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

Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 231 posts

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#41

Post by rvz »

nicce wrote: post #19
dkdk8283 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Mozilla any better? They’ve lost their way and Google remains their largest source of income.

It is true that they get most of their income by setting Google as default search engine. However, they do not promote or support Google's way to do many things, and all of the evidence is pointing that privacy is everything they have in their brand, and they haven't done user hostile things in the past. They have attempted many kinds of new business models. VPN partnership with Mullavad is really promising one, and…

So Mozilla isn't any better then.

As long as they have Google's money and have them as the default search engine, their stance on privacy is a joke. In fact, they knew about the joke about 'Mozilla living without Google' since 2007 [0] and 14 years later they once begged to Google to renew that contract and now they continue to bite the same hand that kept them alive.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#42

Post by silisili »

DonHopkins wrote: post #28
endisneigh wrote: post #17

I wonder if Brave (the company) is what Mozilla would look like if Eich ended up being CEO of Mozila. EDIT: Some people took offense, so I am more explicit in my hypothetical here.

How many times does this need to be repeated? Mozilla didn't fire Brendan Eich. He resigned of his own free will, against the Mozilla board's request that he stay. His own words and the Mozilla FAQ quoted below, I'm not just making this up. Down the following thread, Brendan suggested googling "constructive separation" -- but I'm not sure if he meant for that euphemism to apply to how he left his job at Mozilla, or t…

I'm not trying to rewrite history or pick sides...but... if I remember right wasn't it basically that everyone at Mozilla kept calling him a bigot and saying they wouldn't work there? And rather than argue back and forth, he realized it would be easier to just resign? That's what I remember, at least. It is true he wasn't 'fired', but basically pushed into a wall and told to do something.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#43

Post by tolien »

sneak wrote: post #24

How many times have Brave pivoted at this point? First it was ad replacement, then it was a patreon thing that took donations (illegally) for third parties that didn't want it, then it was ad blocking, then it was a search engine, then it was videoconferencing.... What exactly is their revenue model?

> How many times have Brave pivoted at this point?

On one hand, the features are at least somewhat adjacent to their core business of building a web browser. On the other, whenever Mozilla did something like this they were panned for spreading themselves too thin and diverging from their core mission.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#44

Post by NikolaNovak »

Spivak wrote: post #23
IceWreck wrote: post #18

> Have Brave Rewards (their crypto-and-ads service) turned on If this is true then its another shady thing by a self proclaimed privacy company. They used to do the protection racket thing where they indirectly threatened website owners with the ultimatum that if they don't work with them, they will man-in-the-middle them to replace the website's ads with their own and not give them a cut of the profit. Also, Brave h…

I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent.

... I don't know how to approach that statement. You prefer arbitrary invisible changes by actors unknown? Or is it a part of some elaborate Phillip-K-Dick art project about unreliable narrator and "what is truth anyway"?

If Bob sends me a letter, I expect Postal Service to deliver it to me exactly as sent.

If Bob sends me an email I expect email service to deliver it to me as sent.

If Bob sends me a webpage I expect it to be delivered as sent.

We can discuss changes & preferences on presentation layer, but invisible, uncontrollable substitution of content, I have no idea how they're either justifiable or desirable.

I am likely not interpreting your comment correctly. Perhaps if you elaborate it may become clearer.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#45

Post by barnabee »

jjulius wrote: post #38
Spivak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent.

>I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent. That's... exactly what I want.

Reader mode proves that "exatly as sent" is the opposite of what I want.

I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.).

I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or musician I probably want to see what you designed, that's about it). Reader mode probably makes it 50% but is not designed for any kind of interactivity so I still have to use horrible booking pages, shopping sites, etc. I'd love my bropwser to extract the ueful and completely standardise the UI every time.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#46

Post by runawaybottle »

blitzar wrote: post #40
runawaybottle wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think jitsi as a service is not free. So Brave is at least covering the cost of leveraging the service.

https://meet.jit.si/ Start & Join meetings for free - No account needed

At scale, nothing is free. They are offering this free to everyone via their browser.

https://jaas.8x8.vc/#/pricing

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#47

Post by Spivak »

throwdecro wrote: post #30
Spivak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent.

> I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. Taken literally this would mean that browsers would be allowed to re-write, either actively or by deleting sections, the actual content of articles. Surely there has to be some expectation that what a person publishes on the internet will be faithfully represented?…

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Are we all suddenly against ad/content blockers and the built-in tracking protection that Firefox/Safari have?

Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#48

Post by jjulius »

barnabee wrote: post #45
jjulius wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent. That's... exactly what I want.

Reader mode proves that "exatly as sent" is the opposite of what I want. I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.). I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or mu…

I actually largely agree with you. I should clarify my original comment a bit, I think.

I want my browser to display the page exactly as sent until I tell it not to. It should be serving pages to me as-is, and things such as ad/content blockers, and reader mode, should be my choices. I don't want the browser making those decisions for me ahead of time and without my input.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#49

Post by zormino »

barnabee wrote: post #45
jjulius wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent. That's... exactly what I want.

Reader mode proves that "exatly as sent" is the opposite of what I want. I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.). I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or mu…

I think it's one thing to strip out content or ads, but an entirely different beast to replace ads with your own. There are arguments for blocking ads, both ethical and security based. But replacing the ads with your own is basically the same as stealing the content for your own profit. Brave is a shitty company with no moral leg to stand on.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#50

Post by jjulius »

Spivak wrote: post #47
throwdecro wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do think that Brave would be 100% in the clear (same with any browser or extension) to "MiTM", modify, or refuse to display any part of any web page. Taken literally this would mean that browsers would be allowed to re-write, either actively or by deleting sections, the actual content of articles. Surely there has to be some expectation that what a person publishes on the internet will be faithfully represented?…

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Are we all suddenly against ad/content blockers and the built-in tracking protection that Firefox/Safari have? Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?

>Are we all suddenly against ad/content blockers and the built-in tracking protection that Firefox/Safari have?

No, but the point is that it's a bit more nuanced than your original post suggests. Users should have the control over how a page is displayed to them. I want to tell my browser to block ads, and which ads to block. I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want, or to not selectively block ads based on an agreement it may or may not have with advertisers.

>Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?

It is the user's agent, and as the user, I want the control. I want to make the decisions.

Post reply on HN