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

231–240 of 381 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#231

Post by Semaphor »

input_sh wrote: post #179
BrendanEich wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Fighting for privacy" and third-party ads do not belong in the same sentence.

While I don’t like Brave, from what I’ve read the ads are decided on locally, so no information is sent to the advertiser. Again, this is what I’ve heard.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#232

Post by nothrabannosir »

codehalo wrote: post #227
marichards wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever Mozilla's focus is when you load Firefox you experience the following: 1. On ESR first time it loads two pages load including https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/60.8.0/firstrun/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ You then find first party cookies are set by Google Analytics _ga GA1.2.1671101194.1567114471 _gat_UA-36116321-1 1 _gid GA1.2.377831647.1567114471 In the EU this would breach the ePri…

The downvotes you are receiving for pointing out facts illustrates the cesspool of Firefox hypocrisy that hacker news has become.

Honestly typing "privacy" into a UI that is designed to act as a search field for Google, and blaming that on Mozilla somehow, that's a stretch. What's next? Typing "which company faked the moon landing" and WOW you're redirect to Google! It must have been them.

It's nothing but opinionated. You can't honestly call this a "fact" and go on to claim that HN is hypocritical. That's... is there a word for hypocrisy about hypocrisy?

(The first point made is not even that bad, it's just that quagmire following it which dilutes the whole thing)

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#233

Post by codehalo »

input_sh wrote: post #179
BrendanEich wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Fighting for privacy" and third-party ads do not belong in the same sentence.

You are correct. That’s why it’s not in the sentence. Brave blocks third party ads by default.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#234

Post by vesche »

jonathansampson wrote: post #190
vesche wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never opt-in to ads even if there was some upside. That's like asking if I'd like to see billboards on a beautiful drive through Colorado and in return you'll throw some change in my center console. I'll just take the beautiful drive and you can keep the cash. > The machine-learning bits study your browsing habits in a private, non-leaky manner. I think everyone's been around the internet long enough to know…

Your beautiful drive through Colorado requires quite a bit of maintenance and financial support. Somebody has to pay for that. With Brave, Advertisers can pay for it (without getting hold of your data) by way of users. Alternatively, you may choose to "fund the roads" yourself by depositing your own tokens into Brave's wallet—that too is possible. Brave aims to sustain the roads that grant you access to that scenery.…

You are supremely lost. If you carry the analogy, you're saying the billboards destroying my view through Colorado are somehow paying for my roads. Well, actually taxes pay for my roads. And no, viewing ad's on Brave does not somehow make my internet better or faster. It just clutters the experience.

The only thing that will opt into this crap are the selenium bots I write to farm some Brave cash or whatever you're calling it, until I realize that the AWS fees are more than the Brave cash I'm getting and shut them off for good.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#235

Post by kbrosnan »

tlb wrote: post #156
criley2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

Can you give an example of a closed-source project you trust because it has been audited by a third party?

Just about all certificate authorities are trusted by billions of people a day to encrypt their data. Almost all of CAs are privately held companies, the only way they are trusted is by being audited by a third party. For info about the inclusion process see https://www.ccadb.org/ and https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Information_Checklist

LetsEncrypt is an example of a non-profit open source based CA.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#236

Post by ksynwa »

kerkeslager wrote: post #208
marichards wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever Mozilla's focus is when you load Firefox you experience the following: 1. On ESR first time it loads two pages load including https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/60.8.0/firstrun/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ You then find first party cookies are set by Google Analytics _ga GA1.2.1671101194.1567114471 _gat_UA-36116321-1 1 _gid GA1.2.377831647.1567114471 In the EU this would breach the ePri…

You're right. Do you have a better solution? I'm not asking to be glib, I actually want a browser that does a better job of protecting my privacy.

GNU Icecat?

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#237

Post by xtracto »

patrickmcnamara wrote: post #229
amelius wrote: post #210

> The average mobile browser user pays as much as $23 a month in data charges to download ads and trackers — that’s $276 a year. Is that true?

That seems absurd to me. I don't even pay that much for all of my unlimited data, calls and texts in Ireland.

Here un Mexico we pay $1.00Mxn per MB. Thats about $0.05 usd. If you use 2000mb per month and 20% is ads, you'll pay 400x0.05 = $20 usd a month for ads. Which is around $240 usd a year.

Edit: And apparently ad traffic is between 25% an 45%(https://venturebeat.com/2015/07/08/blocking-ads-can-cut-netw...) So my estimate is quite conservative.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#238

Post by marichards »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #232
codehalo wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downvotes you are receiving for pointing out facts illustrates the cesspool of Firefox hypocrisy that hacker news has become.

Honestly typing "privacy" into a UI that is designed to act as a search field for Google, and blaming that on Mozilla somehow, that's a stretch. What's next? Typing "which company faked the moon landing" and WOW you're redirect to Google! It must have been them. It's nothing but opinionated. You can't honestly call this a "fact" and go on to claim that HN is hypocritical. That's... is there a word for hypocrisy about…

If Mozilla wanted to respect privacy the "UI that is designed to act as a search field for Google" could be a "UI that is designed to act as a search field for DuckDuckGo", it wasn't that long ago it was a search field for Yahoo. What's notable here is that Google is the default and in doing so is endorsed and recommended by Mozilla for its users.

So the fact here is that Mozilla made that choice to be in bed with Google.

The sad irony is Chrome on Android will insist on asking users for the default search engine choice (in the EU at least https://www.techspot.com/news/81273-google-android-users-eur... ).

Maybe think about it another way. Imagine Greenpeace defaulted to offering to book supporters private planes to get to every protest. It is this nature of extreme distance from organisational values that Mozilla is expressing when it defaults to Google search.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#239

Post by mkl »

amelius wrote: post #210

> The average mobile browser user pays as much as $23 a month in data charges to download ads and trackers — that’s $276 a year. Is that true?

"as much as" just means one or more people have really expensive mobile internet and visit ad-heavy sites. It's not really saying much. My entire phone bill is ~half that.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#240

Post by craftyguy »

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's not silly. Google 100% controls upstream chromium, and they can afford to make decisions about it in a vacuum.
Post reply on HN