27 ms·

Brave, the false sensation of privacy

• auslegung 5y ago
  I’ve been using Brave to watch YouTube videos in incognito mode ever since 1Blocker on Safari stopped blocking YouTube ads. This article brings up some good points, and I want to support Firefox more anyway, so I need to see how Firefox handles YouTube ads.
  • CapricornNoble 5y ago
    For the past month or so, Brave on Ubuntu has been failing to block YT ads, so now I've been stuck with 2 unskippable multi-minute ads before almost every vid. I've been hitting mute and switching tabs while I wait. The most egregiously annoying one was 6 minutes of ads on an 8-minute standup comedy clip. Brave on mobile still blocks all that crap so I've transitioned to listening to YT content on my cellphone, propped up on my desk, while I browse the Internet on my desktop.
    • capableweb 5y ago
      Same here. Made me switch back to Firefox full-time instead of trusting Brave of getting things right when they time and time stumble on things.
    • FractalHQ 5y ago
      Why not use one of the many chrome extensions that blocks YouTube ads?
    • mrweasel 5y ago
      You could pay for ad-free YouTube, if you dislike the ads so much. Many argue that "They'll pay to have ads removed", but that doesn't seem to hold true when services offers that exact option.
      • orangepanda 5y ago
        > Many seem to argue that "They'll pay to have ads removed", but that doesn't seem to hold true when services offers that exact option. I would pay for ad free Youtube, if it was an option. Even with Youtube Premium, included promotions continue to be shown
        • robertlagrant 5y ago
          Well yeah, they don't stop someone advertising a product in the main content. If they did, then James Bond movies would be a lot shorter.
          • mrweasel 5y ago
            The ad-blockers also don’t block those, so I don’t think that was the point.
        • mrweasel 5y ago
          That’s interesting, maybe that’s market/country dependent. I pay for Premium and haven’t seen and ad or promotion since I signed up. That really not okay when you actually pay to have no ads.
    • kunagi7 5y ago
      You should try to install uBlock Origin. I've tried both Vivaldi's and Brave's adblockers but they're still ways behind what uBlock can do.
    • snapetom 5y ago
      Have you double checked that the shields are still up for YouTube? I had the same thing happen to me a couple of weeks ago. Turned out my shields were down for YouTube for some reason.
  • tech-no-logical 5y ago
    firefox itself doesn't 'handle' youtube ads, but ublock origin does.
  • pineconewarrior 5y ago
    uBlock Origin + Sponsorblock + Firefox will give you the best possible Youtube experience.
  • switch007 5y ago
    What’s a YouTube Ad? :-) long time Firefox + uBlock Origin user here.
  • loloquwowndueo 5y ago
    I use ublock origin on Firefox and it seems to properly block all YouTube ads. As with YouTube-dl it’s probably a bit of an arms race, so if your tool of choice stops working maybe wait for the next update and they’re likely to get it fixed / right.
    • tgv 5y ago
      I guess the number of users must be low. Otherwise, there's a near perfect solution for YouTube: create a stream that contains both the ads and the content and don't allow buffering ahead of time while the ads play. Sure, that's fair task, but doable. When the costs of uBlock exceeds the server+man power needed to implement that, they'll switch.
      • rozab 5y ago
        I get the impression that YouTube do not really put any effort into breaking youtube-dl, YouTube Vanced, etc. It seems that mostly when these break it's accidental. The last thing YouTube wants to do alienate the technically literate minority who use adblocking, because these are the people who could establish an actual competitor. These folks still put money into the creator ecosystem anyway, through patreon and direct sponsorships, which funds creators to make more content. YT wins either way, honestly.
  • athenas_owls 5y ago
    uBlock Origin with Firefox seems to work really well for blocking video ads. For me it doesn't just block YouTube ads, it manages to block adverts from a couple other streaming sites I use too.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I find Brave Rewards very egregious. You get lots of BAT and the marketing copy hypes it up immensely without mentioning, anywhere, that you need to provide your SSN and Driver's License to a third-party (Uphold) if you actually, you know, want to cash out. This seems particularly irritating because, let's say you set your browser to show you the max amount of ads for a while. You saved up for a few months, decided you had enough, tried to cash out only to discover that slap in your face that they never mentioned. Of course this benefits them, but the fact that the browser puts you in the situation of giving up your privacy to receive money is ridiculous for a "privacy" browser.
  • seibelj 5y ago
    I think your anger is misplaced - you should be angry at government who requires Brave (and eBay, and Etsy, and any company that is paying out money to people) to require this. If this wasn’t legally required they (and every other company) wouldn’t do it.
    • gjsman-1000 5y ago
      That, at least, does have a reason. Uphold is an online exchange and crypto wallet more popular in Europe but very similar to Coinbase. The government doesn't want money laundering and other financial crimes, and you might disagree with KYC but at least there's some argument there. I don't like that Brave doesn't say, on their Brave Rewards page, warning: You will need to give up your privacy to cash out. If that's OK with you, great; if not, don't set your browser to show ads for months before you try cashing out or you'll get a nasty surprise. From Brave's perspective, there's also a conflict of interest here. Remember, when an advertiser spends BAT to show an ad, 30% goes to Brave and 70% to the ad receiver. Brave has every incentive to get that 30%, don't they? If that means you were fooled into leaving your browser showing ads thinking you could cash out without losing your privacy, they benefit. And that's why it really smells fishy that they don't mention it on their product page.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
• tapoxi 5y ago
  I don't like the crypto nonsense of Brave, and while I like Firefox in theory, its performance leaves a lot to be desired and they don't seem to know who their user base is. Microsoft Edge got a decent native vertical tab solution before Firefox did! Edge! I wish some nonprofit would make a Chromium browser with sane defaults and take my donations. That's all I need.
  • gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Does Vivaldi count?
    • atatatat 5y ago
      If you trust the people behind Opera, sure?
      • xNeil 5y ago
        I trust them personally. Jon von Tetzchner, the founder of Opera, left Opera to start Vivaldi once he felt management wasn't doing things the right way.
  • k33l0r 5y ago
    I tried out Edge for about 15 minutes but had to bail because of the amount of Bing and MSN nonsense embedded in the browser…
    • figers 5y ago
      Where do you see that? I use it every day and step one was switching search to DuckDuckGo
  • fbcpck 5y ago
    > its performance leaves a lot to be desired I'm not sure what you're talking about; this may be the case several times in the past, but you should check again because this is a thing that constantly changes. Firefox performance today doesn't really leave a lot to be desired IMO > Microsoft Edge got a decent native vertical tab solution before Firefox did! Edge! Tree Style Tabs has been around since like… 2007?. Or does the "native" part somehow make it a whole lot better?
• miedpo 5y ago
  So I feel as if the author is missing the point. Of course brave markets to you with ads. That's the entire point of the web browser. To ad-block, but then to replace it with a suitable privacy protecting alternative to the point that Brave (and everyone else) has no idea which ads you were served and what your browsing history is. The entire point is to mot just be an ad blocker, but to be private, and to provide a workable alternative to the ads that track us on websites. Furthermore... brave lists on their website what they collect in analytics programs. And... it's not much. They also send the answers in what they call 'low resolution', which basically means multiple choice with ranges making it a lot harder to identify you compared to a specific number. Sure, it's not no tracking at all, but it's probably pretty close to the least you can get to serve relevant ads while serving a general populous. It is true that it'd be nice if they forked off Chromium at some point so they are less in Google's hands. We can all use more of that. So, at least for me, this kinda falls on deaf ears. It's missing the point as to why Brave does what it does.
  • varnaud 5y ago
    I feel the author is on point. Brave is all about marketing and surfing the privacy wave to make profit. Take a look at https://brave.com/brave-ads/ https://brave.com/brave-ads/ Brave goal is to acquire as much users as possible to sell them to advertisers. They are no different from Google. Might as well use Chrome with ublock origin and farm crypto on your own.
    • psiops 5y ago
      The difference is that with Brave you are rewarded for your attention to these ads. That idea has some merit I think, regardless of how it's implemented in Brave.
    • celsoazevedo 5y ago
      The privacy/tracking aspect of Braves Ads (which you don't have to use) seems to be way, way better than Google Adsense. It's like comparing the good ol' fixed "image banner + link" vs Adsense. They're both ads, but one is better than the other. And then you have Chrome sending data directly to Google, the auto logins, dark patterns, etc, which you don't get with Brave or Vivaldi.
• wmitty 5y ago
  > Their adblocker is just a fork of uBlock Origin, This does not appear to be true. Here is the github repo for their open source adblock engine written in rust: https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust Here is a (somewhat dated) article describing it by the authors: https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/ https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/ > Google will take decisions that benefit their advertisement business, like making impossible to use adblockers on any Chromium based browser. Because the brave adblocker is integrated directly into the browser (ie. not an extension) the Manifest V3 limitations don't apply.
  • fallat 5y ago
    Why not just use Ungoogled-Chromium?
    • paco3346 5y ago
      I switched because Google removed the ability to log in and sync settings, history, password, etc. (I realize that in this case I'm directly giving Google my data) but it was a super nice feature. Brave's Sync v2 works decently well.
    • lorlou 5y ago
      It doesn't seem to include an automatic updater.
      • k4rli 5y ago
        Simply use a package manager.
        • fastball 5y ago
          [insert link to infamous HN Dropbox comment here]
          • nyberg 5y ago
• gman83 5y ago
  I always find it odd that we worry so much about how much our browsers are tracking us, but almost nothing about what our ISPs are doing. Every time I've looked into it, it seems much worse. As far as I can tell, ISPs are legally allowed to sell your browsing history to third parties: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-private-browsing-history/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-pr...
  • elliekelly 5y ago
    I only know enough about networking to be dangerous but I am convinced Comcast is doing shady shit with my modem when I change the DNS settings to use non-Comcast servers. Every once in a while I’ll attempt to use Wireshark to try to make sense of what’s happening but I’m pretty clueless and don’t really know what I’m looking at/for. If anyone knows any good resources to learn about the ISP nuts and bolts that make internet magic happen between my modem and everyone else’s servers I would be most appreciative.
    • bewuethr 5y ago
      I found The UNIX and Linux System Administration Handbook (5th Edition), chapters about networking and DNS very instructive, and they list a ton of additional references if you want to dig deeper.
    • gruez 5y ago
      >I am convinced Comcast is doing shady shit with my modem when I change the DNS settings to use non-Comcast servers Well that's vague. What are the symptoms? How would comcast even know that you changed DNS settings? It's possible to infer that from DNS queries to their servers dropping off and traffic to 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.4.4 increasing, but I doubt comcast is competent enough to build that sort of detection system.
      • yaur 5y ago
        On my home network I just run a transparent proxy and direct all outbound traffic bound to port 53 to my local dns server, it’s not hard.
• bruce343434 5y ago
  > brave-core-ext.s3.brave.com fetches 5 extensions and installs them. It is said that this might be a backdoor. But I don’t want to get conspiracist. I prefer giving you verifiable facts. I’ll limit myself to inform you about suspicious activities. Okay, so which 5 extensions? There has to be more information on this somewhere. Article seems kind of lazy and definitely loses steam after the second half.
  • chias 5y ago
    That part in particular set the tone for this entire post for me. It convinced me that I could not trust the author to be intellectually or rhetorically honest, at which point I no longer see any value in this write-up. It also helped me read the rest of this post in the correct context. "Many people are saying this. Note that I'm not saying it, I only say true things. But I want you to think it anyway." Really?
  • upofadown 5y ago
    You can see them listed at the bottom of this page: * https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html ... which doesn't really add anything to the original assertion as we don't know what the extensions might do. The statement is all all there is.
  • celsoazevedo 5y ago
    Could it be some of Brave features that seem to use extensions? For example, if I enable the "IPFS companion" or "WebTorrent", they show as extensions under the browser's "task manager": https://i.imgur.com/PFRkv5l.png https://i.imgur.com/PFRkv5l.png The only other thing I could think of is "chrome://components/" which also exists on Chrome and updates some browser components.
  • kunagi7 5y ago
    Well... There's a more serious first start browser comparison by netmeister.org [0] which shows that 4 downloads are made. I downloaded and extracted the files. They look like helpers or partials for Brave internal extensions. All of them include manifest files with their names: - 1_0_14: "Brave HTTPS Everywhere Updater extension". Contains a 1MB ZIPped database of https domains. - 1_0_21: "Brave NTP sponsored images component". Contains three photos (to display in their new tab probably). - 1_0_22: "Brave Local Data Files Updater extension". Seems to contain whitelists and blacklists for extensions, autoplay, referers, trackers, etc. - 1_0_498: "Brave Ad Block Updater extension". Contains a 2.4 MB filter list for their adblocker implementation. Nothing seems to be harmful at all. This mechanism is used by almost all Chrome/Chromium based browsers to update their internal extensions and components. But, if the poster cares about backdoors... Well, every major browser out there has features that could be used to backdoor their users like Firefox Telemetry Experiments (which download xpi files) and Chrome Components. They also can change properties at will unless its disabled (via flags, about:config, recompiling, etc). Note: I'm a Vivaldi and Chromium user. I only use Brave with iOS which is kind of a different beast (since everything has to be implemented on top of iOS provided WebKit) since it somehow blocks ads better than stock Safari with AdGuard filters. For stuff like banking (on iOS) I use Safari. Note 2: Blink and WebKit have deviated quite dramatically so they are indeed different browser engines (like Gecko is) with different implementations, quirks and bugs. [0] https://www.netmeister.org/blog/browser-startup.html https://www.netmeister.org/blog/browser-startup.html
• randomperson_24 5y ago
  Can't we just like use Brave / Firefox and block all tracking domain names with something like pihole? Does the browser not at all work then?
• roenxi 5y ago
  The people arguing that Firefox has an edge because it maintains a separate browser engine (like the writer of this article) are going to have real difficulties making their argument. Ditto the attacks on Brave for not being private enough. The people who care about privacy should be more worried about getting caught in Google's web of properties than about privacy per-se - that company is bad news. And Firefox is more closely aligned with Google's interest than Brave is. Look at how much money Google has been funnelling to Firefox over the years. Having a different engine is really more of an inconvenience than a strength - it means that sometimes pages will not work in Firefox. Having an independent engine was important when it was IE6 vs the open web. It doesn't matter much when the engines involved are BSD license vs GPL. If Chrome was all proprietary licenses then having an independent engine would matter. But the internet likes to standardise on one, open, technology.
  • bambax 5y ago
    You may be right, and you may not be. It has to be good that there are more than exactly one engine, it means there is a discussion, some level of "forced openness". That wouldn't be possible if web developers could simply rely on undocumented quirks of a sole browser. It's possible that FF will die. But I think that would be extremely sad. For one, Manifest V3 would be forced upon the entire web => no more uOrigin.
    • roenxi 5y ago
      > It has to be good that there are more than exactly one engine... Well, that is kinda the point. No, it doesn't. It might be worse than having one great de-facto standard engine. Having 2+ splits web developers in what they choose to support. In this instance, we literally have a young company (Brave Software, Inc) that chose to go head-to-head with Google. Their CEO is deeply entwined with the history of first Netscape then Mozilla/Firefox. They went with Chromium. That is a pretty searing indictment of the "an independent engine is important" argument. If Eich doesn't think Firefox is up for the challenge, what exactly is the gameplan here? Nobody is saying Mozilla has to die, whatever that means. But if there is an advantage to its existence that advantage is difficult to spot. Firefox doesn't even have the thriving extension ecosystem it could once boast about - they killed most of it off. There is nothing useful there except a different set of quirks.
• Havoc 5y ago
  FF + uorigin + a dns blocker like pihole seems to be where it’s at right now. Maybe EFF privacy badger on top Any better options out there? Been thinking of adding protonvpn
  • tomxor 5y ago
    FF now does DNS over HTTPS by default (Preferences > General > Network Settings), it defaults to using NextDNS and is configurable. Some people will be uncomfortable with this default, but it's a step up from consumer ISPs who _will_ track you, to a 3rd party who Mozilla says wont. I add Mullvad VPN (because wiregaurd is frickin awesome), which also allows you to use their DNS servers, but for this you actually have to turn off FF's DNS over HTTPS to allow the wiregaurd interface to pick up the DNS requests - they have a really good "leak" checker page while using their servers to check for various protocols https://mullvad.net/en/check/ https://mullvad.net/en/check/ Yes yes I know, VPN doesn't unbreak the internet, but here we are.
    • magikaram 5y ago
      The other great thing is, in case you wanted to support Mozilla, the MozillaVPN is using Mullvad's service, and routinely provides great service. I will add though, if you're a huge privacy advocate, and don't want to supply your email or card details to Mozilla but want to use a VPN, Mullvad directly is still the best choice imo.
      • fossislife 5y ago
        I use Mozilla VPN, but the program (Ubuntu 20.04) 1+ times per day just closes and it does not have a network kill switch. So I have to continue to use Firefox's DoH to prevent my university to occasionally take a peek at my traffic. Assuming they don't bother reversing IPs to domain names.
        • tomxor 5y ago
          You don't need a "network kill switch" with wiregaurd, you might be using the openVPN option which mullvad also provide for compatibility. Because wiregaurd is stateless you don't have to worry about stuff leaking through while physical layers go up and down, you can just leave the wg interface up and keep hoping around safely... I literally haven't taken my current wg connection down in days, yet my computer is put to sleep every night. If you use Linux you don't even need an app (not Firefox's or Mullvad's), you can just pop one of the wiregaurd configs (mullvad.net can generate them for you) into /etc/wiregaurd and then use the super simple wg-quick cli interface to bring it up. You can also tell systemd to bring up a specific interface at startup with one line.
• okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
  Brave's development team's responses can be found at these locations, covering a post very similar to this one. https://old.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/nvz9tl/_/h1gie0q/ https://old.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/nvz9tl/_/h1... https://old.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/nw7et2/_/h18fxec/ https://old.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/nw7et2/_/h18... https://old.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/nw7et2/_/h1fer1i/ https://old.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/nw7et2/_/h1f...
• timvisee 5y ago
  Another shady practice: you could donate to any website, but Brave itself received the amount if not claimed by the website creator. Users did not know. (https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2019/01/13/brave-web-browser-no-longer-claims-to-fundraise-on-behalf-of-others-so-thats-nice/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2019/01/13/brave-web-br..., https://redd.it/a8g1i9 https://redd.it/a8g1i9) Don't use Brave. Tell others not to use it.
  • chrisco255 5y ago
    That's not true. If the website or user does not claim the rewards within 3 months it goes back to the user.
    • jonathansampson 5y ago
      Correct. Tips and contributions to unverified properties remain [on the user's device] for up to 90 days. The browser will make routine attempts to send the tip through; if it fails to do so after 90 days those rewards are unlocked and can be given to another creator.
  • matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Brave can't send BAT to a site that doesn't accept BAT. For example, HN doesn't. When I click on the BAT icon, the first thing I see is a message saying the tokens will remain in my wallet until the site accepts my tip.
    • judge2020 5y ago
      This is now how it used to work - which is why the OP uses “could” instead of “can” - see the linked article.
      • jonathansampson 5y ago
        The way it "used to work" was that Brave gave users BAT for using the Browser and Brave Payments (now Brave Rewards). The user could then visit a site/channel, and Brave would communicate if the property was verified or not (e.g. a verified property had a check-mark, and an unverified property did not). If you tipped a verified property, the BAT (as gift from Brave) would go to the creator's associated wallet. If the property was not verified, the BAT would go into a settlement wallet, awaiting the creator's registration. Again, this was Brave's BAT effectively being earmarked for a creator who had not yet verified. The feedback at the time from the community was that the UI/UX was confusing; indeed it was. We quickly modified the model, and today it is substantially better as a result. Unverified properties are now as explicitly identified as verified ones, and tips to the former are held on-device for up to 90 days.
• pityJuke 5y ago
  In addition to some of the other oddities with the article (i.e. the absolutely wrong claim about Brave's ad blocker), I think the security between Chromium and Firefox is a bit too simplistic? This piece [1] might go too far in the other direction, but at the very least it outlines why there are deficiencies in Firefox, comparatively. [1]: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
  • kunagi7 5y ago
    This article is really complete and straight to the point. I really like that madaidan keeps it updated.
  • yborg 5y ago
    The one thing the OP article doesn't actually do is claim that Firefox is more SECURE than Chrome/Brave, the arguments (mostly bad) are that it more private. And that pretty much goes without saying for Chrome, since its entire raison d'etre is to strip privacy from its users for Google. It's unfortunate that on platforms outside macOS you have to choose between risking your privacy being invaded or your device being invaded. The reality in any case is that in every pwn contest every year, all the major browsers are exploited, usually with full sandbox escapes; Chrome has better security implementation but a huge install base that makes effort to crack it worthwhile, while Firefox is easier but has trivial market share.
• truth_ 5y ago
  I found a list [0] on HN awhile ago of "free, open source and privacy respecting services and alternatives to privative services". I have been using many of the items before I came across the list, and started using some after going through it. Many items on the list are viable and practical alternatives to proprietary products commonly used. [0]: https://github.com/pluja/awesome-privacy https://github.com/pluja/awesome-privacy
• debacle 5y ago
  Firefox user here. I've looked into Brave, but decided I didn't really want it. This article is incredibly slanted. It takes every single possible fact it can and spins it into "Brave Bad." Something like this: > Brave is just another Chromium skin. So at the end, when using Brave or any other Chromium based browser, you’re giving marketshare to Google and supporting their evil web empire. Is simply not true. Every browser that isn't Chrome, every search page that isn't google.com, sends a message to not just Google but other competitors in the space that users want change. In addition, in an ideal world Chromium would be able to build enough momentum through community support (or support from MS or others) to provide a healthy fork, free from Google's clutches. I agree that Firefox is better - it is my personal web browser of choice - but that doesn't mean that Brave is bad software, or that the people behind it are evil, and anything that tamps down Google's monopoly is good in my mind.
  • AzzieElbab 5y ago
    the biggest deal is hardcoded whitelist imho. rest of the article is just raw emotions
    • celsoazevedo 5y ago
      You can't fully block certain services without breaking pages. Block Facebook and you break hotlinked images and comments on some sites. Block Twitter and embeded tweets break. Some people use these services to login too. And so on. I assume most users here understand this and would be able to fix the page, but the average user doesn't know how to do that. But then more advanced users should use uBlock Origin too, which lets you block Facebook, Twitter, Disqus, etc, too, so I don't think it's a major issue for us.
      • AzzieElbab 5y ago
        I understand this as well, but I would very much prefer if I could flip block/unblock on those cookies at will
  • 1_player 5y ago
• eterevsky 5y ago
  For me the best feature of Brave is the ability to reward the content publishers without watching their ads, basically YouTube Premium for web. I just wish more publishers would opt into this program.
  • jonathansampson 5y ago
    Is anybody is looking for more information, check out https://creators.brave.com https://creators.brave.com
• deccanchargers 5y ago
  I am currently using brave on android because it is the last latest stable browser that provides stacked Tab layout like this. https://github.com/michael-rapp/ChromeLikeTabSwitcher https://github.com/michael-rapp/ChromeLikeTabSwitcher Latest chrome and it's derivatives(except brave) have removed this in favour of grid layout which i dislike(they also brought in tab groups which i despise entirely) I know that brave has shady stuff like blockchain and ads, but they can be turned off. On desktop, i use firefox and i want to use firefox on android too but i find android firefox(fenix) janky. Please suggest me good browser and also a suggestion to chrome developers: Please don't remove things that we like. atleast provide option to enable it
• turminal 5y ago
  Brave is a scam, but recommending palemoon or icecat a is (for different reasons) also a bad idea.
  • didericis 5y ago
    Can you elaborate on why palemoon and icecat are bad ideas? Haven’t used either. Am assuming they’re further behind on the latest web standards?
    • turminal 5y ago
      They both lack the manpower to keep up. I personally don't mind missing on the latest features, but I don't want my software to be full of old security holes that were patched long ago in upstream Firefox. Besides, I have once witnessed a conversation between Palemoon developers and some distro's packagers about usage of palemoon logo or trademark or something like that. The developers spoke in a very entitled tone and it was quite off-putting.
  • jonathansampson 5y ago
    How exactly is Brave a scam? The author certainly couldn't argue this point (detailed response to their claims can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530).
    • turminal 5y ago
      The fact that author's arguments are flawed (imo not all of them are) does not imply their claim is incorrect. A lot has been written on the topic Elsewhere, I'm sure you will be able to find some better explanations if you so desire.
• jccalhoun 5y ago
  I currently have Firefox, Edge, and Chrome open. I also have Opera and Vivaldi installed (and I think I might have Maxthon too). I use them for different purposes. Firefox for personal stuff, Chrome on my second monitor for social networks and twitch, Edge for my main work. Vivaldi for my part time job. I say the more browsers the better and I am definitely rooting for Firefox to help chip away at chromium's dominance. I don't have Brave installed because I am not overly concerned with privacy and the other browsers seem fast enough. I have ublock origin, noscript, and privacy badger installed on Firefox. That is good enough for me. I also think BAT is not really worthwhile.
• mordymoop 5y ago
  In 2001 or so I considered entering into an encrypted email correspondence with my brother, for fun. I quickly gave up on the idea because I realized that I didn’t trust that my computer or my brother’s computer didn’t already have spyware of some kind, I didn’t trust the integrity of any encryption/decryption tools that existed, didn’t trust myself not to lose the passwords or leave them lying around, and didn’t trust that some day I wouldn’t just stupidly leave my laptop somewhere with the password entered. Etc., etc. It was obvious that actually having even one meaningfully secret conversation would actually require involved and somewhat ridiculous lifestyle changes. Having thought this through long ago, I have never understood why people behave as though a chat client or browser that they download from the open internet would be meaningfully secure.
  • pedro2 5y ago
    So closing your bathroom door isn’t worth it because someone can ram it? :)
    • moron4hire 5y ago
      I live in a house with toddlers. This is absolutely true. I leave the door open so it doesn't bash into my leg when they come hammering on it.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • yakubin 5y ago
        What is "it" that would bash into your leg? The door? Are your toddlers strong enough to ram closed door with enough force for it to bash into your leg?
    • mordymoop 5y ago
      If I suspect there are invisible people who can make money off of pictures of me taking a dump and can phase through doors, then I indeed might not close the bathroom doors. These metaphors never work because encrypting your text messages is qualitatively different from quotidian intuitions about privacy.
• hiidrew 5y ago
  I understand Eich has been controversial and Brave gets a lot of flak in return, regardless of issues like the ones raised in the article. Yet, I remain a fan of Brave because of Brave Rewards. I love being rewarded based on my usage, even if the amount is worthless and the ads are random crypto shit. The idea of a company actually spreading revenue based on my attention back to me makes me happy and I wouldn't mind if more ad-based services do this.
  • schelling42 5y ago
    > even if the amount is worthless and the ads are random crypto shit. Maybe you are not valuing your own resources enough. Ads draw time, concentration and other mental resources. So i can only believe that it will be a net-negative in the end. It can feel rewarding, but financially, the advertiser can't pay you enough.
    • hiidrew 5y ago
      That's true, the whole thing on my end is likely some fallacy. On another note, I've always thought the idea of constructing your own ad profile could be interesting. Like selecting the types of products and related content that you'd want to be pushed. From my understanding this is kind of the goal of social apps but it's obviously not self-directed. I guess it is in some capacity based on your behavior but it's not like you're intentionally clicking selecting you'd be interested and actually would maybe buy.
• pedro2 5y ago
  Fear mongering. A competitor maybe? Someone with an agenda against Eich because of the donation debacle? Privacy-wise, either Firefox or Brave are better than Chrome. Ads are annoying but they do fund the net.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • nextlevelwizard 5y ago
    If you've visited /g/ lately you know how much Brave is pumping threads that are basically just ads for Brave. I wouldn't immediately jump to competitor conclusion (and even they were they have good points) To be Brave's model has always been bat shit insane. >Ads are annoying but they do fund the net. This is a complete lie. If your website can not survive without ads then it shouldn't exist. Running a website takes almost no capital. Only people who are afraid about ad insdustry being destroyed (expect of course the people running the industry) are shitty blogs and useless news sites, because the truth is their content is so sub par that no one in their right minds would pay anything for it, but at least they can scam people into being sold onwards to advertisers. Everyone should be running uBlock Origin. Everyone should be running ad blocking DNS. Websites that don't allow adblocks aren't worth visiting in the first place.
  • annoyingnoob 5y ago
    Disagree. Brave's approach to funding is at odds with privacy. The concept of warming up to ads to get paid is capitulating to the advertising industry. While I did not appreciate the tone of the article, there are some valid points there. Brave may be better than Chrome but there are still better options. It might be better to get a common cold virus than it is to get covid-19, but I'd still rather not get any virus. Sites that don't work right when you block all of the tracking lose me, I won't capitulate.
    • jonathansampson 5y ago
      "Brave's approach to funding is at odds with privacy." Elaborate, please. Brave's ad model is built for privacy and security. User's must first opt-in. Your data remains on your device. Ad catalogs are downloaded and reviewed locally. You are rewarded when you see an ad notification. I repeat, rewards are granted when your attention has been spent; no clicks necessary. I discussed the model further in this recent 5-minute video: https://youtu.be/LsrrT502luI https://youtu.be/LsrrT502luI
• llacb47 5y ago
  This made some decent points but relied too much on FUD.
  • jonathansampson 5y ago
    What decent points were made? The author is clearly not technical (or not to the degree needed to conduct such a review). Contrast it with an actual competent review of Brave and other browsers, such as https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf.
    • llacb47 5y ago
      You're right. Most of the points I called decent are old stuff that has been addressed multiple times.
• Snd_ 5y ago
  I switched from Brave to Bromite on Android.
• nipponese 5y ago
  The only reason I use Brave is that I can type “you” + tab to directly enter YouTube search from the URL input field, and this works for gMaps and Amazon. For the life of me I cannot figure out how to configure this in Firefox.
  • occamschainsaw 5y ago
    You can get similar functionality in any browser by setting DuckDuckGo as your default search engine (so you can search from the URL input field and using bangs. So "!yt search term" in the input field (without quotes) would search YouTube. DDG is sufficient for 99% of searches for me, and when it fails I just use the !g bang for Google search. You can check all the bangs available here: https://duckduckgo.com/bang https://duckduckgo.com/bang Edit: !m or !gmap for Google Maps, !a for Amazon
  • jmiskovic 5y ago
    In Firefox almost any search box can be right clicked and there is an option "Add a keyword for this search". If you use "y" shortcut for youtube, then your URL entry is "y gangnam". Also if you use DDG as your main URL search engine, they have bunch of "bang" shortcuts that redirect your query to online searches. For yt you'd use "!you gangnam". Others can be found here: https://duckduckgo.com/bang https://duckduckgo.com/bang
    • nipponese 5y ago
      Thank you and the others who recommended this!
  • eythian 5y ago
    In Firefox, right-click in the youtube search box and you can make a keyword search bookmark. I can do, for example, 'yt gojira' to search for that, or 'wp goldfish' to search wikipedia, and so on.
  • Liquid_Fire 5y ago
    An alternative method to the other comments, which will enable the Tab behaviour you're describing (it will add a search engine with a keyword instead of a bookmark): 1. Add YouTube as a search engine (visit YouTube, click on the + in the search box and click 'Add "YouTube"'). 2. Open Firefox Settings > Search > Search Shortcuts (near the bottom) 3. Set a keyword "you" for YouTube in the table 4. Search by typing "you" + Tab in the address bar
• judge2020 5y ago
  > The only browser that does not use Google’s web engine (blink) is Firefox Well, Safari is a thing on MacOS and is the only browser engine on iOS. StatCounter[0], the data source behind caniuse, says it has nearly 19% marketshare as well.
• underseacables 5y ago
  I find I use brave only as a last resort to get around anti-ad-block websites, or quasi paywalls, etc.
• JackPoach 5y ago
  I see a lot of their ads on Youtube. The are really off-putting.
• 404mm 5y ago
  Can somebody please shed some light as to what the reference to Apple meant? I’d like to know more..
  • angulardragon03 5y ago
    Agreed, that really felt like a quite big “citation needed” moment for me when I started reading.
• mark_l_watson 5y ago
  After some consideration, I decided to not use Brave. Maybe I am looking at the privacy policy too simply, but why not prefer to use private browsing tabs? With auto fill password support, it is really not inconvenient. I am now, with no actions on my part except running the betas for the new iOS, iPadOS, and macOS, using Apple’s new Tor-like system. I have no comment on this yet.
• Moodles 5y ago
  I appreciate articles that look into topics in some depth that I’m curious about. But I really dislike the author’s strident writing style. Now, if there’s a single exaggeration or untruth from the author, It’ll throw the rest of the article in doubt for me. I think it would be better if it was a bit more dispassionate. Another thing I’ve noticed in security (and I actually work in this field) is that if a project makes some progress but doesn’t address all the things (e.g. Signal end-to-end encryption for the masses but it uses a phone number or isn’t federalized), people criticise so strongly. It’s like, ok, but give some (actually a lot) of credit because it’s literally the best option right now?
  • quotemstr 5y ago
    > But I really dislike the author’s strident writing style. Colorful and emotional language gets attention. Dispassionate writing doesn't. Whenever I see people criticize an author for a little rhetorical flair, I play the famous "Pirates of the Caribbean" scene in my mind: Hacker News: "Your article is the most strident and obnoxious piece of technical writing I've ever heard of" Author: "Ah, but you have heard of it!"
    • snet0 5y ago
      I think this is a popular narrative, but I don't think it's true. Especially in HN, some of the best articles I can remember aren't angry people being obnoxious, but can even be highly-technical and entirely dispassionate. Also, I am not sure people do remember these types of articles. Perhaps they remember some notion of the content, but I'm doubtful many detractors would remember the author.
      • permo-w 5y ago
        my ideal article tells me everything I need to know in simple language, without meander or emotion. that’s rare even here
    • Moodles 5y ago
      Yeah clickbait sells, but I’m saying if there’s a single error, combined with the emotional tone, I’m more likely to discount the whole article and think they’re just extremely biased and blinded by their emotions.
• omginternets 5y ago
  I like Brave, though I'm open to switching if there's a better alternative. Here's what I like about it: 1. Compatibility with Google Chrome Extensions. This is sine qua non (though I'd settle for compatibility with FF extensions). 2. Ad-blocking and reasonable-effort script blocking by default. 3. No apparent performance issues for my usage (YouTube, clicking links on HN, GitHub). 4. Integration with Tor, IPFS. Not a deal-breaker, but I do like it.
  • schelling42 5y ago
    Popularizing IPFS and Tor to bigger user bases is likely the single best thing that brave does.
  • gota 5y ago
    I use Brave and I have the exact same list of likes, and in same order of priority - if that is what you meant.
• KingOfCoders 5y ago
  Dropped Brave when it become worse than ublock/Firefox.
• celsoazevedo 5y ago
  Notes about some of the points made: - The built-in blocker, just like the blocker on Firefox, Edge or Opera, isn't that good. That's why you should install something like uBlock Origin on top. - If all scripts from Facebook and Twitter are blocked, you'll end up with broken pages. Some pages have Facebook comments, which won't load if you block all Facebook domains. Embeded tweets also won't work if Twitter is blocked. Not everyone is an advanced user, so I understand why they decided not to block everything (they give you the option to block this - check your settings). - Brave Rewards... for users: you don't have to use it. Independently of the DNS queries, you won't see any ads if you don't opt-in. If you decide to join, you'll get some BAT at the end of the month. It's not 100%, but it's more than the 0% you receive from Google Adsense. - Brave Rewards... for website operators, youtubers, etc: I think this is where we sometimes miss the point. Users are already blocking your ads! Even if they don't use an extension for that, the built-in blocker in Brave, Opera and Firefox already block some or all of your ads. That revenue is gone. So, and if users opt-in, you'll be able to make some money via Brave Rewards (we just have to confirm that we own the site, like a Google Webmaster Tools verification). Again, users already block your ads. Between no revenue and some revenue, what's better? We should also keep in mind that by default, the money users receive is then shared among the sites they visited. In practice, users are sending you a small monthly payment/donation for using your site, viewing your videos, etc. - "You may have seen in the past a fork of Brave which removed telemetry and other shady practices from Brave. It was called Braver." Not sure what's the surprise here. We can't create a Firefoxer or Edgier without getting in trouble with Mozilla or Microsoft. Being able to fork doesn't mean that we can use the same name.
• losvedir 5y ago
  Can someone explain the point in the article that Facebook can still track you if the script is loaded from an edge cache and the browser doesn't send cookies? I can think of unique script URLs, but if it's coming from an edge cache, presumably it's not that unique. And maybe some sort of JS-based fingerprinting? But since Brave controls the browser, it's within their control to try to make the browser environment homogenous across users. I think Tor Browser does something like that, not sure about Brave. Any other attacks I'm not thinking of? edit: oh, if the script makes a request back to FB, then I suppose your IP address is available...
  • oofbey 5y ago
    I think the OP is just wrong here. I personally agree with Brave's statement that they are protecting users here. The assertion that "Anyone who knows a bit about how JavaScript works and it’s [sic] capacities to track you without the need of using cookies will be laughing after reading that." I know a thing or two about JavaScript and I'm not laughing, I'm genuinely confused about what the OP thinks the problem is because I don't see one.
• h_anna_h 5y ago
  >Brave has built-in telemetry. Brave will make a ton of requests to the domain p3a.brave.com as telemetry So does Firefox, yet this blog post suggests it as a replacement. >Brave isn’t more than Chromium with another skin and a built-in adblocker with reduced functionality. As far as I know it includes additional functionality such as build-in support for tor and ipfs. (and while it might not be the best choice if you want privacy, it at least makes onion sites accessible for normal people) >This means that you need to update the entire browser to fix a bug in the adblocker Just like for bugs in the firefox tracking protection and the dev tools in most browsers? It is like they are trying to include as much nitpicking as possible. >However, it seems to have a contrary effect, since it sends requests to fetch the information required Just like firefox. >Brave uses Google’s gstatic, which is btw using Cloudflare. Firefox uses Google analytics in about:addons. >Hostility towards forks looks at iceweasel >The only browser that does not use Google’s web engine (blink) is Firefox I would include Safari, at least from the popular ones. (disclaimer: I am a Firefox user)
  • jonathansampson 5y ago
    Brave's telemetry is private by design; you can read about it at https://brave.com/p3a https://brave.com/p3a. You're absolutely right about Firefox's telemetry though, which is often served up from a another process after Firefox is closed. This was covered in more detail on my post regarding network activity of popular browsers at https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/ https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/. You picked apart the author's narrative pretty nicely here. I provided 3 comments (quite long ones) as well with more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530.
• iou 5y ago
  Is the saying "storm in a teacup" or "tempest in a teapot" or something like that? Anyway, I don't really find any of this that egregious tbh. Personally, I'm layering with nextdns to drop all the crap, and vpn over that, maybe solely depending on any one solution is the failure? Also the "use Firefox" would be awesome if we could rely on Mozilla! I have always wanted them to succeed but recently they've been stumbling so hard and it doesn't look so promising.
• NelsonMinar 5y ago
  Brave's business model is replacing the ads on websites with their own ads. Then there was that one time they started inserting their own affiliate codes into web pages. No surprise they replace the trackers on websites with their own tracking, too. At least their ethics are consistent.
  • jonathansampson 5y ago
    "Brave's business model is replacing the ads on websites with their own ads." Incorrect. Isn't true now, and has never been true in the past. "Then there was that one time they started inserting their own affiliate codes into web pages." Also false. Not true now, and was never true in the past. "No surprise they replace the trackers on websites with their own tracking, too." Still false. You're 0 for 3. Please consider downloading Brave and actually trying it for a day. It seems you have been quite misled on this topic. See a more detailed response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530
• songshuu 5y ago
  The surest sign that Brave has made it is that 3 hours in, we aren't seeing a rush of rebuttals from Sampson, Clifton, or Eich in the comments. The article rehashes some FUDy and misleading comments which have been knocked down years ago. Brave's not perfect, but for different reasons than this author raises.
  • jonathansampson 5y ago
    Sorry for the late arrival; I provided a response (via 3 comments) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530. I'll try to be faster in the future
• trts 5y ago
  Slightly off topic, but it was a lot of fun to listen to Brendan Eich on Lex Fridman's podcast talk about Brave and the browser wars of the 90s and 00s. I've been using the Browser for several months without any of the rewards enabled and appreciate that it seems to quietly remove 95% of ads and does it effectively. https://lexfridman.com/brendan-eich/ https://lexfridman.com/brendan-eich/
  • CodeGlitch 5y ago
    Same here. I've also had Brendan Eich respond to one of my posts on HN - not something I'd expect from any other browser on the market. He understands techies because he is one. I wish Mozilla was headed by a techie and not a lawyer :(
    • rchaud 5y ago
      The thought of Firefox shilling crypto bux turns my stomach, so I'll have to disagree with you.
      • CodeGlitch 5y ago
        As others have said multiple times, you can turn off all that crypto stuff in brave and ignore it. They've found a unique way to fund the product, not at the mercy of Google which can only be a good thing right?
        • BrendanEich 5y ago
          All cryptocurrency stuff is off by default. I personally think it's best to tell the truth and evaluate projects and products on their merit. Thanks for your support!
    • meibo 5y ago
      Reminder that there's a reason Brendan Eich doesn't work for Mozilla anymore, and it's not just layoffs due to dwindling userbases. Half of their board stepped down when he was about to be appointed. Decoupling software from the people behind it may be a good thing, but I don't want to support people that work against my interests.
• dangerface 5y ago
  > This means that you need to update the entire browser to fix a bug in the adblocker. Stupid, isn’t it? I mean chrome and firefox both update pretty much every time I open them and they are only like 50-100mb? Why would I be upset that my browser updated? OP Made it bold too they must think its a real gotcha! Later in the article they are again grinding that axe against auto updates, that some how having an up to date browser hurts privacy? Op must be the one last IE6 stan. They complain about BRAVE ARE SCAMMING PEOPLE! and that they COVERED UP PEOPLE THAT EXPOSED THEM! It turns out to be an ad on the home screen for a crypto currency exchange... Scam exposed LOL
• fastball 5y ago
  A rebuttal of the points in the article, as most of it is arguing in bad faith: > Brave's adblocker is uBlock origin It's not[1]. > Brave Today can't be disabled Currently called "Brave News" if you're looking for it. And of course it actually can be disabled[2]. > Rewards is used to track you A request being made to a URL does not mean you are being "tracked". Brave ads are the most privacy-preserving ad architecture[3] I know about, and they are the only people trying to make a better funding model for the web that still has a lot of the upsides of ad-driven content (mainly that it is not a regressive funding model). FF is worse in this regard because Mozilla gets most of their revenue from adtech giants that clearly don't give a flying fuck about your privacy. If you think Mozilla's funding model isn't a conflict of interest and makes the web more privacy-conscious, I have a bridge to sell you. > Telemetry automatically violates your privacy Not really? Of course, someone very concerned with privacy should opt out of telemetry, and Brave lets you do that. > Auto-updates violate privacy How so? As I point out later, the most likely result of auto-updates is that they help preserve your privacy by getting bugs patched faster. > Affiliate codes Yes, Brave had pre-programmed history items that were affiliate links to a crypto exchange. This harmed nobody in any way and the backlash was over-the-top. But they disabled in response to user feedback. I kinda liked this idea, as it is another way Brave was trying to fund themselves without being beholden to the Googlopoly which is an endeavor I very much support (with the caveat that it can't hurt users, which again this did not). > Uphold doesn't care about your privacy Uphold is a financial institution based in the US (as Brave is) which by necessity needs to comply with KYC/AML regulations. That means they need to collect your personal info. Take it up with the US government if you're unhappy. > Tor tabs leaking DNS Was fixed fairly quickly[4] and I think worth pointing out that no other browser even bothers trying to do something like this (integrating Tor for better privacy). Conveniently left out of the part where the author made the claim that "Brave isn't better for privacy than FF because it's just uBlock origin". Clearly brave is trying things that are not just adblocking to increase user privacy. In general with this point, kinda funny that apparently the author of this article wants Brave to be the only software engineering org in existence that never has bugs. I guess if that's your stance though it makes sense that you wouldn't want auto-updates. For everyone else that lives in reality, auto-updates are a good thing for security (and therefore privacy, as made clear here when a privacy-related bug inevitably happens). > Chromium and Google’s monopoly Yeahhhhh, using FF isn't the silver bullet you think it is, as again, Mozilla gets the vast majority of their revenue from being paid by Google. What happens if that dries up? Seems unlikely that maintaining Blink without Mozilla will be easier than Brave maintaining a privacy-centric fork of Chromium (which will presumably continue to get not-privacy-related upstream improvements from Google/Microsoft/etc in perpetuity). > brave-core-ext.s3.brave.com fetches 5 extensions and installs them. It is said that this might be a backdoor. But I don’t want to get conspiracist. I prefer giving you verifiable facts. I’ll limit myself to inform you about suspicious activities. This is worse than all the Bitcoin maximalists / shitcoin pump-and-dumpers with their "this is not financial advice" shtick. We know what you're doing, it's pretty transparent. Especially when you do it twice: > They were also accused of theft with BAT but this isn’t verifiable so I’ll only link the source for you. In summary, I disagree with basically all of this article, significant parts of which are just factually wrong. [1] https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust [2] https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360056341952-How-do-I-use-Brave-Today- https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360056341952-How... [3] https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/ https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/ [4] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/13527 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/13527
• qwertox 5y ago
  From the German Wikipedia: > On March 3, 2021, Brave announced that it had acquired search engine technology from the former browser manufacturer Cliqz for its own search engine, Brave Search. The former owner, the German publishing house Hubert Burda Media, has held shares in Brave since then. Hubert Burda Media is a traditional publisher, owner of well known German publications as well as hardware stores. They also own XING, which is the German version of LinkedIn which nearby everybody uses here. Hubert Burda was the president of the VDZ (=Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger, Association of German Magazine Publishers), so it's safe to assume that he is against internet user privacy. I'm not sure if they are able to legally access user data through this "partnership" with Brave.
• pmurt7 5y ago
  Make no mistake, it has nothing to do with Brave, it's just marxist guerrilla against Eich. They cancelled him once at Mozilla, they are at it again.
• Anonashtonian 5y ago
  I would love to use something other than brave but Firefox is shit and arguably getting worse over time. They have been sacrificing ux for revenue streams for a while now. Also extension management is a joke, especially if you have more than 5 extensions. I have like 30 chrome extensions... Most of which get used at least weekly. Many of them do things like prevent sites from blocking text select or copy paste, things like that. I believe extensions are the mechanism of agency that enables a browser to be an "user agent" again.
  • CharlesW 5y ago
    > I would love to use something other than brave but Firefox is shit and arguably getting worse over time. As someone who's used Chrome exclusively for the good part of a decade and has been using Firefox again for the last several months, I don't get this criticism at all. It seems…fine? In any case it's radically better than it was when I initially switched to Chrome from Firefox.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• isodev 5y ago
  Browsers are responsible for a very large chunk of our ability to interact with the world. In that sense I greatly appreciate the article trying to illuminate some areas of Brave which are not necessarily obvious upfront. I am absolutely inclined to believe that Brave is not as private as it appears. What also comes to mind is that Brave's founder Brandon Eich is a homophobe who donated to ban gay marriage in California (Prop 8, https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/brendan-eich-why-mozilla-s-ceo-had-to-resign-over-gay-marriage-views.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/brendan-eich-why-mozill...). That alone is sufficient to doubt the integrity of his organization.
• jonathansampson 5y ago
  Breaking this response up into a few comments: "Their adblocker is just a fork of uBlock Origin…" Claims like this should be supplemented with links to our source code (see https://code.brave.com https://code.brave.com), if true. I'm not sure what gave the author this impression; Brave's built-in ad-blocking does use public lists in addition to our own efforts, but that isn't the same as being a fork of uBlock Origin. That being said, uBO is a fine extension, and you should definitely be using it (if you're not using Brave). "They’re whitelisting trackers from Facebook and Twitter, so they can use scripts in third parties' websites to track you across the web." This is also quite misleading. It stems from a claim made back in 2018 about our now-retired "Muon" build of Brave. We had a file which listed third-party scripts which shouldn't be blocked (so as not to "break the Web"). Among these were particular Facebook and Twitter scripts, because Facebook and Twitter content is embedded all throughout the Web (think of embedded Tweets, posts, videos, etc.). As such, it's important to permit this content to load, but to prevent it from utilizing any persistent storage (e.g. cookies). Not only were these scripts prevented to accessing storage, Brave also modified or discarded the referrer header on these request. This wasn't ever a case of "whitelisting trackers". "They’re blatantly lying to their users. Anyone who knows a bit about how JavaScript…" Responding to a previous explanation for the "whitelist", the author emphatically claims the engineers at Brave don't understand how JavaScript works. If I'm not mistaken, the author is responding to Brendan Eich (Brave's CEO), who happens to also be *the creator of JavaScript*. "Another problem with their built-in adblocker is that it’s better for extensions to be separated from the core of the browser, since they don’t follow each other’s update cycles. This means that you need to update the entire browser to fix a bug in the adblocker. Stupid, isn’t it?" Agreed, which is why Brave's ad-blocking logic is broken out into a distinct component. You can see it enumerated on brave://components, and even request updates from that page as well. It would have been very unwise to require a full browser update just to deliver updates to ad-blocking rules, etc. > Note: By this point, it should be clear to the reader that the author is unqualified to conduct such a review. A cursory review of Brave's source (both in the archived 'Muon' repo and our active code.brave.com endpoint) would have answered many of their questions. A review of Brave's network activity, such as the one I conducted this year (see https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/ https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/), would have addressed many claims to follow. "It’s important to bring focus to the fact that Brave isn’t more than Chromium with another skin and a built-in adblocker with reduced functionality." Wrong, again. Brave is a heavily patched version of Chromium, deviating in many ways (see https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove) https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...) from the base project. Again, this would have been quite clear to the author if they compared the network activity of Chrome and Brave (see https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/ https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/). "Rewards is their shitty program that will replace ads displayed on websites with their own." Another easily-disproven claim, showing the author likely has never used Brave. Brave *does not replace ads on websites*. Brave's Ad system is opt-in, user-configurable, and displays ad notifications as native system notifications. These appear as prompts on your desktop or screen, outside of the browser itself. "…they’re tracking you with Rewards…" Again, where is the network analysis or source code to substantiate this claim? The author doesn't provide anything, because it's simply not true. Brave Rewards is designed to preclude tracking. Rather than having user data flow out to remote servers (the way Google Ads and more work today), Brave Rewards keeps the user's data on their device, and routinely downloads a regional ad catalog. This inverts the traditional digital advertising model. I covered this system in a bit more detail recently in a 5-minute talk on the history of digital advertising, and how Brave is fixing the industry. You can watch that talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrrT502luI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrrT502luI. Continued below...
• snyderp 5y ago
  I work at Brave as "Senior Privacy Researcher and Director of Privacy". I responded to many of these same accusations when they were made Friday, that time on Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/nvz9tl/brave_is_not_private/h1gie0q https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/nvz9tl/brav...
• oofbey 5y ago
  So ironic that the OP's website doesn't require HTTPS. The most minimum security practice on the web that's nearly enforced by even the worst browser, and this security rant either doesn't care or doesn't realize their site is misconfigured.
  • jonathansampson 5y ago
    The author is not technical; this was only the first of many mistakes they made. I posted three exhaustive responses at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552530.
• imwillofficial 5y ago
  This article is a glittery piece of shit, from lies about the blockers to completely made up points on the ad system.
• mrlatinos 5y ago
  The author is full of shit.
• Tepix 5y ago
  German c't magazine tested all the main browsers in terms of privacy in the latest issue. Brave came out on top by a large margin. They even discovered that Edge sends a list of visited sites while in private browsing mode back to Microsoft! I've heard some negative things about Brave but i'm willing to give it a try now because it may just be noise. I can imagine the advertising industry being very motivated to keep people away from Brave.
  • smoldesu 5y ago
    You should also try Vivaldi[0] if you're already shopping around. Once Firefox went belly-up last week I needed a new browser, and Vivaldi made the cut for me. They publish their source code and do a great job of stripping the Google features out of Chrome. [0] https://vivaldi.com https://vivaldi.com
  • jonathansampson 5y ago
    Always look at the quality of work being done. The author's post is distinctively different from that of more reputable sources, such as the review done by Leith and team at https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf.
• smoldesu 5y ago
  I will probably never use Brave exclusively because of the fact that BAT shoots their privacy shtick in the foot. Why is my personal exploitation opt-in now? I don't want my browser to make money, and I certainly don't want to be caught in the crossfire while Adsense and other major providers roll out their circumvention mechanisms. Why is it so hard for people to just pick Firefox or a half-decent Chrome fork?
• throwitaway1235 5y ago
  Once it became obvious through Firefox blog posts that they support censorship and oppose free speech, I made the switch to Brave.
• 0dayz 5y ago
  I would never use brave personally, however given the fact this post is essentially just a copy pasta of typical /g/ arguments. Everyone should take the post with a mountain full of salt (just look at their post about systemd).
  • CRConrad 5y ago
    > Everyone should take the post with a mountain full of salt (just look at their post about systemd). The latter felt more convincing, so I don't see it as an argument for distrusting the one on Brave.
• crazypython 5y ago
  Brave is the false sensation of privacy, _compared to Firefox._ For people who use Chromium, Brave is the best there is.
• korse 5y ago
  Does anyone here use Opera or have thoughts on it?
• shilad 5y ago
  The Epic Privacy Browser is still the best if you want a Chromium-based privacy browser. Brave cloned them anyway and added their crypto and reduced the privacy. Firefox isn't recommended for privacy, though TOR is of course very good for anonymity, but Epic is better for everyday use.
• jet_32951 5y ago
  I blocked every domain in the article on my firewall and then fired up Brave. None were requested. Not sure what to believe now.
• OOPMan 5y ago
  Brave seems strictly worse than Vivaldi to me...