For me brave mobile was the only usable browser on android because it has a bottom tab bar. I don’t know why chrome itself ditched it, does nobody at Google have a >6 inch phone? Then I discovered edge on android and it is really good (if you can live with the fact that it is from Microsoft). Now I switched to iOS and safari has bottom navigation by default.
Goodbye Brave
61–70 of 252 posts
Re: Goodbye Brave
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Vivaldi proprietary? I would cross it off the list as well. Then maybe add qutebrowser, nyxt, and ungoogled-chromium.
While it is technically proprietary I'll ask you to read their statement [0] on the matter. The absolute majority of the code base is open. [0]: https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-browser-open-source/
Vivaldi is super nice but the debate about it's code is what keeps people at bay. Mozilla is too arrogant for me, and chromium, while my daily browser feels very barebones for 2021.
I really like the odd de-mozilla'd Firefox versions though.
Re: Goodbye Brave
#63I cannot understand why technically savvy people keep using spywares like Brave ( https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html ) or Chrome ( https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/chrome.html ) when we have better alternatives such as Vivaldi ( https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/vivaldi.html ) or Firefox ( https://spyware.neocities.org/guides/firefox.html )
Firefox is less secure, as has been said many times here already. You might dislike the Blink hegemony but they're the only ones who invest enough in security. Vivaldi's closed source, and Firefox doesn't have site isolation on all platforms yet. (Neither does Safari). Chrome had it in 2018. 3 years is not excusable when a 0day can be the difference between freedom and jail (or worse). "Privacy" is defective when you…
Can you cite one real-world example of someone who's been infected using Firefox in newer times?
The link you're referencing talks about NT kernel syscalls - if the computer is already infected it doesn't matter what browser is being used.
If one is a high-value target for a nation state or something of that caliber I would agree with you - but that doesn't apply to regular users. Atleast to my knowledge.
Another counter-argument here is that people looking for vulnerabilities would much rather spend their time looking for chrome exploits than firefox exploits (because of market share), no?
Re: Goodbye Brave
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's at least worth having the discussion about "acceptable ads". While reasonable people can disagree, I personally think that unobtrusive advertising that doesn't harvest your data should be a valid business model.
It was a surprise to me, but there is a group of people - possibly native to tech circles, possibly a broader group - who appear to be genuinely angry about the existence of advertising as a thing. Let alone if they personally have to view ads. It is a bit confusing to be honest. There seems to be something very upsetting happening but exactly what is causing that response I can't pick out.
How is it confusing? Some people don't want ads in their faces. Especially when they are generally bullshit.
Re: Goodbye Brave
#65I think this is due to Brave proxying some Google requests through their own servers, because otherwise the same people would complain that a Google server is being contacted. > I am thinking of going back to [Chromium] with the usual extensions like Ghostery, AdBlock+ > [Brave's] amazing ad-blocking and tracker protection If you just need an adblocker, sure. At this point everone should have heard of uBlock Origin.
Unfortunately I still see too many people use Adblock plus and the like which leads me to believe ublock origin lacks some sort of name or brand recognition with your average user
I think ABP+ was just first to mass market penetration, and people still associate it - ad blocker -> ad block plus.
Re: Goodbye Brave
#66For people discussing alternatives, consider LibreWolf. It is firefox with the privacy nob turned to 11 out of the box, have been daily driving it for a few months now without any issues.
Re: Goodbye Brave
#67Hi author, if you're here on HN please consider ditching sketchy extensions like Ghostery (sells your user data) and Adblock+ (participates in paid bypass of "acceptable ads" program) for the open-source and user-focused uBlock Origin ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock ). Also, if you haven't tried Firefox since the quantum days come back and give it another try.
I think it's at least worth having the discussion about "acceptable ads". While reasonable people can disagree, I personally think that unobtrusive advertising that doesn't harvest your data should be a valid business model.
What's an "acceptable ad"? The text only ads Google sold way back in their infancy seemed acceptable but the goalposts were constantly shifted towards the distracting, privacy disrespecting, security nightmare which is now an integral part of the hellscape that is the "modern web". Why should I trust the advertising industry again?
Is advertising a valid business model? For some apps and services perhaps, but it's not the only option and in many cases serves the business and users poorly. I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the best products I've used recently have actually put some thought into how to monetize.
Re: Goodbye Brave
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's at least worth having the discussion about "acceptable ads". While reasonable people can disagree, I personally think that unobtrusive advertising that doesn't harvest your data should be a valid business model.
Maybe, but AB+'s acceptable ads program does not whitelist "acceptable ads", it whitelists "acceptable ads who have paid AB+ 30% of their ad revenue". Bonus points for the obvious conflict of interest of AB+ privately determining what "acceptable" means (where remember, if they say yes they make money). AB+ "acceptable ads" exists to solicit bribes from websites to display their ads.
I'm not directly disputing what you're saying, just wanted to point out for context that (1) you have to reach some threshold before you have to start paying AB+ to whitelist you (I don't know much about the business of advertising so unclear how high a bar this is to clear); (2) technically an independent entity gets to determine what's "acceptable" (I don't know how independent it actually is in practice).
> AB+ "acceptable ads" exists to solicit bribes from websites to display their ads.
Surely you admit that the "acceptable" criteria are at least directionally correct? So even if you find the model icky, it's also "improving" the overall quality of ads (i.e. making them less intrusive/obnoxious/annoying)?
Given the shortcomings of AB+, what do you think is a better way of (1) defining acceptable ad standards; (2) generating enough revenue as an organization to build/maintain ad whitelists? Genuine questions to provoke discussion :)
Re: Goodbye Brave
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's at least worth having the discussion about "acceptable ads". While reasonable people can disagree, I personally think that unobtrusive advertising that doesn't harvest your data should be a valid business model.
It was a surprise to me, but there is a group of people - possibly native to tech circles, possibly a broader group - who appear to be genuinely angry about the existence of advertising as a thing. Let alone if they personally have to view ads. It is a bit confusing to be honest. There seems to be something very upsetting happening but exactly what is causing that response I can't pick out.
Many of the best and brightest minds of our time are being employed by megacorps that exist solely to devise new ways to trick grandmothers into clicking on an ad that claims “This one weird trick that doctors don’t want you to know”. How is that not pathetic? How is that not a giant waste of human potential? If the Soviet Union had funneled their computer science students to thinking of ways to manipulate boomers, we would call it evidence of their moronic inefficiency.
Re: Goodbye Brave
#70Emphasis mine in the below quote:
> "Arunmozhi is a freelance programmer and an open-source enthusiast."
I'm surprised, shocked and dumfounded that Firefox is not even mentioned while Vivaldi and Chromium are being considered. For someone who put up with Brave for years and its other issues, it really seems strange that Firefox is not in consideration.