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

151–160 of 231 posts

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#151

Post by [deleted] »

DonHopkins wrote: post #142
BrendanEich wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"damage"? Be serious. Brave even at 40M users has not done enough to the Web to merit such fake-drama langauge from you. What's your issue?

Since you claim to be so honest and open and brave, then please finally and truthfully answer my questions about all the damage you intentionally inflicted on same sex couples in California, by donating your money to the Proposition 8 campaign, who used your money to produce hateful anti-gay propaganda full of outright lies and "fake drama language", like this "Gathering Storm" ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Az…

[deleted]

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#152

Post by BrendanEich »

DonHopkins wrote: post #142
BrendanEich wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"damage"? Be serious. Brave even at 40M users has not done enough to the Web to merit such fake-drama langauge from you. What's your issue?

Since you claim to be so honest and open and brave, then please finally and truthfully answer my questions about all the damage you intentionally inflicted on same sex couples in California, by donating your money to the Proposition 8 campaign, who used your money to produce hateful anti-gay propaganda full of outright lies and "fake drama language", like this "Gathering Storm" ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Az…

Never funded NOM or that video, Don. Try not lying so much about me. Once again, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28621826.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#153

Post by soundnote »

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.

Mozilla, the foundation, is a nonprofit. The Corporation is a for-profit entity (though it apparently invests all its profits back into the company).

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#154

Post by DonHopkins »

BrendanEich wrote: post #152
DonHopkins wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you claim to be so honest and open and brave, then please finally and truthfully answer my questions about all the damage you intentionally inflicted on same sex couples in California, by donating your money to the Proposition 8 campaign, who used your money to produce hateful anti-gay propaganda full of outright lies and "fake drama language", like this "Gathering Storm" ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Az…

Never funded NOM or that video, Don. Try not lying so much about me. Once again, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28621826 .

>Once again, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28621826.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28621826 says:

>[deleted]

That doesn't answer my questions.

You, Brendan Eich, helped fund the campaign for Proposition 8, which destroyed many marriages. True or false?

Honestly, can you please address those questions directly, instead of linking me to a deleted message and dodging the questions?

If you don't want same sex couples to get married, at least be brave enough to come out and say it, instead of dodging and playing semantic word games.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#155

Post by jonathansampson »

ziddoap wrote: post #125
jonathansampson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words have semantic range, and this is no less true for "replace" than for any other word. In 2016 there were reports that Brave would replace ads [meaning in-situ, in-page substitution] with its own ads. This never happened. Yet the claim continues to live on (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28619682 for a local example). But anybody who downloads and uses Brave for a few seconds can quickly tell that this…

> Words have semantic range, and this is no less true for "replace" than for any other word. I agree. Although I'm sure it's clear that I believe "replace" is semantically compatible with "remove advertisements from X, instead serving ads from Y in a different location". > perhaps the author meant only "Brave blocks Google's ads, and has created its own advertising model in its place." This was my interpretation. > B…

See my later edits to those comments, wherein I shared an example from another user in this thread accusing Brave of in-situ ad-replacement. That is usually the claim being made (first seen in 2016, and refusing to die since).

Brave is definitely working hard to replace that which doesn't work on the Web, advertising being one such thing. We're pushing for a model that is based on consent, equity, and an a priori commitment to privacy (don't touch the user's data). If we can successfully replace (however you wish to interpret that) Google with such a model, then I'm content

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#156

Post by ElijahLynn »

BrendanEich wrote: post #147
ElijahLynn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using Brave for over a year now. I don't use the opt-in Brave Rewards Ads but do use the Brave Rewards Auto-Contribute. I love Brave and think it is actually going to save the web from becoming a shitty, slow experience over the years to come. My only gripe is that the crypto integration with Uphold to pay creators is/was hard to use. I love the idea that I can pay $20/month to use the web and that money is…

Off topic but please shoot me a message (I'm easy to reach, first at company dot com) with what you find hard to use. I may agree and we're working on better ways to support creators, but I hope to capture your specific issues. Thanks.

Sure, sent!

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#157

Post by BrendanEich »

kf6nux wrote: post #73
aeturnum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why Brave Rewards needs to be enabled, but it seems very normal for the company operating a service to require some kind of account or membership. If you don't trust Brave this is probably not the service for you.

It's even more mundane than that. They just require you to allow their ads during your call. It's privacy preserving ad tech in exchange for 1:1 video calls. That's way better than sites requiring you to allow 3rd party ads to use their site. EDIT: I just saw they let you set your ads to "0 per hour" and still let you use this service. I wonder if that's an oversight.

No, it's intended that a rewards user can turn off ads. Some users who turn off ads then self-fund (via a custodian such as Gemini) to support their favorite sites and creators, even automatically via private browser-only analytics (so-called Auto-contribute mode).

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#158

Post by ElijahLynn »

BrendanEich wrote: post #149
ElijahLynn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, these sites are all setup on Brave Rewards to receive funds via Brave Rewards contributions. I got this list from my history by going to brave://rewards/ in Brave: * Wikipedia.org * SmithsonianMag.com * ArsTechnica.com * TheRegister.com * Archive.org * TheGuardian.com * LaTimes.com * DuckDuckGo.com * NPR.org

See https://bravebat.info/ for the full list of sites and channels.

Thanks, I found what I was wanting to post in my list but couldn't verify it. And that is that WashingtonPost.com is listed as a Brave Creator.

https://bravebat.info/creators/website/31382

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#160

Post by ElijahLynn »

BrendanEich wrote: post #101
tomComb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you don't believe me, then there's no point in talking. But you can verify for yourself that we've never replaced ads in publisher pages. On the binance.{us,com} autocomplete with affiliate code, it was a blunder where two entries in a table had the wrong flag passed in. Not sure how to prove intent, so again: no point talking if you don't believe me but my work has been in the open for 23+ years and I stand behin…

I believe you Brendan!
Post reply on HN