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

Goodbye Brave

arunmozhi.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 252 posts

Re: Goodbye Brave

#221

Post by freediver »

chrmod wrote: post #166
cmeacham98 wrote: post #6

Hi 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.

Disclaimer: I work for Ghostery. I respond to protect my own name, not my employer. Ghostery is not selling user data. Let me point out a few facts: All browser-side code is open source https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-extension and https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-dnr-extension . Yes, Ghostery has a subscription based business model and that another reason to great care in protecting users privacy. Take a lo…

> All browser-side code is open source

Indirectly relevant - It is not the client source code that is ever the issue. It is the server side code and the business model that matters.

Client can be even closed source, if it is zero-telemetry. There is no danger for user privacy there.

But if the client is not zero-telemetry, and is phoning home, at the very least private information like IP address will be transferred and we have no way of knowing what is done with it.

The original post talks exactly about the problem with dependency on the server side which for a browser (and an ad blocker for that matter ) should ideally be zero with the option to opt-in for things like updates.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#222

Post by freediver »

whakim wrote: post #35
cmeacham98 wrote: post #6

Hi 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.

The only acceptable ads are those that are unobtrusive and people have opted-into seeing while not being incentivized to see them (for example being paid to see ads as this is a perverse incentive).

For example when I share this link to my favorite ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q49fDwqwK5E

and you decide to check it out, it satisfies the above criteria.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#223

Post by freediver »

concinds wrote: post #149
WoahNoun wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea this confuses me too. Many advertisements have made me aware of things that I would be interested in but didn't know about. Marketing and advertising can be valuable to those on the receiving end.

Online ads benefit the little guy. Nike and others can afford billboard and TV ads. If you've ever tried starting up a small Shopify business, online ads are all you're going to get. The problems are the power Facebook and Google have over the ad market, that increases ad costs for businesses by a lot (I've read, one third, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more). But online ads are a lifeline for small businesses.…

I think noone argues against ads being useful, when dosed properly. Same like sleeping pills for example. The problem is that ad-based business can not resist the temptation to "overdose" the user. This is how we got in the situation that infuriates so many people (almost a billion devices use an ad-blocker). People just do not want to see so many ads everywhere.

Let's take Brave for example. Open home page of brave.com and you get:

"The best privacy online

Browse privately. Search privately. And ditch Big Tech."

And a nice screenshot.

The problem is this is not what Brave works/looks like when you open it the first time.

By their own research [1], on your first run Brave will immediately "phone home" 80(!) times. The original post discussed here talks about mundane features like installing an extension not working without contacting their servers about it.

Then, the user is immediately welcomed by ads for several crypto services right there in the browser on the right hand side (curiously hidden on their home page screenshot). I guess that:

"Browser that shares your private information with us and shows you ads you do not really want" would not fly well as a tagline.

Having this behavior turned on by default is where user frustration begins and is later then just amplified by even worse behavior, again incentivized by the fact that the business model is simply dependent on ads, like the other big tech.

[1] https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/

Re: Goodbye Brave

#224

Post by freediver »

sombremesa wrote: post #4

Weird that this person doesn’t even consider Firefox, the only browser that lets you have Adblock and other addons on mobile (but not on iOS, sadly).

Not the only one - Orion browser lets you have addons on iOS.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#225

Post by freediver »

jonathansampson wrote: post #214
xtracto wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I am wrong but Brave doesn't block ads in Google search results [1]. Wouldn't that be part of an ads whitelist? [1] https://i.ibb.co/nPfpdP7/image.png

By default, Brave tends to leave first-party advertising alone. As such, Google ads on Google sites aren't usually blocked in Brave. Google Ads on non-Google sites are, since they are one of the primary means by which user-data is harvested across the Web. We believe that you should have the right to run ads on your own domain(s). That said, Brave offers an 'Aggressive' mode (via the shields) which will go even furth…

> By default, Brave tends to leave first-party advertising alone.

Curious why? Do you think that ads in Google search are good for the user and not privacy-invading? Those ads account for most of Google's revenue.

Do you not have a problem with claiming this on the homepage:

"Brave blocks all creepy ads from every website by default." when this is clearly not the case?

Or Brave does not consider Google a part of the "big tech" it is "helping to ditch"?

Re: Goodbye Brave

#226

Post by Overtonwindow »

I generally believed Brave was a good idea, but it's performance and stability leaves a lot lacking. Instability in particular made it unusable at times, but figuring out why usually went back to ads failing to load.

If you are blocking an ad, could a website react to that by slowing, or disrupting your connection?

Re: Goodbye Brave

#227

Post by jonathansampson »

freediver wrote: post #225
jonathansampson wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By default, Brave tends to leave first-party advertising alone. As such, Google ads on Google sites aren't usually blocked in Brave. Google Ads on non-Google sites are, since they are one of the primary means by which user-data is harvested across the Web. We believe that you should have the right to run ads on your own domain(s). That said, Brave offers an 'Aggressive' mode (via the shields) which will go even furth…

> By default, Brave tends to leave first-party advertising alone. Curious why? Do you think that ads in Google search are good for the user and not privacy-invading? Those ads account for most of Google's revenue. Do you not have a problem with claiming this on the homepage: "Brave blocks all creepy ads from every website by default." when this is clearly not the case? Or Brave does not consider Google a part of the…

First-party advertising is not necessarily privacy-invading since first-party ads offer no extra reach into the user's data than is already possible from the site itself.

If you're on a Google-owned site, an in-situ first-party ad isn't necessary to harvest information about you—the page itself can do this far more effectively than any ad element. Blocking first-party advertisements is largely an aesthetic decision; Brave enables this via the Aggressive Mode in Shields.

By "creepy ads," we're referring to the invasive, data-collecting remote ad scripts which siphon your data from one host to another via JavaScript, Cookies, and cross-domain requests. First party ads (e.g. a Fortnite advertisement on the Epic Games website, or Google Ads in the Google Search Results) are not examples of cross-domain data-harvesting elements.

We absolutely do think that Google itself is creepy, and that it should be avoided entirely. Consider search.brave.com instead ;)

Re: Goodbye Brave

#228

Post by jonathansampson »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #226

I generally believed Brave was a good idea, but it's performance and stability leaves a lot lacking. Instability in particular made it unusable at times, but figuring out why usually went back to ads failing to load. If you are blocking an ad, could a website react to that by slowing, or disrupting your connection?

Are you able to share examples of sites which aren't loading well in Brave? We'd be happy to take a closer look and see what can be done. To your question though, it's technically possible for a site to throttle bandwidth for users who are blocking ads, but this would be a complicated and extremely error-prone process. It would likely result in far too many false-positives to be considered by any major site. Not to mention, it's entirely possible to make a site think an ad has loaded when it fact it has not (Brave does this in some cases).

Sampson (Brave Team)

Re: Goodbye Brave

#229

Post by freediver »

jonathansampson wrote: post #227
freediver wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By default, Brave tends to leave first-party advertising alone. Curious why? Do you think that ads in Google search are good for the user and not privacy-invading? Those ads account for most of Google's revenue. Do you not have a problem with claiming this on the homepage: "Brave blocks all creepy ads from every website by default." when this is clearly not the case? Or Brave does not consider Google a part of the…

First-party advertising is not necessarily privacy-invading since first-party ads offer no extra reach into the user's data than is already possible from the site itself. If you're on a Google-owned site, an in-situ first-party ad isn't necessary to harvest information about you—the page itself can do this far more effectively than any ad element. Blocking first-party advertisements is largely an aesthetic decision;…

> We absolutely do think that Google itself is creepy, and that it should be avoided entirely

Yet you chose to allow ads that feed majority of Google's revenue?

> Blocking first-party advertisements is largely an aesthetic decision

Blocking all ads is an aesthetic decision. Users would still use ad-blockers even if all the ads in the world were not mining user data.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#230

Post by jonathansampson »

freediver wrote: post #229
jonathansampson wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First-party advertising is not necessarily privacy-invading since first-party ads offer no extra reach into the user's data than is already possible from the site itself. If you're on a Google-owned site, an in-situ first-party ad isn't necessary to harvest information about you—the page itself can do this far more effectively than any ad element. Blocking first-party advertisements is largely an aesthetic decision;…

> We absolutely do think that Google itself is creepy, and that it should be avoided entirely Yet you chose to allow ads that feed majority of Google's revenue? > Blocking first-party advertisements is largely an aesthetic decision Blocking all ads is an aesthetic decision. Users would still use ad-blockers even if all the ads in the world were not mining user data.

If the user navigates to Google, the user is handing themselves to Google. If the user wishes to block first-party content on Google (which doesn't amplify their risk in any way), Brave supports that option via Aggressive Mode. Brave blocks, by default, that which is harmful. If you're willingly typing data into Google, their SERP ads aren't increasing or adding-to your risk in any way.

Brave supports the option to block all ads. By default we block the harmful ones. We offer options for blocking the non-harmful (but perhaps distracting/annoying ones) as well (via Shields and custom lists; see brave://adblock/).

If you wish not to see the first-party SERP ads on Google, I would suggest you not use Google. If you would like to use Google, know that doing so enables them to collect and harvest all sorts of data about you. But, you can hide their SERP ads (which doesn't secure any of your data) by switching Brave's shields from Strict to Aggressive.

Better to use https://search.brave.com instead ;)

Post reply on HN