3 ms·

>Brave also collects your data and sells it back to advertisers but they'll give you their fake coins to do it. I was reading this page earlier today. https://

>Brave also collects your data and sells it back to advertisers but they'll give you their fake coins to do it. I was reading this page earlier today. https://www.unixsheikh.com/articles/choose-your-browser-carefully.html#brave https://www.unixsheikh.com/articles/choose-your-browser-care... The criticism against brave seems pretty hollow without really any remaining criticism. Brave does have this: https://brave.com/privacy/browser/ https://brave.com/privacy/browser/ Would be interesting to see a link showing Brave collecting data. My understanding is that they don't collect data. I must admit I am rather ignorant about the fake coins. >Let's also not forget Brendan Eich is anti-gay marriage. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536 ~2014. I am curious if his opinion has changed. Sometimes you find yourself on the wrong side of history and re-evaluate positions such as these. Given your link is getting old... maybe he has? If his opinion hasn't changed, I wonder if this political/religious stance really affects my decision of browser? I suspect it doesn't. People are allowed to have political opinions. >He is also a COVID conspiracy theorist. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/22/business/brave-brendan-ei https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/22/business/brave-brendan-ei... I suppose this is more recent. The problem here is that how many 'conspiracy theories' are now not conspiracy theories. https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1339367981084672000 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1339367981084672000 I suppose in dec 2020 Fauci had admitted that he lied about masks being ineffective. Overall though I really didnt see the content in this nytimes article to justify the title. I suppose the bigger question for me, does this dude matter at all? Let's say he's literal reincarnation of hitler. Does that really change the browser? Flipside, this guy's wiki page says he invented Javascript. Clearly he is hitler.

soundnote 5y ago
> If his opinion hasn't changed, I wonder if this political/religious stance really affects my decision of browser? I suspect it doesn't. People are allowed to have political opinions. One of the main reasons I use Brave is because it doesn't do politics. Eich may think whatever the fuck he wants, his team the same. But they seem very focused on building a privacy-respecting browser and standalone Internet services. The team at Vivaldi definitely has people who disagree with Eich. I like them too, why? Because they keep browser-making and their politics separate, and "politics" in their context mostly translates to user control and privacy, as it does at Brave. Both teams understand that they're there to make a tool, and that's it. Mozilla is just the reverse: It's about activism first, a browser second. And their "rebellion" is a $400 million Google dollar one. I know one thing: When I see a privacy-friendly organization saying we need more than deplatforming and to tweak feeds to suit political agendas, I bail.
- sleepingadmin 5y ago
  >One of the main reasons I use Brave is because it doesn't do politics. Eich may think whatever the fuck he wants, his team the same. But they seem very focused on building a privacy-respecting browser and standalone Internet services. So in your opinion, Mozilla's CEO shouldn't be saying we need to do more than deplatform politicians? I suppose she was unclear in what more that was exactly? >The team at Vivaldi definitely has people who disagree with Eich. I like them too, why? Because they keep browser-making and their politics separate, and "politics" in their context mostly translates to user control and privacy, as it does at Brave. Both teams understand that they're there to make a tool, and that's it. Yes, I have vivaldi over on my pinebook pro. I haven't really done much yet with it. excited to check it out. >Mozilla is just the reverse: It's about activism first, a browser second. And their "rebellion" is a $400 million Google dollar one. Their budget is what 90% from google? That money has attachments im sure. Hence probably why they have trashed firefox so badly. >I know one thing: When I see a privacy-friendly organization saying we need more than deplatforming and to tweak feeds to suit political agendas, I bail. Yes, it's clear firefox deserves their 7% market share and dropping. I wouldn't recommend firefox to anyone.
  - soundnote 5y ago
    > So in your opinion, Mozilla's CEO shouldn't be saying we need to do more than deplatform politicians? I suppose she was unclear in what more that was exactly? Mozilla was actually reasonably clear. Some of it was stuff that might in principle be okay (more transparency on who funds what, which on one hand is good for highlighting certain kinds of corruption but on another can open people up for witch hunts in this fucked up social atmosphere we live in nowadays), but they explicitly praised Facebook altering its feed to prioritize sources Mozilla liked over ones it doesn't - namely the legacy prestige media who are ideological liars the same as anyone else. They might've been less so back in the day, but in the current business model and post TDS, nope.

soundnote 5y ago

> If his opinion hasn't changed, I wonder if this political/religious stance really affects my decision of browser? I suspect it doesn't. People are allowed to have political opinions. One of the main reasons I use Brave is because it doesn't do politics. Eich may think whatever the fuck he wants, his team the same. But they seem very focused on building a privacy-respecting browser and standalone Internet services. The team at Vivaldi definitely has people who disagree with Eich. I like them too, why? Because they keep browser-making and their politics separate, and "politics" in their context mostly translates to user control and privacy, as it does at Brave. Both teams understand that they're there to make a tool, and that's it. Mozilla is just the reverse: It's about activism first, a browser second. And their "rebellion" is a $400 million Google dollar one. I know one thing: When I see a privacy-friendly organization saying we need more than deplatforming and to tweak feeds to suit political agendas, I bail.

sleepingadmin 5y ago
>One of the main reasons I use Brave is because it doesn't do politics. Eich may think whatever the fuck he wants, his team the same. But they seem very focused on building a privacy-respecting browser and standalone Internet services. So in your opinion, Mozilla's CEO shouldn't be saying we need to do more than deplatform politicians? I suppose she was unclear in what more that was exactly? >The team at Vivaldi definitely has people who disagree with Eich. I like them too, why? Because they keep browser-making and their politics separate, and "politics" in their context mostly translates to user control and privacy, as it does at Brave. Both teams understand that they're there to make a tool, and that's it. Yes, I have vivaldi over on my pinebook pro. I haven't really done much yet with it. excited to check it out. >Mozilla is just the reverse: It's about activism first, a browser second. And their "rebellion" is a $400 million Google dollar one. Their budget is what 90% from google? That money has attachments im sure. Hence probably why they have trashed firefox so badly. >I know one thing: When I see a privacy-friendly organization saying we need more than deplatforming and to tweak feeds to suit political agendas, I bail. Yes, it's clear firefox deserves their 7% market share and dropping. I wouldn't recommend firefox to anyone.
- soundnote 5y ago
  > So in your opinion, Mozilla's CEO shouldn't be saying we need to do more than deplatform politicians? I suppose she was unclear in what more that was exactly? Mozilla was actually reasonably clear. Some of it was stuff that might in principle be okay (more transparency on who funds what, which on one hand is good for highlighting certain kinds of corruption but on another can open people up for witch hunts in this fucked up social atmosphere we live in nowadays), but they explicitly praised Facebook altering its feed to prioritize sources Mozilla liked over ones it doesn't - namely the legacy prestige media who are ideological liars the same as anyone else. They might've been less so back in the day, but in the current business model and post TDS, nope.