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

91–100 of 231 posts

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#91

Post by BrendanEich »

hundchenkatze wrote: post #27
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?

> What exactly is their revenue model? Seems they're still trying to figure that out.

No, we are transparent about it. https://brave.com/brave-rewards https://brave.com/transparency and premium products such as VPN, Talk, more to come.

EDIT: some of you think we should do only a browser, but we also have a search engine now (https://search.brave.com/). We're going big across privacy and user-agent models that fit together well and provide our users with value in the form of products, also in revenue shares including >= what we make on any opt-in attention economics. Think big, avoid pigeonholing us as some of you did and still do Mozilla. My advice!

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#92

Post by jonathansampson »

nicce wrote: post #13
jppope wrote: post #3

damn... Brave is just crushing it. I've been using brave search and its amazing for development... the code samples are front and center

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.

> "they get caught on very hostile things again and again"

This is not the case. The most common claims are "Brave accepted donations for others", "Brave replaces ads across the Web", "Brave injected/modified referral links"—each of these claims are unequivocally false.

You are right that Brave is an "ad based company," however. But that needs to be explained a bit, since Brave is unlike any other ad-based company you've likely encountered on the Web.

When people think of "ad-based company," they often picture something like Google. A company that has its hands in most of what you do on the Web, existing as a third-party resource in most of your traffic.

But compare Brave with Google for a moment. Brave's ad-model is consent based, while Google's is not. Brave's model follows the user's configuration for determining how often/whether ads should be shown, while Google does not. Brave's model pays the user 70% of the associated revenue, while Google does not. Brave collects [no user data], while Google does the opposite. The Brave model is built on consent, equity, and privacy. Google's model is the opposite, in every regard.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#93

Post by tibyat »

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…

Where is your quote from? I cmd-f'd for "Rewards" and it doesn't turn up anywhere. Maybe the page has been edited?

Also, your same accusations are made in every single HN post involving Brave. If you would develop the discussion and actually bring forth a new idea, maybe by acknowledging the company's response to your claims and responding to that, rather than parroting the same thing over and over again, our discussion here would be more fresh and useful.

If you insist on rehashing the same argument, maybe you could at least bring your sources along each time as well.

Hey, just an idea from a guy tired of reading that Brave is hitler and DDG is just Bing, over and over and over.

Here is one article from them on the subject of referral codes: https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#94

Post by tomComb »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #15
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.

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

Yes, Mozilla is way better - the polar opposite really. Judge them on their record.

Your not liking a company that is giving them money and Brave's actual record of being endlessly slimy and untrustworthy.

Mozilla undermines Google at every chance so clearly the only result of Google money is what you see in Firefox and that is easily changable.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#95

Post by BrendanEich »

nicce wrote: post #13
jppope wrote: post #3

damn... Brave is just crushing it. I've been using brave search and its amazing for development... the code samples are front and center

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.

Do you want to talk about the very hostile things? We're not perfect (neither is Mozilla, people still roast them for stuff like bundling Pocket without it being uninstallable) but we fix and learn.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#97

Post by tomComb »

BrendanEich wrote: post #88
tomComb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't think they did those anymore. True, though, they've tried endless very slimy business models - anything that works until they get caught or called out.

We never replaced ads on web pages. The binance.{us,com} auto-complete affiliate code was a bug and we renounced any (tiny) revenue that might come from it. I think it's slimy to do what you just did. Why'd you do it? We didn't do the first thing you said, and we shipped and then fixed the bug on the second. I don't see how you can excuse your action.

Because I don't believe you. For example, I followed up on your claim about the second when it happened and it appeared clear to me that it was not a bug.

I'm now familiar with how you aggressively and dishonestly attack people who call out Brave's actions. I know I'm not special - that's just how you do business - but you aren't going to intimidate me.

I will make one concession to your attack though, I will declare that I'm not affiliated with any party in this and am simply doing my best to objectively judge the facts.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#98

Post by BrendanEich »

nicce wrote: post #71
soundnote wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They block their rival's ads and bring their own instead. It might be visible on a little different location, but in the end the result is the same; replacing ads from the websites.

False. Did you even check your claim, or are you parroting some unreliable source?

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#99

Post by jonathansampson »

nicce wrote: post #53
rvz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/ht…

How many shady or user-hostile things has Mozilla done? Receiving money is not making someone automatically bad. You become bad when you do other things than originally agreed for receiving the money, in benefit of money provider. > As long as they have Google's money and have them as the default search engine, their stance on privacy is a joke. Also to my knowledge, you can change search engine anytime you want.

Mozilla has been in hot-water in the past for silently installing extensions and more. But to your last comment (i.e. users can change their search engine whenever they want), consider the 'tyranny of the default'. Most users will not make changes to their browser out of the box. Most users frankly do not know how, or even know that they ought to in some areas.

When you install Firefox, and fire up that first session, your keystrokes in the address bar are sent to Google. There is no warning, or permission prompt. The same would happen if you accidentally pasted-in your social security number, or some other sensitive information—it gets sent right off to Google. It was this type of behavior, in part, that led independent researchers at Trinity College to grade Firefox lower than Brave in terms of out-of-the-box privacy: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf. In fact, Brave was found to be in its own class as the most private browser tested.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#100

Post by smoldesu »

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 hate playing cards and hate disagreeing with a personal hero even more, but as a gay person I frankly have a hard time caring. Eich is an idiot on the same level as Rob Monster, but he has a right to espouse or endorse whatever completely bonkers shit he wants. That's the reason why open source exists, and why we reserve the right to maintain a fork of someone's software if their leadership comes into question. I use Firefox every day, not in tacit recognition of homophobia or gamergate, but because I need a good browser that isn't made by Google. Mozilla is the second party, the leverage I need as an individual, and I should hope that they have dissenting opinions in their corporate structure. That's what drives innovation, it only becomes an issue when he abuses his power as a CEO to push his personal agenda. He didn't though, so I have a hard time pointing out where the "abuse" is in this situation. If it makes people uncomfortable to know they're constantly surrounded by people who disagree with them, maybe developing a web browser isn't the right line of work.

I have no dog in the "he quit/fired" race, but I find it disappointing that we've stooped to finger-pointing as a community. Open source was built to be better than this, not stooping to the same level as bigotry.

Post reply on HN