4 ms·

> Have Brave Rewards (their crypto-and-ads service) turned on If this is true then its another shady thing by a self proclaimed privacy company. They used to

> Have Brave Rewards (their crypto-and-ads service) turned on If this is true then its another shady thing by a self proclaimed privacy company. They used to do the protection racket thing where they indirectly threatened website owners with the ultimatum that if they don't work with them, they will man-in-the-middle them to replace the website's ads with their own and not give them a cut of the profit. Also, Brave has been caught modifying URLs and adding its own affiliate links in them compromising user privacy to earn $$$ for itself.

Spivak 5y ago
I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent.
- throwdecro 5y ago
  > I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. Taken literally this would mean that browsers would be allowed to re-write, either actively or by deleting sections, the actual content of articles. Surely there has to be some expectation that what a person publishes on the internet will be faithfully represented? And if faithful representation of the original is respected for the writing, why shouldn't it be respected for the writer's business/advertising arrangements?
  - Spivak 5y ago
    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Are we all suddenly against ad/content blockers and the built-in tracking protection that Firefox/Safari have? Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?
    - jjulius 5y ago
      >Are we all suddenly against ad/content blockers and the built-in tracking protection that Firefox/Safari have? No, but the point is that it's a bit more nuanced than your original post suggests. Users should have the control over how a page is displayed to them. I want to tell my browser to block ads, and which ads to block. I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want, or to not selectively block ads based on an agreement it may or may not have with advertisers. >Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent? It is the user's agent, and as the user, I want the control. I want to make the decisions.
      - aeturnum 5y ago
        > I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want This is a very reasonable desire, but Brave also seems clear that their service does something different. Where other tools focus on blocking ads, Brave is more about their hybrid blocking of 'bad' ads (whatever that means) and replacing those ads with theirs. Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how their service works or that the entire idea of a tool that blocks some subset of ads that the user cannot configure and replaces them is fundamentally unethical?
        Closi 5y ago
        > Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how their service works or that the entire idea of a tool that blocks some subset of ads that the user cannot configure and replaces them is fundamentally unethical? My personal issue is that Brave is an advertising company which is blocking competitor ads where content-creators are getting paid (the company which the content-creators chose to partner with), and replacing them with ads of their own (regardless of the format of them). It's a great business model - but IMO it's just stealing or subverting ad revenue from the people who actually generate the content you are reading and maintain the infrastructure. Hate ads? Get Firefox and block them. Don't mind ads and are happy for the revenue to go to the content creator? Get Firefox, it blocks most tracking anyway. Don't mind ads but hate the idea that the revenue will go to the content creator, and you would rather give it to some random shady company that might give you a cut of their subverted/stolen revenue in crypto? Get Brave!
- jjulius 5y ago
  >I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent. That's... exactly what I want.
  - barnabee 5y ago
    Reader mode proves that "exatly as sent" is the opposite of what I want. I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.). I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or musician I probably want to see what you designed, that's about it). Reader mode probably makes it 50% but is not designed for any kind of interactivity so I still have to use horrible booking pages, shopping sites, etc. I'd love my bropwser to extract the ueful and completely standardise the UI every time.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      I actually largely agree with you. I should clarify my original comment a bit, I think. I want my browser to display the page exactly as sent until I tell it not to. It should be serving pages to me as-is, and things such as ad/content blockers, and reader mode, should be my choices. I don't want the browser making those decisions for me ahead of time and without my input.
      - barnabee 5y ago
        This is fair, or at least, if they do make those choices ahead of time they should be well publicised and configurable, or it should be a specialised, single purpose browser. To that extent, I think if Brave is open and honest and says "we're a browser that reformats pages in this way" that is ok. It's sneaky shit, dark patterns, bundling things you want with things you might not, etc. that make me distrusting of them.
    - zormino 5y ago
      I think it's one thing to strip out content or ads, but an entirely different beast to replace ads with your own. There are arguments for blocking ads, both ethical and security based. But replacing the ads with your own is basically the same as stealing the content for your own profit. Brave is a shitty company with no moral leg to stand on.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  ... I don't know how to approach that statement. You prefer arbitrary invisible changes by actors unknown? Or is it a part of some elaborate Phillip-K-Dick art project about unreliable narrator and "what is truth anyway"? If Bob sends me a letter, I expect Postal Service to deliver it to me exactly as sent. If Bob sends me an email I expect email service to deliver it to me as sent. If Bob sends me a webpage I expect it to be delivered as sent. We can discuss changes & preferences on presentation layer, but invisible, uncontrollable substitution of content, I have no idea how they're either justifiable or desirable. I am likely not interpreting your comment correctly. Perhaps if you elaborate it may become clearer.
aeturnum 5y ago
I don't understand why Brave Rewards needs to be enabled, but it seems very normal for the company operating a service to require some kind of account or membership. If you don't trust Brave this is probably not the service for you.
- kf6nux 5y ago
  It's even more mundane than that. They just require you to allow their ads during your call. It's privacy preserving ad tech in exchange for 1:1 video calls. That's way better than sites requiring you to allow 3rd party ads to use their site. EDIT: I just saw they let you set your ads to "0 per hour" and still let you use this service. I wonder if that's an oversight.
  - BrendanEich 5y ago
    No, it's intended that a rewards user can turn off ads. Some users who turn off ads then self-fund (via a custodian such as Gemini) to support their favorite sites and creators, even automatically via private browser-only analytics (so-called Auto-contribute mode).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tsumnia 5y ago
  Here is their Reddit response: https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/ptbf7e/brave_talk_is_here_private_video_conferencing/hdvi7ip/ https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/ptbf7e/brave... In a nutshell, enabling Rewards is their incentive for giving the product away for free, otherwise they charge via Premium.
KarlKemp 5y ago
They are the self-proclaimed “brave” company. Which is enough reason to avoid them.
tibyat 5y ago
Where is your quote from? I cmd-f'd for "Rewards" and it doesn't turn up anywhere. Maybe the page has been edited? Also, your same accusations are made in every single HN post involving Brave. If you would develop the discussion and actually bring forth a new idea, maybe by acknowledging the company's response to your claims and responding to that, rather than parroting the same thing over and over again, our discussion here would be more fresh and useful. If you insist on rehashing the same argument, maybe you could at least bring your sources along each time as well. Hey, just an idea from a guy tired of reading that Brave is hitler and DDG is just Bing, over and over and over. Here is one article from them on the subject of referral codes: https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/

Spivak 5y ago

I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent.

throwdecro 5y ago
> I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. Taken literally this would mean that browsers would be allowed to re-write, either actively or by deleting sections, the actual content of articles. Surely there has to be some expectation that what a person publishes on the internet will be faithfully represented? And if faithful representation of the original is respected for the writing, why shouldn't it be respected for the writer's business/advertising arrangements?
- Spivak 5y ago
  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Are we all suddenly against ad/content blockers and the built-in tracking protection that Firefox/Safari have? Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?
  - jjulius 5y ago
    >Are we all suddenly against ad/content blockers and the built-in tracking protection that Firefox/Safari have? No, but the point is that it's a bit more nuanced than your original post suggests. Users should have the control over how a page is displayed to them. I want to tell my browser to block ads, and which ads to block. I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want, or to not selectively block ads based on an agreement it may or may not have with advertisers. >Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent? It is the user's agent, and as the user, I want the control. I want to make the decisions.
    - aeturnum 5y ago
      > I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want This is a very reasonable desire, but Brave also seems clear that their service does something different. Where other tools focus on blocking ads, Brave is more about their hybrid blocking of 'bad' ads (whatever that means) and replacing those ads with theirs. Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how their service works or that the entire idea of a tool that blocks some subset of ads that the user cannot configure and replaces them is fundamentally unethical?
      - Closi 5y ago
        > Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how their service works or that the entire idea of a tool that blocks some subset of ads that the user cannot configure and replaces them is fundamentally unethical? My personal issue is that Brave is an advertising company which is blocking competitor ads where content-creators are getting paid (the company which the content-creators chose to partner with), and replacing them with ads of their own (regardless of the format of them). It's a great business model - but IMO it's just stealing or subverting ad revenue from the people who actually generate the content you are reading and maintain the infrastructure. Hate ads? Get Firefox and block them. Don't mind ads and are happy for the revenue to go to the content creator? Get Firefox, it blocks most tracking anyway. Don't mind ads but hate the idea that the revenue will go to the content creator, and you would rather give it to some random shady company that might give you a cut of their subverted/stolen revenue in crypto? Get Brave!
jjulius 5y ago
>I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent. That's... exactly what I want.
- barnabee 5y ago
  Reader mode proves that "exatly as sent" is the opposite of what I want. I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.). I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or musician I probably want to see what you designed, that's about it). Reader mode probably makes it 50% but is not designed for any kind of interactivity so I still have to use horrible booking pages, shopping sites, etc. I'd love my bropwser to extract the ueful and completely standardise the UI every time.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    I actually largely agree with you. I should clarify my original comment a bit, I think. I want my browser to display the page exactly as sent until I tell it not to. It should be serving pages to me as-is, and things such as ad/content blockers, and reader mode, should be my choices. I don't want the browser making those decisions for me ahead of time and without my input.
    - barnabee 5y ago
      This is fair, or at least, if they do make those choices ahead of time they should be well publicised and configurable, or it should be a specialised, single purpose browser. To that extent, I think if Brave is open and honest and says "we're a browser that reformats pages in this way" that is ok. It's sneaky shit, dark patterns, bundling things you want with things you might not, etc. that make me distrusting of them.
  - zormino 5y ago
    I think it's one thing to strip out content or ads, but an entirely different beast to replace ads with your own. There are arguments for blocking ads, both ethical and security based. But replacing the ads with your own is basically the same as stealing the content for your own profit. Brave is a shitty company with no moral leg to stand on.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
... I don't know how to approach that statement. You prefer arbitrary invisible changes by actors unknown? Or is it a part of some elaborate Phillip-K-Dick art project about unreliable narrator and "what is truth anyway"? If Bob sends me a letter, I expect Postal Service to deliver it to me exactly as sent. If Bob sends me an email I expect email service to deliver it to me as sent. If Bob sends me a webpage I expect it to be delivered as sent. We can discuss changes & preferences on presentation layer, but invisible, uncontrollable substitution of content, I have no idea how they're either justifiable or desirable. I am likely not interpreting your comment correctly. Perhaps if you elaborate it may become clearer.

aeturnum 5y ago

I don't understand why Brave Rewards needs to be enabled, but it seems very normal for the company operating a service to require some kind of account or membership. If you don't trust Brave this is probably not the service for you.

kf6nux 5y ago
It's even more mundane than that. They just require you to allow their ads during your call. It's privacy preserving ad tech in exchange for 1:1 video calls. That's way better than sites requiring you to allow 3rd party ads to use their site. EDIT: I just saw they let you set your ads to "0 per hour" and still let you use this service. I wonder if that's an oversight.
- BrendanEich 5y ago
  No, it's intended that a rewards user can turn off ads. Some users who turn off ads then self-fund (via a custodian such as Gemini) to support their favorite sites and creators, even automatically via private browser-only analytics (so-called Auto-contribute mode).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tsumnia 5y ago
Here is their Reddit response: https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/ptbf7e/brave_talk_is_here_private_video_conferencing/hdvi7ip/ https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/ptbf7e/brave... In a nutshell, enabling Rewards is their incentive for giving the product away for free, otherwise they charge via Premium.

KarlKemp 5y ago

They are the self-proclaimed “brave” company. Which is enough reason to avoid them.

tibyat 5y ago

Where is your quote from? I cmd-f'd for "Rewards" and it doesn't turn up anywhere. Maybe the page has been edited? Also, your same accusations are made in every single HN post involving Brave. If you would develop the discussion and actually bring forth a new idea, maybe by acknowledging the company's response to your claims and responding to that, rather than parroting the same thing over and over again, our discussion here would be more fresh and useful. If you insist on rehashing the same argument, maybe you could at least bring your sources along each time as well. Hey, just an idea from a guy tired of reading that Brave is hitler and DDG is just Bing, over and over and over. Here is one article from them on the subject of referral codes: https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/