3 ms·

This is nothing new, Brave has basically been a malware since launch. If I remember correctly their first scandal was them injecting their own referral link du

This is nothing new, Brave has basically been a malware since launch. If I remember correctly their first scandal was them injecting their own referral link during signups on cryptocurrency platforms. I just can't understand why some people, especially some people on HackerNews, keep using it. Of you think Google is bad, Brave is the antichrist.

LeoPanthera 2y ago
Their whole business model of "block ads, and then show our own" is just so gross. I'm shocked anyone was ever happy to support it.
- ein0p 2y ago
  You can just block ads and not show any ads at all, the way Internet should be. All the crypto bullshit is trivially disabled. Your other major choices are basically Firefox (which is not to everyone's liking either) and Chrome, in which it'll soon be impossible to block ads at all.
- XxCincinnatusxX 2y ago
  They have to make money somehow. They're pretty upfront about the way it works. They just used a different idea than that of Google. You can also opt out of tailored ads. People like it because it's fast with a built-in ad blocker and some like the crypto stuff and the fact you can connect to Tor with it
- talldayo 2y ago
  It's surprising how much of the educated tech workforce subscribes to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. Software has come such a long way to reach the point where you don't need to buy a compiler or textbook on learning C to be a developer. It's entirely lost on a generation of people that feel like the internet can be "fixed" with microtransactions and "healthy" advertisements. Brave itself is such a maelstrom of offensive ideas that I really am really surprised they didn't get sued into the ground after the Tom Scott incident. The people that still use Brave better know how to set their useragent - this sort of blocking won't go away anytime soon.
  - cykros 2y ago
    Most judges aren't really all that interested in hearing cases because someone was offended. Usually there need to be damages, or laws broken. Turns out the world isn't bsky.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
jsheard 2y ago
> If I remember correctly their first scandal was them injecting their own referral link during signups on cryptocurrency platforms. Before that they were soliciting crypto donations on behalf of creators without their knowledge or consent. https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.com/tomscott/status/1076160979388518407 https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.c...
RodgerTheGreat 2y ago
And as insult to injury, since it's based on the Chromium codebase, using Brave still supports Chrome's creep toward total browser monoculture, much like Edge.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
immibis 2y ago
Maybe they don't think injecting referral links is bad behaviour. It doesn't hurt anyone's experience, and often gives a financial bonus to both parties in exchange for creating a database record that doesn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know from the User-Agent string or fingerprinting. "The content you see on a site may not be the content being sent" is a low-effort excuse, too: plenty of users don't want to see plenty of things that site owners want them to see, and use browsers that display what they want to see.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
Yikes. Thank god Eich never got a chance to poison Firefox with this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- gpvos 2y ago
  Why would you think he'd do that? That is a rather strong insinuation.
  - sumeno 2y ago
    He did it with Brave, why wouldn't he have done it with Firefox if given the chance? Acting like it's a weird logical jump that someone who did something bad would have also done the same bad thing if circumstances were slightly different is bizarre
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    Eich founded Brave, which is doing this.
    - gpvos 2y ago
      Ah thanks, missed that.
chasil 2y ago
As I understand it, Brave added a "donate to lobste.rs" link when viewed in their browser, and then kept all the money. If you are using Brave, confirm any donation (and maybe anything else involving money) in another browser.
- BrendanEich 2y ago
  "As I understand it" is not true, but I'm curious whether you heard it from a Lobste.rs principal, or just some echo chamber spinning stories against us. All the tokens in that late 2018 came from our user growth pool — we never misappropriate any user-bought BAT.
  - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
    Just to be clear, are you saying that 100% of every BAT token that was pooled for a site has been distributed to the intended site? Or are you saying that only 100% of every BAT token that was purchased directly by an end user has been distributed to the intended site? Is there a page somewhere with the information on the tokens for each site and their payouts status?
    - BrendanEich 2y ago
      At that time we had no way for users to buy BAT they sent — it was all from our grant pool. In any event, a creator might not sign or could fail to collect, so those grants came back to us after a 90 day timeout if I recall correctly.
    - BrendanEich 2y ago
      > Is there a page https://bravebat.info/ https://bravebat.info/
mary-ext 2y ago
The only browsers with actually good adblocking on Android are Firefox (uBlock) and Brave (on par with uBlock.) Firefox is plain unusable on Android if you don't use an upper-range device. Nothing else comes close, either they're out of date (Kiwi) or they're using Chrome's built-in ad blocking support (Vivaldi). Microsoft Edge has eyeo's native ABP port but there's no customizability.
- JeDaYoshi 2y ago
  > Firefox is plain unusable on Android if you don't use an upper-range device. Interesting one - I generally found it to be the other way for me. Chrome was sluggish on my older phone, but Firefox was faster.
  - rstuart4133 2y ago
    I'd say just plain wrong. My preferred browser on Android is Firefox, but I use Chrome too. It's a three year old $300 phone. Firefox runs much faster Chrome, but I suspect that's only because it has ad blockers.
    - mary-ext 2y ago
      that's never been my experience. my Snapdragon 662 phone has never been able to juggle more than one tabs on Firefox without it OOM'ing, while I could on Chromium-based browsers.
rcxdude 2y ago
I mean, the core thing they do has pissed people off: they're yet another attempt at an alternate monetization strategy for the web, but their approach do doing so is to basically forcibly insert themselves into the existing ways that websites and creators get paid, while not telling the users that the money they're collecting on their behalf might not actually be going to that site/creator (because the site isn't actually interested in having a business relationship with Brave, or they are but are still unable to get the money out)

LeoPanthera 2y ago

Their whole business model of "block ads, and then show our own" is just so gross. I'm shocked anyone was ever happy to support it.

ein0p 2y ago
You can just block ads and not show any ads at all, the way Internet should be. All the crypto bullshit is trivially disabled. Your other major choices are basically Firefox (which is not to everyone's liking either) and Chrome, in which it'll soon be impossible to block ads at all.
XxCincinnatusxX 2y ago
They have to make money somehow. They're pretty upfront about the way it works. They just used a different idea than that of Google. You can also opt out of tailored ads. People like it because it's fast with a built-in ad blocker and some like the crypto stuff and the fact you can connect to Tor with it
talldayo 2y ago
It's surprising how much of the educated tech workforce subscribes to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. Software has come such a long way to reach the point where you don't need to buy a compiler or textbook on learning C to be a developer. It's entirely lost on a generation of people that feel like the internet can be "fixed" with microtransactions and "healthy" advertisements. Brave itself is such a maelstrom of offensive ideas that I really am really surprised they didn't get sued into the ground after the Tom Scott incident. The people that still use Brave better know how to set their useragent - this sort of blocking won't go away anytime soon.
- cykros 2y ago
  Most judges aren't really all that interested in hearing cases because someone was offended. Usually there need to be damages, or laws broken. Turns out the world isn't bsky.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

jsheard 2y ago

> If I remember correctly their first scandal was them injecting their own referral link during signups on cryptocurrency platforms. Before that they were soliciting crypto donations on behalf of creators without their knowledge or consent. https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.com/tomscott/status/1076160979388518407 https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.c...

RodgerTheGreat 2y ago

And as insult to injury, since it's based on the Chromium codebase, using Brave still supports Chrome's creep toward total browser monoculture, much like Edge.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

immibis 2y ago

Maybe they don't think injecting referral links is bad behaviour. It doesn't hurt anyone's experience, and often gives a financial bonus to both parties in exchange for creating a database record that doesn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know from the User-Agent string or fingerprinting. "The content you see on a site may not be the content being sent" is a low-effort excuse, too: plenty of users don't want to see plenty of things that site owners want them to see, and use browsers that display what they want to see.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

Yikes. Thank god Eich never got a chance to poison Firefox with this.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gpvos 2y ago
Why would you think he'd do that? That is a rather strong insinuation.
- sumeno 2y ago
  He did it with Brave, why wouldn't he have done it with Firefox if given the chance? Acting like it's a weird logical jump that someone who did something bad would have also done the same bad thing if circumstances were slightly different is bizarre
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  Eich founded Brave, which is doing this.
  - gpvos 2y ago
    Ah thanks, missed that.

chasil 2y ago

As I understand it, Brave added a "donate to lobste.rs" link when viewed in their browser, and then kept all the money. If you are using Brave, confirm any donation (and maybe anything else involving money) in another browser.

BrendanEich 2y ago
"As I understand it" is not true, but I'm curious whether you heard it from a Lobste.rs principal, or just some echo chamber spinning stories against us. All the tokens in that late 2018 came from our user growth pool — we never misappropriate any user-bought BAT.
- unsnap_biceps 2y ago
  Just to be clear, are you saying that 100% of every BAT token that was pooled for a site has been distributed to the intended site? Or are you saying that only 100% of every BAT token that was purchased directly by an end user has been distributed to the intended site? Is there a page somewhere with the information on the tokens for each site and their payouts status?
  - BrendanEich 2y ago
    At that time we had no way for users to buy BAT they sent — it was all from our grant pool. In any event, a creator might not sign or could fail to collect, so those grants came back to us after a 90 day timeout if I recall correctly.
  - BrendanEich 2y ago
    > Is there a page https://bravebat.info/ https://bravebat.info/

mary-ext 2y ago

The only browsers with actually good adblocking on Android are Firefox (uBlock) and Brave (on par with uBlock.) Firefox is plain unusable on Android if you don't use an upper-range device. Nothing else comes close, either they're out of date (Kiwi) or they're using Chrome's built-in ad blocking support (Vivaldi). Microsoft Edge has eyeo's native ABP port but there's no customizability.

JeDaYoshi 2y ago
> Firefox is plain unusable on Android if you don't use an upper-range device. Interesting one - I generally found it to be the other way for me. Chrome was sluggish on my older phone, but Firefox was faster.
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  I'd say just plain wrong. My preferred browser on Android is Firefox, but I use Chrome too. It's a three year old $300 phone. Firefox runs much faster Chrome, but I suspect that's only because it has ad blockers.
  - mary-ext 2y ago
    that's never been my experience. my Snapdragon 662 phone has never been able to juggle more than one tabs on Firefox without it OOM'ing, while I could on Chromium-based browsers.

rcxdude 2y ago

I mean, the core thing they do has pissed people off: they're yet another attempt at an alternate monetization strategy for the web, but their approach do doing so is to basically forcibly insert themselves into the existing ways that websites and creators get paid, while not telling the users that the money they're collecting on their behalf might not actually be going to that site/creator (because the site isn't actually interested in having a business relationship with Brave, or they are but are still unable to get the money out)