131–140 of 501 posts
Maybe I am looking at the privacy policy too simply, but why not prefer to use private browsing tabs? With auto fill password support, it is really not inconvenient.
I am now, with no actions on my part except running the betas for the new iOS, iPadOS, and macOS, using Apple’s new Tor-like system. I have no comment on this yet.
Another thing I’ve noticed in security (and I actually work in this field) is that if a project makes some progress but doesn’t address all the things (e.g. Signal end-to-end encryption for the masses but it uses a phone number or isn’t federalized), people criticise so strongly. It’s like, ok, but give some (actually a lot) of credit because it’s literally the best option right now?
1. Compatibility with Google Chrome Extensions. This is sine qua non (though I'd settle for compatibility with FF extensions).
2. Ad-blocking and reasonable-effort script blocking by default.
3. No apparent performance issues for my usage (YouTube, clicking links on HN, GitHub).
4. Integration with Tor, IPFS. Not a deal-breaker, but I do like it.
Fear mongering. A competitor maybe? Someone with an agenda against Eich because of the donation debacle? Privacy-wise, either Firefox or Brave are better than Chrome. Ads are annoying but they do fund the net.
I always find it odd that we worry so much about how much our browsers are tracking us, but almost nothing about what our ISPs are doing. Every time I've looked into it, it seems much worse. As far as I can tell, ISPs are legally allowed to sell your browsing history to third parties: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-pr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the past month or so, Brave on Ubuntu has been failing to block YT ads, so now I've been stuck with 2 unskippable multi-minute ads before almost every vid. I've been hitting mute and switching tabs while I wait. The most egregiously annoying one was 6 minutes of ads on an 8-minute standup comedy clip. Brave on mobile still blocks all that crap so I've transitioned to listening to YT content on my cellphone, propp…
You could pay for ad-free YouTube, if you dislike the ads so much. Many argue that "They'll pay to have ads removed", but that doesn't seem to hold true when services offers that exact option.
I would pay for ad free Youtube, if it was an option. Even with Youtube Premium, included promotions continue to be shown
The only reason I use Brave is that I can type “you” + tab to directly enter YouTube search from the URL input field, and this works for gMaps and Amazon. For the life of me I cannot figure out how to configure this in Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The privacy/tracking aspect of Braves Ads (which you don't have to use) seems to be way, way better than Google Adsense. It's like comparing the good ol' fixed "image banner + link" vs Adsense. They're both ads, but one is better than the other. And then you have Chrome sending data directly to Google, the auto logins, dark patterns, etc, which you don't get with Brave or Vivaldi.
>The privacy/tracking aspect of Braves Ads (which you don't have to use) seems to be way, way better than Google Adsense Exactly, "seems". Once again, good marketing from the Brave team. Heck, they even sponsored chess grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura on his Twitch stream.
It's not utopian, but works from a capitalist's standpoint. And a lot of real users like it!
So I feel as if the author is missing the point. Of course brave markets to you with ads. That's the entire point of the web browser. To ad-block, but then to replace it with a suitable privacy protecting alternative to the point that Brave (and everyone else) has no idea which ads you were served and what your browsing history is. The entire point is to mot just be an ad blocker, but to be private, and to provide a…
I feel the author is on point. Brave is all about marketing and surfing the privacy wave to make profit. Take a look at https://brave.com/brave-ads/ Brave goal is to acquire as much users as possible to sell them to advertisers. They are no different from Google. Might as well use Chrome with ublock origin and farm crypto on your own.
What matters to me is how much data they collect and how they use it. It seems pretty clear to me that they go out of their way to collect less data, and try to be very privacy concious about it.
Do you think they are lying about that? I personally don't, and the code is there for us to audit (the only closed source part of the browser is the part that guarantees it's a human not a bot viewing the ads as far as I know). So I think it's pretty safe to call them much better than Google and their revenue model is certainly a lot more stable than Firefox's.