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

301–310 of 381 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#301

Post by Ruthalas »

woodandsteel wrote: post #191

Lots of specific comments here about Brave, pro and con. I would like to explain where I think it fits in the larger scheme of things. There is broad agreement that the web is deeply broken, with all sorts of bad consequences, because of how web sites get their money from advertisements and selling data. Now the only way this is going to get fixed, as far as I can tell, is for someone to come up with an alternative f…

If you are familiar with other projects in this space, would you mind sharing? I'd be interested in following their progress.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#302

Post by randiantech »

43920 wrote: post #264
randiantech wrote: post #207

Since Brave is usually roasted around here, I just want to say thanks to the devs. I'm a Brave user and the experience is fantastic. Two things: I was a Chrome user for many years, so switching to Brave was not traumatic at all (same user experience, plugin's compatibility) and also ad blockers work as expected. I've never pay attention to the included ad solution. Im not interested on it. Im strictly speaking as an…

Just curious: if you're not interested in the ads part, why did you decide to switch, rather than using Chrome/Firefox with an ad blocker?

I tried to use FF, but Im really used to the Chrome experience. Brave is literally the same experience (maybe the only difference that I notice is the height of the tabs, which seems to be a little smaller than Chrome). I dont use Chrome because generally I try to avoid Google products when possible.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#303

Post by londons_explore »

prop84u wrote: post #148
donaltroddyn wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchain.com's privacy policy states that, for anti-money laundering purposes, they'll collect: > Passport and/or national driver’s license or government-issued identification card to verify your identity (from https://www.blockchain.com/legal/privacy ). That's consistent with every other exchange I've used.

Verification is only required to use their exchange, and not for withdrawing to a crypto wallet. Brave would be able to offer BAT withdrawals for creators in a legally sound way. https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/articles/36001835987...

AML laws aren't anywhere near as precise as most people expect. It basicly boils down to "if bad guys use your platform, and you can't trace them, you're gonna go to prison".

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#304

Post by londons_explore »

dmix wrote: post #110
Ididntdothis wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ I wish it was built on Firefox instead of Chromium. “ I commented in another thread. This is one area where Mozilla has failed. It should have been the goto engine for projects like Electron or Brave or even MS Edge instead of Chromium. But the last time I looked Mozilla was not very friendly towards developers who want to use their engine.

Everyone is also switching to headless chrome for automated testing since it's faster than Gecko. I don’t know if FF has changed in this regard but it takes a long time to get rid of a perception of poor performance and this should have been their first priority long ago (which seems to be the case with their Rust work and GeckoView/mobile preview browser). In addition to how far they were behind Chrome security wise…

They still don't have isolated per-domain render processes... That means if I exploit any renderer, I can take all your cookies for online banking and your webmail.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#305

Post by kerkeslager »

marichards wrote: post #224
kerkeslager wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No solution, but I think we'll never find one if debate, about problems with web privacy, suggests Mozilla is the answer - until they put into actions their words, they shouldn't be seen as the way to go. Whilst I have reservations about Brave, from a privacy standpoint they appear to be more trustworthy and some of the actions they are involved with, like complaints to regulators are far beyond anything we've seen o…

> Whilst I have reservations about Brave, from a privacy standpoint they appear to be more trustworthy and some of the actions they are involved with, like complaints to regulators are far beyond anything we've seen of Mozilla - sure they may have corporate motives, but right now they appear to align far better with consumer privacy.

There's a lot for me to think about in your post, and most of it I agree with, but I wanted to comment on this bit. While I agree that Firefox has made some very problematic decisions over the years, Brave is far worse in my opinion. My biggest 3 objections are here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20830069#20833942

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#306

Post by [deleted] »

BrendanEich wrote: post #92
orblivion wrote: post #80

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…

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#308

Post by TheArcane »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #196
TheArcane wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy. Google has a lot of influence over Chromium development.

Presumably they also have a veto, at least, on Firefox development as they're paying handsomely for it?

They're paying to let FF make Google it's default search provider

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#309

Post by BrendanEich »

prop84u wrote: post #139
BrendanEich wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, unve…

We inserted ourselves? Our users are not passive victims, they chose to send tokens, mostly ones they earned from opt-in ads we provide. Your framing is telling. Users who want to get an ad revenue share and donate anonymously do not need to KYC, note well.

If you want to send p2p on a big blockchain, knock yourself out. This will do nothing to support the publishers you can see at batgrowth.com (more all the time, see batgrowth_bot on Twitter). It's a fine thing to do when you are sure of the destination address, and willing to fingerprint yourself on-chain. We never "insert ourselves" there -- no one can. That is the beauty of it. But it doesn't solve all problems.

Re: Wikipedia Is Now a Brave Verified Publisher

#310

Post by BrendanEich »

rjf72 wrote: post #281
JohnTHaller wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If our entire userbase switched to Brave and we made $300 a month from them, I'd have to shut the site down. Either way, it's really not worth the time and effort to set it up right now unless you're a huge site like wikipedia and you don't have any ad revenue to lose. I do think it will be interesting what this does to donations to wikipedia. It would make sense, I think, that Brave users may donate less per user ov…

The median donation to Wiki is, of course, $0. By giving anything users would be giving infinitely more than the regular user. It'd be quite interesting to know what your aggregate CPM is. One way you could probably determine brave users is by contrasting raw user agents against your analytics data. The discrepancy there is going to be some mixture of Brave and those running other things that also block analytics lik…

We do share numbers, working to get up from the 40% opt-in we had on desktop now that we've got ads on Android (iOS to-do). The opt-in is mid-teens right now, I think -- we will drive it up cleanly via telling users about it and rewarding them for joining.
Post reply on HN