Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 382 posts

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#321

Post by giancarlostoro »

soverance wrote: post #317
giancarlostoro wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I intend to pay for their premium browser. I've been using Firefox for years. Chrome couldn't get me to shift over. I only use Chrome when testing front-end code and I don't do front-end development anymore.

I would pay buckets of money every month for a computing experience devoid of advertising.

I already pay YouTube for no ads, so I agree. I would do the same for TV to an extent, too many Netflix competitors popping up, I don't have time to spend hundreds of dollars on those, I wont be consuming enough content to justify them. I do spend way too much time online, I usually pay for no ads on mobile games / apps.

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#322

Post by ElijahLynn »

catacombs wrote: post #74
ElijahLynn wrote: post #52

I think Brave has the ability to save the web, it has a great model of blocking ads by default, at a lower level than the extensions do so it is much faster. I think Opera had/has this too.

Sure, Brave can block ads, but isn't the browser exploring injecting its own advertisements?

No, it does not inject its own ads by default. I think there is a feature where you can do this to some benefit to yourself but that is not default. Brave removes as many ads as it can by default.

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#323

Post by lenkite »

worble wrote: post #242
lenkite wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then FireFox has made the deliberate choice of excluding millions of users. There are millions of users who use identity management solutions where user-certs and priv-keys are put into the OS store of their devices. Using the OS secure-store should be a preference option. The folks who don't want to use the "political baggage" of the OS manufacturer - as you put it - can continue to use their pristine gardens.

I've never used this personally, but it is a preference option? https://serverfault.com/questions/722563/how-to-make-firefox... Or am I totally misunderstanding this and that's something totally different?

I didn't know about this option - thanks. This option basically uses the OS cert store for server certificates, which is one part of the story.

Now, if they also did this for client-certificates then all the folks in companies that use corporate certificate-based single-sign-on can use FireFox!

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#325

Post by mindcandy »

wila wrote: post #309
redm wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment is a bit misleading as they aren't doing anything nefarious as you suggest. My guess is this is a carryover from Chrome and not something Brave decided to build; if that's the case your not getting more secure by staying with Chrome. In evaluating Brave, you have to give it apples to apple comparison anyway. Brave vs. Chrome as its directly built on chromium. For compatibility, it shares the chro…

I'm not claiming they are doing something nefarious. Trust is something you have to earn. I do not install Chrome as I do not trust google. They have too much of my data already. Brave claims at their main page: "Brave is open source and built by a team of privacy focused, performance oriented pioneers of the web." OK well they failed my 5 minute test. Not having removed the SSDP parts is one thing. Not uninstalling…

You are implying that they are doing something nefarious by omission. Because it’s implied, you also gave yourself the escape hatch to say “Where did I say that?” When called out on it.

A reasonable person reading your comment would think you are claiming the Brave team added code to surveil your network. If they dig deeper through the link you provided, they learn that the reality is that they inherited code from the Chrome team that exists only to support Chromecast. The problem has been found, a bug has been filed and the feature will be removed.

But, most people won’t dig. They’ll take your comment at face value and walk away with a very different story than the reality.

Now I sound like I’m accusing you of being nefarious :p But, I don’t think you planned out spreading FUD. I think you were dissatisfied and wanted to share a strong version of your user story. Unfortunately, your story is so strongly worded that is ended up resembling techniques used by trolls.

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#326

Post by pnw_hazor »

prophesi wrote: post #125
tapoxi wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Generating and serving content isn't free. If you don't want the ads, don't visit the page or pay for an ad-free version.

It's really weird to see ad-tech defenders on Hacker News in 2019. Create a Patreon. Take the few minutes to create a Brave Creator account. Use a non-invasive ad network on AdBlock's "Acceptable Ads" list. Read an Orwellian novel.

Not that weird, since there are many here who work for ad-tech companies and are actively building these systems.

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#327

Post by TremendousJudge »

mindcandy wrote: post #325
wila wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming they are doing something nefarious. Trust is something you have to earn. I do not install Chrome as I do not trust google. They have too much of my data already. Brave claims at their main page: "Brave is open source and built by a team of privacy focused, performance oriented pioneers of the web." OK well they failed my 5 minute test. Not having removed the SSDP parts is one thing. Not uninstalling…

You are implying that they are doing something nefarious by omission. Because it’s implied, you also gave yourself the escape hatch to say “Where did I say that?” When called out on it. A reasonable person reading your comment would think you are claiming the Brave team added code to surveil your network. If they dig deeper through the link you provided, they learn that the reality is that they inherited code from th…

They're the ones who are spamming with their marketing blogposts about just how great their product is. Calling them out with a strongly worded reply in the comments (after actually trying out the product might I add) is about the only counterattack for this spam.

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#328

Post by amelius »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #298
amelius wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but there's always a third party that can in theory collect all your data.

Who? I'm not really familiar with how Brave does it, but there are plenty of cryptocurrencies where that's definitely _not_ the case.

It's still not clear whether untrackable cryptocurrencies will be allowed by regulators.

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#329

Post by wila »

mindcandy wrote: post #325
wila wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming they are doing something nefarious. Trust is something you have to earn. I do not install Chrome as I do not trust google. They have too much of my data already. Brave claims at their main page: "Brave is open source and built by a team of privacy focused, performance oriented pioneers of the web." OK well they failed my 5 minute test. Not having removed the SSDP parts is one thing. Not uninstalling…

You are implying that they are doing something nefarious by omission. Because it’s implied, you also gave yourself the escape hatch to say “Where did I say that?” When called out on it. A reasonable person reading your comment would think you are claiming the Brave team added code to surveil your network. If they dig deeper through the link you provided, they learn that the reality is that they inherited code from th…

You are trying to make me say things I never said.

What I did was try Brave out. I _want_ to like the product. On top of that I have a lot of respect for most of the people behind the project. As a security conscious person I looked at what kind of network activity there was on start.

After installing Brave, I notice things that IMO should not be there. After that I even spent the time to search what it was. The link mentioned by me in my post looks to me like it is a post at a forum from Brave. As someone who is not familiar to the project it is not clear that there is any bug report or bug filed, where do you see that?

There is also no indication to me that somebody from the Brave team replied to the post. There's 1 reply 6 days later, by an anonymous user, which explains what is going on, then 24 days later the thread is closed.

The reason I did not reproduce the text from the link is that it is pretty clearly stated down there. If I wanted to spread FUD I would not have provided the link.

Re: Brave Improves Its Ad-Blocker Performance with New Engine in Rust

#330

Post by mindcandy »

wila wrote: post #329
mindcandy wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are implying that they are doing something nefarious by omission. Because it’s implied, you also gave yourself the escape hatch to say “Where did I say that?” When called out on it. A reasonable person reading your comment would think you are claiming the Brave team added code to surveil your network. If they dig deeper through the link you provided, they learn that the reality is that they inherited code from th…

You are trying to make me say things I never said. What I did was try Brave out. I _want_ to like the product. On top of that I have a lot of respect for most of the people behind the project. As a security conscious person I looked at what kind of network activity there was on start. After installing Brave, I notice things that IMO should not be there. After that I even spent the time to search what it was. The link…

You never said it. A reasonable person would infer it.

I spend too much time arguing with trolls on the internet for fun. I don't think you intended to, but your post uses a lot of techniques widely used by trolls such as: linking to the complicated, full explanation while telling an edited, "technically true" version that can be misinterpreted by a low-effort reader. Having an escape hatch is very important to them.

Again, I don't think you are trolling. You just ticked off the checklist of a troll by accident. I'm only being a pest in the hopes that in the future you'll put more consideration into how your writing is interpreted by low-effort readers.

Text is such a crappy medium for casual conversation. It's amazing the internet hasn't burned itself down.

Post reply on HN