4 ms·
So the argument is: 1. The guy who started Brave has political opinions and has financially backed them. 2. He built a browser that blocked ads and then tried t
by Itinerant662 3y ago
So the argument is:
1. The guy who started Brave has political opinions and has financially backed them.
2. He built a browser that blocked ads and then tried to monetize that.
3. His monetization scheme doesn't make much money for anybody but the company and makes it difficult for others to monetize.
4. The browser tried to increase revenue by steering users to affiliates (but did a poor job of it).
So to sum up, Brave is doing the same thing as Google except that they never figured out how to effectively serve ads to users, so they actually protect users from ads.
Stop using Brave browser. Seriously.
- eesmith 3y agoI disagree with your characterization of #2 and #4. The author describes Brave's "marketing as a privacy-preserving web browser." This is not the same as "blocked ads". The author even wrote "From the start, Brave Software had a different idea than just blocking ads outright." If it is supposed to be a privacy-preserving web browser, then #4 should not have happened. If the developers can't tell that a new feature like that will destroy privacy, then how do you trust Brave to recognize privacy-breaking capabilities elsewhere? If it is not developing a privacy-preserving web browser then what is the goal of the company? It comes acrosss like a Google wannabe with an odd fascination with cryptocurrency. To sum up: "If you want a privacy-focused web browser, use Firefox or Vivaldi. If you want to support your favorite content creators and publishers, turn on advertisements or support them through the methods they already support (Patreon, Ko-Fi, and so on)." OTOH, if you like cryptocurrency, or want to send your ad dollars to company other than Google, then it sounds like Brave is appropriate.