3 ms·
> you have to make sure that important functionality doesn't break when it's applied. This feels unnecessarily conservative for a browser trying to achieve lit
by morelisp 4y ago
> you have to make sure that important functionality doesn't break when it's applied.
This feels unnecessarily conservative for a browser trying to achieve literally any market share; nobody's got only Brave installed and those who have it at all are those most likely to understand if a site is broken because of its blocking measures.
If Brave isn't going to be the one to push privacy features over compatibility, who is? I mean, you didn't name it "Caution".
- antonok 4y agoWe generally try to expose these kinds of things for the more technical users who are interested in finding them - again, the cookie list has been available in brave://adblock for years now, we have "aggressive" blocking mode, "strict" fingerprinting protection mode, etc. But ultimately we want to change the standards of privacy on the web for everyone, not just those who can tolerate frequent breakage (or those who will switch to a less private browser when something isn't working). Honestly, building any browser software that relies on filter lists takes some appetite for risk. By definition, the lists are reactive and so there's always going to be a gap in compatibility in sites which have updated recently enough.