Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

brave.com

111–120 of 381 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#111
- do you plan to have a simple password instead of email link?

- are there any brave banners i can use to promote brave?

- will u provide a command line tool to verify websites?

- why are referrals tied to channels instead of account?

- will you expand to micropayments?

- will brave always block ads everywhere or will you switch to blocking only on verified sites?

Some form if instant payment is sorely needed. I hope regulators can catch up with reality , or else maybe brave should move to another country

( it s also comical to witness the hostility of HN towards brave. Are we full of google shills here? )

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Curious: what are some of the shortfalls you see in Chromium? That it's a Google-controlled project. Seriously, that's it. I have no reason to believe Google has my best interest at heart. Don't turn that around and say "Oh, you think Mozilla is looking out for you?" because I don't. I just trust Google less.

The deGoogle movement has been gaining steam ever since the ad-block announcement, and I'm a 100% behind it

Which happened after Brave launched.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#113
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t block third party ads; you block first party ads that the website depends on for revenue

We don't block 1st party ads. We block tracking tags including GPT/GTM, which will block some direct sold ads. We can with the publisher as partner fix this, but not by whitelisting tracking.

has it ever come up to run something similar to Opera's old community driven javascript site patch library/database?

I think it would be amazing to have a browser, that instead of just blocking ads, had a way for you to set "whatever the community thinks is best" and have the browser pull down the best stylish/tampermonkeyish patches for a site, or completely new css. (you would also have a drop down with "see other popular views, and "set this view as default for this site, along with the ability to rank/vote on which template applies best for that site.) Or the user could have an option on first run that asks "ideally what would sites look like" and then have it pull the most appropriate modification to match that template. A user could lean towards "let the site express its identity and clean it up a little bit" OR "strip it down to just the essentials" OR "just fix the bugs."

In an ideal world, I would prefer to use a browser that, by default, homogenizes as much of the layout of a site as possible, with a one click option to "see it how it was intended." I think reader modes go a little too far, because they destroy content layout and nav in the process of cleanup. It would be nice for some elements, like navigation to come through, but in a standardized way, so the menu bar at new york times and washington post render identically, but still let me bounce between their different verticals. RSS readers sort of accomplish that, but I would rather be able to also BROWSE the web. RSS readers clean up one layer deep, but in a hyperlinked world dont let you get very far.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#114
post #12

I really like what Brave is doing. I wish it was built on Firefox instead of Chromium. I just don't see myself leaving Firefox without major upheaval in the browser space.

(Brave employee here) Curious: what are some of the shortfalls you see in Chromium? Before I joined Brave, the desktop browser was originally using Gecko (from Firefox). Ultimately, there were some problems and the decision was made to move to Chromium. On iOS, Brave is forked from Firefox though You can check out more detail on Reddit where folks asked why FF was not used (which has links to more detailed info): htt…

> On iOS, Brave is forked from Firefox

You mean the platform that specifically disallows competing browser engines, making Firefox just a shell over a Safari-enabled web view and that can't even access Safari's content blockers? The only Firefox that's not running a Firefox engine under the hood? That Firefox?

Given you're a developer for Brave, it's not possible for you to not know this, therefore your statement is misleading at best.

The pitfalls of Chromium are obvious... it gives Google the power to impose on the market whatever engine feature they want, they are the ones defining the web standards and there's nothing Brave can do about it because Brave does not have the capacity to maintain a full fork, or to fight for web standards, just like it doesn't have the capacity to build a browser without piggybacking on somebody else.

Don't get me wrong, nowadays even Microsoft admitted total defeat, but then Brave should recognize its total dependence on Google and its continued goodwill.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the story be different with Quantum now?

No, the decision was based on a spreadsheet with many items concerned with web compatibility, HTML5 DRM plugin free-as-in-beer, extension support, etc. Chromium without Google tracking is dominant, this is just a fact (it will change some day; not soon). The best way to counter this is not to die on the wrong hill (engine wars) right now -- it is to go a level up and fight for privacy and user sovereignty where Googl…

> No, the decision was based on a spreadsheet with many items concerned with web compatibility, HTML5 DRM plugin free-as-in-beer, extension support, etc.

This is a spreadsheet I'd be interested to see. Was this compiled before or after Firefox supported WebExtensions?

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#117

Why doesn't brave adopt a stable coin like DAI for donations? Tokens are pretty volatile and it would suck for the publisher to lose money because they didn't cash out immediately. That won't be a problem though with DAI. https://www.coinbase.com/price/dai

(Brave employee) The BAT is used for more than contributions. The token has a distinct use case as the unit of account for attention and services on the platform. https://basicattentiontoken.org/faq/#representation

Thanks. I wished people would explain that instead of downvoting.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#119
post #12

I really like what Brave is doing. I wish it was built on Firefox instead of Chromium. I just don't see myself leaving Firefox without major upheaval in the browser space.

Brave being based off chrome is actually great and your comment illustrates that. If it is based on FF, it will cut into FF market share which is already shrinking. Now, it cuts into Chrome which means two privacy focused browser instead of one.

What? It’s a separate browser, it cuts into the market share of whatever the user was using before.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#120
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deGoogle movement has been gaining steam ever since the ad-block announcement, and I'm a 100% behind it

Which happened after Brave launched.

I'm curious - how are the two related? What's the significance of the fact that Brave launched, _and then_ Google changing the extension API in a way that affects ad blockers?
Post reply on HN