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

Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 128 posts

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#111

Post by smoldesu »

colordrops wrote: post #43
smoldesu wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It represents a clear conflict of interest with the way I intend to use the internet. There are no half-measures with advertising, there will be no crypto in or around my browser. If they wanted to make a case for using their browser over Ungoogled Chromium, they shouldn't have started by shilling their own shitcoin. Also, their creator compensation program is quite terrible, which Tom Scott has documented quite thor…

So what's your alternative? Firefox? What about their huge conflict of interest in getting nearly all their funding from Google? Seems worse if you ask me. At least Brave maintains independence.

Brave doesn't even do that. They're still beholden to Google's rendering engine, still forced to complain about the same changes and get dragged around on the same lede. Using Brave is no worse than just installing Chrome and forgetting about it.

The alternative is Firefox (the browser they didn't let Brendan Eich ruin), or stock Chromium with uBlock. Ungoogled Chromium works great too, and hell I'd probably consider using a webkit browser before I'd reach for Brave. Or Vivaldi, for that matter. At least they don't have a goddamn crypto scam being engineered in the same offices where they build the browser.

> What about their huge conflict of interest in getting nearly all their funding from Google?

It's better than getting all of their funding from a 30% cut of your ad revenue. At least Google is funding Mozilla out of pity.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#112

Post by smoldesu »

waffle_maniac wrote: post #104
smoldesu wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It represents a clear conflict of interest with the way I intend to use the internet. There are no half-measures with advertising, there will be no crypto in or around my browser. If they wanted to make a case for using their browser over Ungoogled Chromium, they shouldn't have started by shilling their own shitcoin. Also, their creator compensation program is quite terrible, which Tom Scott has documented quite thor…

> Also, their creator compensation program is quite terrible, which Tom Scott has documented quite thoroughly. It's all designed to feed back into Brave's cut, slowly siphoning your ad money to line their own pockets. Creators get whatever Brave users donate to them. Perhaps creators should remind their users to donate?

Perhaps Brave shouldn't use other creator's likenesses without their express consent, and shouldn't treat their second-rate crypto as a legitimate or desirable currency to be compensated with. Why would I want to be paid in a centralized shitcoin where King Homophobe takes 30% and the revenue is generated by skipping the ads that would have otherwise just supported me directly?

Creators don't get whatever Brave users donate to them. Brave doesn't pay them, they dangle a bunch of meaningless tokens in front of their face (again, using their own likeness without consent), and tell them to make an account if they want a fraction of the revenue that they would have received otherwise.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#114

Post by colordrops »

smoldesu wrote: post #111
colordrops wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your alternative? Firefox? What about their huge conflict of interest in getting nearly all their funding from Google? Seems worse if you ask me. At least Brave maintains independence.

Brave doesn't even do that. They're still beholden to Google's rendering engine, still forced to complain about the same changes and get dragged around on the same lede. Using Brave is no worse than just installing Chrome and forgetting about it. The alternative is Firefox (the browser they didn't let Brendan Eich ruin), or stock Chromium with uBlock. Ungoogled Chromium works great too, and hell I'd probably consider…

> At least Google is funding Mozilla out of pity.

This is absolutely not why they are funding Mozilla.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#115

Post by colordrops »

the_duke wrote: post #56
colordrops wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The brave-hate meme is self perpetuating at this point. Brave is privacy-oriented out of the box. You have to opt in for the ads and crypto. Isn't that what everyone has been asking for? opt-in instead of opt-out? I'm convinced that Google is behind a smear campaign against Brave. If Brave got real traction it could be a serious threat to their business.

Google is often dismissively called an ad company. Why is that? Because most of their revenue is from ads. How does Brave make money? With ads. Privacy-centric positioning makes sense to capture a part of the market. But the mis-aligned incentives are there for Brave just as much as they are for Google. Are they better right now than Google? Probably. Is it smart to trust a company that only makes money with ads with…

I would use Google if they didn't consistently behave poorly and provide a poor privacy. I did use them for a long time. I'm not opposed to ads. I'm opposed to their behavior. Once Brave starts behaving poorly I'll stop using it.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#116

Post by colordrops »

bfung wrote: post #57
omneity wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t, I’ve never used Brave. In this case your entire comment is pure FUD and a cheap shot at Brave. I’ve been using Brave for 2 years, never saw a single ad.

> never saw a single ad That cannot be true; brave cannot block first party ads. I’m saying something very simple: 1. Brave is a browser like any other, in fact, built on top of chromium. 2. The ad blocking can be achieved with ad blockers using normal browsers. There’s ways to block cookies too. 3. Brave has presets for 1&2. Additionally, Brave adds on top more opt-in ads using BAT as an incentive. Hence, use a norm…

They meant Brave ads.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#117

Post by hyperbovine »

vntok wrote: post #73
hyperbovine wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That cannot be true; brave cannot block first party ads. Do all sites on the internet employ first party ads? No? Then it can be true.

It cannot be true that you never saw a single ad because brave cannot block first party ads and the probability that you never ever visited a site that uses 1st party ads is basically zero.

“Basically zero” is not the same thing as zero. “Probably untrue” is not the same thing as “not true”.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#118

Post by waffle_maniac »

smoldesu wrote: post #112
waffle_maniac wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, their creator compensation program is quite terrible, which Tom Scott has documented quite thoroughly. It's all designed to feed back into Brave's cut, slowly siphoning your ad money to line their own pockets. Creators get whatever Brave users donate to them. Perhaps creators should remind their users to donate?

Perhaps Brave shouldn't use other creator's likenesses without their express consent, and shouldn't treat their second-rate crypto as a legitimate or desirable currency to be compensated with. Why would I want to be paid in a centralized shitcoin where King Homophobe takes 30% and the revenue is generated by skipping the ads that would have otherwise just supported me directly? Creators don't get whatever Brave users…

> King Homophobe

Uhhh… Your HN profile says: “serious discussions only”

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#119

Post by 3836293648 »

petre wrote: post #26
newscracker wrote: post #22

This is Google extending an invite to the EU and other regulators to bring their war hammers and forever ban browser makers from pushing targeted ads and enabling profiling of people. Maybe break Google up and make the Google Chrome team a separate company with restrictions on how much it can work hand-in-hand with Google? Anyone in the EU who can file complaints about these abuses of market power? Tell the people yo…

How can the EU break up a US company?

It's not a US company. Google is Irish.

Sure, it's a technicality, but Irish law still applies

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#120

Post by [deleted] »

wbl wrote: post #106
anticristi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto. EU already solved the problem -- legally, not technically. A few fines later, Google is actually really privacy-minded to EU citizen. I get a yearly reminder to do a privacy checkup and can disable Google tracking if I want to -- which I do. California and Virginia also enacted similar laws. More lawmakers need to understand tech.

And third party cookies get further embedded. FLOC exists so that killing third party cookies doesn't destroy the ad market.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN