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

Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 381 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#131

Post by jefftk »

bad_user wrote: post #114
bsclifton wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

> Brave should recognize its total dependence on Google and its continued goodwill

What do you mean? Brave is based on Chromium, which is open source. Google can't stop people from using it.

(Disclosure: I work for Google)

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#132

Post by bsclifton »

skybrian wrote: post #123
phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #85

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.

This is kind of silly. When you copy open source code, it doesn't give any magic access to the people who wrote it. If there is anything wrong with it, it has to appear on the source code somewhere. The question you should be asking is whether you trust Brave to vet the source code and remove anything that seems like a problem.

The team has been capturing deviations from Chromium on a wiki page here: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...

The page goes over (high level) how the project is built and links to patches where functionality was disabled or modified (ex: proxied, etc)

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#133

Post by lukemulks »

miguelmota wrote: post #117
lukemulks wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

Glad it was helpful.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#134

Post by criley2 »

skybrian wrote: post #123
phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #85

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.

This is kind of silly. When you copy open source code, it doesn't give any magic access to the people who wrote it. If there is anything wrong with it, it has to appear on the source code somewhere. The question you should be asking is whether you trust Brave to vet the source code and remove anything that seems like a problem.

IMO just because it's open source doesn't mean it's safe.

I would trust a closed source project that has been thoroughly and extensively vetted by a third-party auditor I trust far more than an open source project that has no audit for me to reference.

As I am not a professional security auditor, my ability to understand the minutiae of developer decisions (intentional and unintentional) in some multi-million-LOC project is basically a limit approaching zero. My looking at the source code to give myself a false sense of security would only increase my risk, IMO.

It's like a restaurant tells you "yeah we have a clean kitchen, you can go take a quick look yourself!" and it's like, do you know to check that water and disinfectant buckets can't be within x feet of each other? To temp every fridge and warmer to ensure no danger zones? To monitor glove usage and hair net usage? And a thousand other things?

Being open source basically means that a nice auditor could do some audit work for free to help the community, but that's about it from my perspective.

Unless some of you are actively code reviewing the entirety of Chromium prior to launching any build of it ???

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#135

Post by mayneack »

jonathansampson wrote: post #37
mayneack wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a different way to automatically pay based on how long I actually spend on a site?

That's the default behavior, known as Auto Contribute in Brave. If 10% of your time is spent on Wikipedia, they'll get 10% of your monthly budget. You can contribute in this manner, or/also via tips (which are one-off contributions). You can also set a fixed percentage for the property, and set it as a recurring contribution each month.

Yeah, that's one reason I use brave. The parent was suggesting that they wanted to do something like this without Brave, but I don't know of a real competitor.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#136

Post by phjesusthatguy3 »

skybrian wrote: post #123
phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #85

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.

This is kind of silly. When you copy open source code, it doesn't give any magic access to the people who wrote it. If there is anything wrong with it, it has to appear on the source code somewhere. The question you should be asking is whether you trust Brave to vet the source code and remove anything that seems like a problem.

It isn't silly. How about I don't trust either one of them?

Brave is (and you are) saying I should trust Brave because they're going to rip out Google's tracking and insert their own instead. No thank you. I'll stick with Firefox and whatever chicanery Mozilla is up to.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#137

Post by RonaldSchleifer »

That's interesting and also essentially nullifies Brave's credibility as some kind of privacy browser. Either they are ignorantly unaware or they are complicit in supporting wikipedia, one of the many digital organizations that have in the last years gone full on dystopian censorship thought police, even if it is not apparent to the casual observer.

Case in point beyond just their close relationship and integration into censorious and authoritarian Google and Youtube, look for a link to the official government report on the definitely not muslim Bataclan attack in Paris, which details the gruesome slaughter, torture, disfigurement, dismemberment, and torment the attackers perpetrated upon their victims; which was all of course withheld from the public until it was forced into the light by the court case. You will not find a link to the report in spite of it being out for many months now, and you will be unsuccessful at adding a link to the report, let alone highlighting the brutal descriptions from the several hundred pages long report, somewhere in the wikipedia page.

It's full on censorship, and the most pernicious and nefarious and sick part of this digital censorship is that deletion, shadow banning, banning, or simply colluding across organizations to erase someone's digital personality and identity goes basically unnoticed by the general public that is none the wiser that someone was ushered off to the digital gulag or digital mass grave ... pooof ... that comment, information, person is gone, with not trace and no accountability or transparency.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#138

Post by Tinfoilhat666 »

bilucy wrote: post #32

BAT token is tradable on exchanges, and price floats and is unstable. Donation receivers need to worry about exchange rates risk - https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/basic-attention-token How about USD or USD stable currencies for this?

Would it be possible to fork Brave and change it to use US Tether, Libra or some other stable coin?

Even better: fork it, create your own cryptocurrency like BAT, make ICO and become a millionaire!

There is no reason everybody to use BAT.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#139

Post by prop84u »

BrendanEich wrote: post #98
xur17 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any plans to get rid of uphold on the publisher side and allow external wallets? It was a huge turn off to me when I signed up.

We need a regulated entity to do directed (tips, recurring), user-anonymous, off-chain transactions, and to comply with OFAC and other hard regulations. We can't do it ourselves. Wallet is the least of the issue, even if the publisher were willing to take BAT. Our future phase (Apollo) blockchain work will move more txns on-chain but not solve all regulatory problems. No blockchain can do that unless you are using p2…

Please do not require people to submit their government ID in order to withdraw their tokens, after you inserted yourself in the donation flow of creators by offering to accept donations on their part from a priviledged UI.

We use platforms which do not ask for our ID, and we would prefer if you would not reduce the probability of Brave users donating to us because they think those BAT tokens will reach us.

Yes, unverified creators are marked as such, but a donation call in the browser UI is a powerful default, more so than the donation service preferred by the creator, which can only be shown as a web page.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#140

Post by lalaland1125 »

lukemulks wrote: post #72
lalaland1125 wrote: post #22

Can anyone explain why Brave uses BAT? As far as I can tell Brave would be much better if they used USD instead.

https://basicattentiontoken.org/faq/#why-not-bitcoin

That explains why they can't use Bitcoin, but it doesn't explain why they can't use USD + a database.
Post reply on HN