8 ms·

Brave has certainly said a lot of good things while doing quite [0] a lot [1] of bad [2] things [3] that make me think it's mostly just marketing to lower-knowl

by paimapi 2mo ago

Brave has certainly said a lot of good things while doing quite [0] a lot [1] of bad [2] things [3] that make me think it's mostly just marketing to lower-knowledge users that's carrying it forward. I see so many 'privacy' influencers that recommend it and Chromium, and then Firefox with no mention of FOSS options like LibreWolf, Tor Browser, IronFox, etc [0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790 [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-for-autocompleting-urls-to-versions-it-profits-from/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-f... [2] https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-windows/ https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-wi... [3] https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-selling-copyrighted-data-for-ai-training https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-sell...

gr_norm 2mo ago
Yep, I don't trust Brave. A web browser holds so much power over your digital life that it cannot be entrusted to a company that consistently and egregiously compromises its ethics for profit. Most of these examples border on scam behaviour... par for the course for the cryptocurrency space! For all their faults, Mozilla has never done anything that holds a candle to the kinds of stunts Brave keeps pulling.
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  Which is even more noteworthy because Brave is led by an ex-CEO and influential top exec of Mozilla's. I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    He was kicked out of Mozilla for being homophobic. No joke.
    - travoc 2mo ago
      Wrong and defamatory. Ouch for your wallet.
    - paimapi 2mo ago
      more specifically, it was for donating to homophobic political groups trying to pass Prop 8 which made gay marriage illegal in California [0] the measure passed by 5% [1] - people were fairly incensed that Mozilla Foundation money (paid to him via his salary) might go to future donations of the same kind I'm sure people will say things about 'well of course he's legally free to do as he wants with this money' but then so too is the desire by employees to not want to be working under someone who has done something ideologically abhorrent to them. and given the multiple controversies that crop up about Brave seemingly every year where they push some combination of crypto, browser AI, etc, it's probably for the best [0] https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich-steps-down-twitter-campaign.html https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
      - jimmygrapes 2mo ago
        And yet the democratic process was subverted by the measure being overruled. Moot point.
        HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
        That's actually incorrect. Democracy doesn't mean allowing mob rule (or manufactured "consent") to trample fundamental human rights.
        throw101010 2mo ago
        The judicial branch is part of the US democracy, this was not subversion of the democratic process. Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).
iinnPP 2mo ago
All valid. I'm a Firefox user. Depending on money from Google is worse than the aggregate of Brave behavior, for me.

by paimapi 2mo ago

gr_norm 2mo ago

Yep, I don't trust Brave. A web browser holds so much power over your digital life that it cannot be entrusted to a company that consistently and egregiously compromises its ethics for profit. Most of these examples border on scam behaviour... par for the course for the cryptocurrency space! For all their faults, Mozilla has never done anything that holds a candle to the kinds of stunts Brave keeps pulling.

wolvoleo 2mo ago
Which is even more noteworthy because Brave is led by an ex-CEO and influential top exec of Mozilla's. I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  He was kicked out of Mozilla for being homophobic. No joke.
  - travoc 2mo ago
    Wrong and defamatory. Ouch for your wallet.
  - paimapi 2mo ago
    more specifically, it was for donating to homophobic political groups trying to pass Prop 8 which made gay marriage illegal in California [0] the measure passed by 5% [1] - people were fairly incensed that Mozilla Foundation money (paid to him via his salary) might go to future donations of the same kind I'm sure people will say things about 'well of course he's legally free to do as he wants with this money' but then so too is the desire by employees to not want to be working under someone who has done something ideologically abhorrent to them. and given the multiple controversies that crop up about Brave seemingly every year where they push some combination of crypto, browser AI, etc, it's probably for the best [0] https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich-steps-down-twitter-campaign.html https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
    - jimmygrapes 2mo ago
      And yet the democratic process was subverted by the measure being overruled. Moot point.
      - HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
        That's actually incorrect. Democracy doesn't mean allowing mob rule (or manufactured "consent") to trample fundamental human rights.
      - throw101010 2mo ago
        The judicial branch is part of the US democracy, this was not subversion of the democratic process. Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).

iinnPP 2mo ago

All valid. I'm a Firefox user. Depending on money from Google is worse than the aggregate of Brave behavior, for me.