5 ms·

In what way did it "seem to be by mistake"? Brendan Eich is literally the guy who normalized letting websites run code on your machine. Even if we generously a

In what way did it "seem to be by mistake"? Brendan Eich is literally the guy who normalized letting websites run code on your machine. Even if we generously assume his intentions are good, the kind of thinking that brought us JavaScript is not even capable of grokking what I want from my browser in terms of privacy, security, and respect for my attention. Even if Brave's commitments to these values is genuine and not just marketing, they simply don't know what those values mean. Even if you trust their intentions, you can't trust their execution. They started, right off the bat, by getting in bed with advertisers. That's their revenue stream. That's not how you fund a browser that serves users, that's how you fund a browser that serves advertisers. Even if their intentions are good, they don't know how to execute them. "Mistakes" like injecting redirects into links are exactly what I'd expect Brave to do intentionally, not something I'd assume is a mistake.

MrOwnPut 4y ago
All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. And if you don't want the JS that Eich created to run in your browser, you can turn it off... most people like to run sandboxed code instead of installing native programs. Mozilla makes most of their money from Google Search referrals. Chrome was entirely built to put more eyeballs on Google ads and track you. There's a lot more privacy features built into Brave than there are in other browsers. It's user oriented, not adtech oriented. Of Brave, Chrome, and Firefox, who has the built in ad blocker?
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. That's a pretty confidently wrong statement. You're aware of Wikipedia, right? More directly relevant: Konqueror? And as is typical of HN, you seem to be unaware that people might be motivated by things other than money. Browsers are a large enough undertaking that you need some money to make one sustainably, but when money isn't your primary motivation it turns out you can do quite a bit with less. > There's a lot more privacy features built into Brave than there are in other browsers. It's user oriented, not adtech oriented. Brave is literally adtech. They sell ads.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    You got pedantic instead of replying to my overall point. To take a step back, which browser do you use? Did it come with an ad blocker? Do you apply these same standards to all browsers and fiercely challenge them like Brave, let's say... Firefox?
    - kerkeslager 4y ago
      I'm challenging the claim that Brave is somehow better, when in fact it's a step back. > Do you apply these same standards to all browsers and fiercely challenge them like Brave, let's say... Firefox? Firefox doesn't claim that they're trying to address the problem of ads on the internet, so no, I don't challenge Firefox's false claims. See how that works?
      - soundnote 4y ago
        https://imgur.com/a/p4CVBHb https://imgur.com/a/p4CVBHb "Power and privacy to the people. No need to dig into your security settings. Fierce privacy is our default." - Firefox on a recent update. You know, a browser that defaults to Google search and having search suggestions on. I know I'd have a couple privacy settings to change.
- account42 4y ago
  > All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. I don't want my browser to be a "product". If we didn't have people pushing for exponentially increasing complexity because they want the web to be an app platform then we could have browsers developed by individuals or groups in their free time. But even if you insist on full time developers, there are alternative funding methods. Donations & grants being the most appropriate for something that benefits the general public. > And if you don't want the JS that Eich created to run in your browser, you can turn it off... most people like to run sandboxed code instead of installing native programs. The problem isn't being able to run sandboxed programs vs. native programs, the problem is that things that are supposed to be documents can run "sandboxed" programs where the sandbox is leaky and getting more leaks addded because perfect sandboxing is not what you want for applications that are supposed to be usable and therefore need to interact with the outside world. Pointing at other browsers and pretending that them being ad-funded and/or also doing bad things makes any thing Brave does better is ridiculous.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  If the EU was interested in privacy instead of violating privacy (privacy can be the "right to be left alone", e.g. not be harassed by door-to-door salespeople, cookie popups, etc.) it would have either fully funded Firefox or forked Firefox and fully funded it a long time ago.
mthoms 4y ago
>Brendan Eich is literally the guy who normalized letting websites run code on your machine. Even if we generously assume his intentions are good, the kind of thinking that brought us JavaScript is not even capable of grokking what I want from my browser in terms of privacy, security, and respect for my attention. Unbelievable. Now we're to be angry at (or at least, suspicious of) Eich for inventing Javascript? Because... it can used for evil? Is that really a path we should be going down? Is Tim Berners-Lee next? Come on. >They started, right off the bat, by getting in bed with advertisers. That's their revenue stream. That's not how you fund a browser that serves users, that's how you fund a browser that serves advertisers. This is similarly disingenuous. They started trying to solve the problem of facilitating an advertising model that respects privacy and rewarding creators (users) with revenue in the form of BAT tokens. Say what you want about the execution, or the idea in general — but it's a noble goal. I'm no fan of Eich's politics but your overall framing here is grossly misleading.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > Unbelievable. Now we're to be angry at (or at least, suspicious of) Eich for inventing Javascript? Because... it can used for evil? Is that really a path we should be going down? Is Tim Berners-Lee next? Come on. There is literally no good case for JavaScript. It's literally malware: code that runs on your machine without your explicitly installing it and does things that serves the website, not the user. The fact that it's in a sandbox to limit the harm it can cause is nice, but it doesn't really solve the fundamental problem. Formats such as social media profiles, recipes, etc., would have been better served as document formats separate from or included in HTML. More complex things like Google Maps could have been done as native apps--and still are, because the web app simply can't provide the same level of experience as a native app. > They started trying to solve the problem of facilitating an advertising model that respects privacy and rewarding creators (users) with revenue in the form of BAT tokens. If I want to reward a creator I can pay them without a middle man: BAT complicates that rather than simplifying it. Advertising is a social harm. An advertising model that respects privacy, still disrespects attention, bandwidth, power usage, etc. It should be clear that content creators aren't browser's target users, but since you brought it up: advertising generally creates a race to the bottom which incentivizes low-quality, low-effort content creation which creates a filtering problem: now it's hard to find the high-quality content amid the half-assed AI-generated nonsense. Publications which are high enough quality to be paid for, such as the NYT, have obviously been harmed by ad-based business models becoming the norm. > Say what you want about the execution, or the idea in general — but it's a noble goal. Their goal is to make money, and they've set it up so that their goal of making money is dependent on pleasing advertisers, not users. The noble goals you're claiming simply are not true.
BrendanEich 4y ago
JS wasn't alone in the '90s, MS did VBScript in response. This genie was not going back in the bottle, even ignore Java, ActiveX, etc. Brave private ads system is off by default. Users enable it voluntarily and get 70% of the gross without any data on our servers. Ad matching is done via a pushed ad catalog and local-to-browser machines learning. Impression counting for revshare payments uses a Chaumian blind signature protocol (same crypto as Privacy Pass). If I cold-read your comment here, I get the impression you think Brave's ads are on by default, or you want to leave that impression on readers. It's false. We also do not inject ads into pages. The opt-in private ads go in your ad slots (notifications, new tab pages), not in any publisher slots. Your last paragraph (a few other HN regulars do this too) uses dishonest language: "links" mean hyperlinks in pages, and we never added any affiliate code to those. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088549

MrOwnPut 4y ago

All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. And if you don't want the JS that Eich created to run in your browser, you can turn it off... most people like to run sandboxed code instead of installing native programs. Mozilla makes most of their money from Google Search referrals. Chrome was entirely built to put more eyeballs on Google ads and track you. There's a lot more privacy features built into Brave than there are in other browsers. It's user oriented, not adtech oriented. Of Brave, Chrome, and Firefox, who has the built in ad blocker?

kerkeslager 4y ago
> All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. That's a pretty confidently wrong statement. You're aware of Wikipedia, right? More directly relevant: Konqueror? And as is typical of HN, you seem to be unaware that people might be motivated by things other than money. Browsers are a large enough undertaking that you need some money to make one sustainably, but when money isn't your primary motivation it turns out you can do quite a bit with less. > There's a lot more privacy features built into Brave than there are in other browsers. It's user oriented, not adtech oriented. Brave is literally adtech. They sell ads.
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  You got pedantic instead of replying to my overall point. To take a step back, which browser do you use? Did it come with an ad blocker? Do you apply these same standards to all browsers and fiercely challenge them like Brave, let's say... Firefox?
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    I'm challenging the claim that Brave is somehow better, when in fact it's a step back. > Do you apply these same standards to all browsers and fiercely challenge them like Brave, let's say... Firefox? Firefox doesn't claim that they're trying to address the problem of ads on the internet, so no, I don't challenge Firefox's false claims. See how that works?
    - soundnote 4y ago
      https://imgur.com/a/p4CVBHb https://imgur.com/a/p4CVBHb "Power and privacy to the people. No need to dig into your security settings. Fierce privacy is our default." - Firefox on a recent update. You know, a browser that defaults to Google search and having search suggestions on. I know I'd have a couple privacy settings to change.
account42 4y ago
> All browsers deal in advertising, it's the only way to make money on a free product. I don't want my browser to be a "product". If we didn't have people pushing for exponentially increasing complexity because they want the web to be an app platform then we could have browsers developed by individuals or groups in their free time. But even if you insist on full time developers, there are alternative funding methods. Donations & grants being the most appropriate for something that benefits the general public. > And if you don't want the JS that Eich created to run in your browser, you can turn it off... most people like to run sandboxed code instead of installing native programs. The problem isn't being able to run sandboxed programs vs. native programs, the problem is that things that are supposed to be documents can run "sandboxed" programs where the sandbox is leaky and getting more leaks addded because perfect sandboxing is not what you want for applications that are supposed to be usable and therefore need to interact with the outside world. Pointing at other browsers and pretending that them being ad-funded and/or also doing bad things makes any thing Brave does better is ridiculous.
PaulHoule 4y ago
If the EU was interested in privacy instead of violating privacy (privacy can be the "right to be left alone", e.g. not be harassed by door-to-door salespeople, cookie popups, etc.) it would have either fully funded Firefox or forked Firefox and fully funded it a long time ago.

mthoms 4y ago

>Brendan Eich is literally the guy who normalized letting websites run code on your machine. Even if we generously assume his intentions are good, the kind of thinking that brought us JavaScript is not even capable of grokking what I want from my browser in terms of privacy, security, and respect for my attention. Unbelievable. Now we're to be angry at (or at least, suspicious of) Eich for inventing Javascript? Because... it can used for evil? Is that really a path we should be going down? Is Tim Berners-Lee next? Come on. >They started, right off the bat, by getting in bed with advertisers. That's their revenue stream. That's not how you fund a browser that serves users, that's how you fund a browser that serves advertisers. This is similarly disingenuous. They started trying to solve the problem of facilitating an advertising model that respects privacy and rewarding creators (users) with revenue in the form of BAT tokens. Say what you want about the execution, or the idea in general — but it's a noble goal. I'm no fan of Eich's politics but your overall framing here is grossly misleading.

kerkeslager 4y ago
> Unbelievable. Now we're to be angry at (or at least, suspicious of) Eich for inventing Javascript? Because... it can used for evil? Is that really a path we should be going down? Is Tim Berners-Lee next? Come on. There is literally no good case for JavaScript. It's literally malware: code that runs on your machine without your explicitly installing it and does things that serves the website, not the user. The fact that it's in a sandbox to limit the harm it can cause is nice, but it doesn't really solve the fundamental problem. Formats such as social media profiles, recipes, etc., would have been better served as document formats separate from or included in HTML. More complex things like Google Maps could have been done as native apps--and still are, because the web app simply can't provide the same level of experience as a native app. > They started trying to solve the problem of facilitating an advertising model that respects privacy and rewarding creators (users) with revenue in the form of BAT tokens. If I want to reward a creator I can pay them without a middle man: BAT complicates that rather than simplifying it. Advertising is a social harm. An advertising model that respects privacy, still disrespects attention, bandwidth, power usage, etc. It should be clear that content creators aren't browser's target users, but since you brought it up: advertising generally creates a race to the bottom which incentivizes low-quality, low-effort content creation which creates a filtering problem: now it's hard to find the high-quality content amid the half-assed AI-generated nonsense. Publications which are high enough quality to be paid for, such as the NYT, have obviously been harmed by ad-based business models becoming the norm. > Say what you want about the execution, or the idea in general — but it's a noble goal. Their goal is to make money, and they've set it up so that their goal of making money is dependent on pleasing advertisers, not users. The noble goals you're claiming simply are not true.

BrendanEich 4y ago

JS wasn't alone in the '90s, MS did VBScript in response. This genie was not going back in the bottle, even ignore Java, ActiveX, etc. Brave private ads system is off by default. Users enable it voluntarily and get 70% of the gross without any data on our servers. Ad matching is done via a pushed ad catalog and local-to-browser machines learning. Impression counting for revshare payments uses a Chaumian blind signature protocol (same crypto as Privacy Pass). If I cold-read your comment here, I get the impression you think Brave's ads are on by default, or you want to leave that impression on readers. It's false. We also do not inject ads into pages. The opt-in private ads go in your ad slots (notifications, new tab pages), not in any publisher slots. Your last paragraph (a few other HN regulars do this too) uses dishonest language: "links" mean hyperlinks in pages, and we never added any affiliate code to those. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088549