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

61–70 of 231 posts

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#61

Post by throwdecro »

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?

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

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, depends on what the browser developers want.

That said, there is something dubious with how ad blockers take an author's written content, "liberate" it from the ads that pay the author's bills, and make it available for free.

I sense Brave is trying to solve that problem, but everything I've read about it seems weird.

(Separately I see nothing dubious about tracking protection. I wish tracking were less inseparable from the advertising; I'm perfectly willing to see ads as long as I'm not being shadow profiled).

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#62

Post by soundnote »

zormino wrote: post #51
jp42 wrote: post #21

May be naive question. How does Brave earn money to sustain its operations?

By replacing ads on websites with their own, and url hijacking for referral profits. They are not a good service, they're content thieves with a mask on.

It doesn't? It adblocks ads like uBlock Origin and tracking blocking tech in other browsers (except the shields are not an add-on so they can exceed the Manifest v3 type limits). There are entirely separate channels (toaster popups, start page backgrounds) that they use to deliver their own ads.

I get the crypto stuff is not everyone's cup of tea (certainly isn't mine) but get the basics straight, at least?

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#63

Post by jjulius »

aeturnum wrote: post #57
jjulius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

> I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want This is a very reasonable desire, but Brave also seems clear that their service does something different. Where other tools focus on blocking ads, Brave is more about their hybrid blocking of 'bad' ads (whatever that means) and replacing those ads with theirs. Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how…

Just in case there's any confusion, I've been speaking broadly about browsers in general, not Brave specifically.

I genuinely don't have an opinion regarding whether or not I think Brave is being deceptive. Rather, I've always been generally untrusting of bodies such as Brave making "it's cool, trust us" claims. It could be that they're being 100% honest and that's great, but I just can't get my own pessimism to get on board, particularly when there's money/profit involved.

Ultimately, yeah, I would say that the idea of a tool that doesn't allow me to eliminate ads entirely as it substitutes ads it says are "OK" is unethical (for/to me - if others are fine with it, cool, use Brave!). Going back to my lack of trust, I can't trust that they won't make a user-hostile decision around ads in the interest of their own bottom line down the road.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#64

Post by sneak »

tolien wrote: post #43
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.

Mozilla is a nonprofit. Brave is not.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#65

Post by shreyshnaccount »

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…

what impossible fantasy! you expect software you use, which a for profit company made to,, lemme get this right,, respect your requirements, wants and make your life less terrible? and not distract you? make things easier? hah! if only our big tech overlords meant what they said about caring for us /s

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#66

Post by jonathansampson »

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?

No pivoting; just an incremental realization of a better Web. We never replaced ads. Brave blocks trackers, and their associated third-party ads for privacy and security reasons—we've done this from the start. But when you block third-party ads, you cut into the revenue of publishers, creators, and other content makers.

Cutting revenue for those who make the Web wonderful is not ideal, so an alternative approach was needed to help those who creator the content that keeps us 'coming back' to the Web. This is where Brave Rewards came in, and Brave's User Growth Pool. We distributed BAT to our users, inviting them to ear-mark it for the creators they appreciated most. Some of those creators signed-up to claim our tokens, while others didn't.

From the start, Brave has been focused on privacy, security, and sustainability. In the vein of privacy, we introduced Brave Search. An engine with its own index, not connected to you or your online activities, existing only to help you find what you're seeking on the Web.

Our revenue model is largely ad-based, but quite different from the ads we all have come accustomed to on the Web. Brave's Ad model is consent-based, user-configurable (you control ad-frequencies, etc.), and private-by-design. Rather than sending your data off to third-parties, we send regional ad catalogs to you. These are studied in the private enclave of your machine so that your data is never transmitted elsewhere. When users participate in Brave Ads, they receive 70% of the associated revenue (for their attention). Brave gets the remaining 30%.

I hope this helps

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#67

Post by nicce »

jppope wrote: post #56
nicce wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is just very hard to trust them... they get caught on very hostile things again and again, when they promise that won't happen again. In the end, they are yet another ad based company.

sure... but lets remove the whole trust/ ad thing... Brave is a faster version of chrome, and Brave search gives me the code sample I'm searching for first thing in the sidebar...both are major improvements in my life. It's a better product.

> Brave is a faster version of chrome

This line alone makes Brace insecure. It relies on the upstream project. Whenever the upstream project gets a security patch, it will be exploited on the downstream and there is X time for the update, unless you have the userbase of Edge or something.

But everybody has opinions to prioritize and we can discuss about them forever.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#68

Post by Closi »

aeturnum wrote: post #57
jjulius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

> I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want This is a very reasonable desire, but Brave also seems clear that their service does something different. Where other tools focus on blocking ads, Brave is more about their hybrid blocking of 'bad' ads (whatever that means) and replacing those ads with theirs. Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how…

> Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how their service works or that the entire idea of a tool that blocks some subset of ads that the user cannot configure and replaces them is fundamentally unethical?

My personal issue is that Brave is an advertising company which is blocking competitor ads where content-creators are getting paid (the company which the content-creators chose to partner with), and replacing them with ads of their own (regardless of the format of them).

It's a great business model - but IMO it's just stealing or subverting ad revenue from the people who actually generate the content you are reading and maintain the infrastructure.

Hate ads? Get Firefox and block them.

Don't mind ads and are happy for the revenue to go to the content creator? Get Firefox, it blocks most tracking anyway.

Don't mind ads but hate the idea that the revenue will go to the content creator, and you would rather give it to some random shady company that might give you a cut of their subverted/stolen revenue in crypto? Get Brave!

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#70

Post by jonathansampson »

sneak wrote: post #64
tolien wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Mozilla is a nonprofit. Brave is not.

A nonprofit where the people at the top have multi-million dollar salaries (see https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html) Yes, Brave is for profit, but not at the cost of user data and/or trust. Brave doesn't collect or exchange your data. Firefox, on the other hand, transmits your keystrokes to Google right out of the box. Leith did a great side-by-side comparison of various top browsers (including Firefox and Brave), finding the latter to be in a class of its own in terms of privacy out of the box: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf.
Post reply on HN