing - abandoning neutrality and privileging certain type of content - one that the gatekeepers agree with and thus call "factual" - while excluding other types of content, that they disagree with and thus call "misleading". To remove all doubt, they bring Facebook - which exercises clear viewpoint-driven editorial control over the content, even if unconsistently, haphazardly and ineffectually - as an example of what they're looking for. For a browser platform, advocating such approach means they plan to install themselves as the gatekeepers of the Internet, choosing what information you are and aren't allowed to see. While once currently can route easily around Facebook censorship, once browsers join the game, it won't be so easy. And of course, for anybody who values unrestricted access to information as much as privacy, it is the reason to avoid using platforms that advocate such principles.
  - merlinscholz 6y ago
    I could not have put it better myself. Once a browser gets political, you can bet for others to join them. And allowing a browser to control what articles/arguments you see is allowing the company behind the browser to control you politically. I think we can all agree this would not end well.
  - vesche 6y ago
    First of all, I'll say that I _obviously_ don't want to live in some sort of Orwellian, Ministry of Truth, 1984-esque dystopia. However, I think there's an unnecessary amount of fearmongering going on currently about organizations pushing back against disinformation. There certainly is a disinformation problem and from a U.S. perspective it is quite obviously a foreign adversary and malicious actor problem. It seems that this Mozilla article is too vague, open-ended, and short to be processed correctly. I personally interpreted the article differently than you did, which doesn't mean either of us interpreted it incorrectly.
    - smsm42 6y ago
      I'm sure you don't want to have minitrue. Just as I am sure most people who made Russian revolution didn't really intend to have Gulag, Joseph Stalin, Hungary of 1956 and Prague of 1968. These things however have certain logic of its own, and gatekeeping tends to unfold into the direction of minitrue. That's just the internal logic of the things - and we can see it unfolding right now. First it was promoting the rightthinkers, then demoting the wrongthinkers, then banning the wrongthinkers from a platform, then banning the wrongthinkers from all platforms, then banning all mentions of wrongthinkers, then banning services that allow wrongthinkers, then destroying all services that allow wrongthinkers... Pretty soon there's just no place where wrongthink can happen, and how it's different from minitrue? That it's a trillion-dollar corporation that is doing it, not the government? DO I really care? The result is the same.

jjcon 6y ago

Brave phones home less than Firefox does (Firefox is as bad as chrome is this respect) 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...