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

Brave Search launches own image and video search

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 172 posts

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#131

Post by gettodachoppa »

wusher wrote: post #29
user3939382 wrote: post #18

My priority for search is that it’s free of political censorship and weighting. Google is abysmal on this issue, then we had the DDG CEO on here making excuses for his very clear statements about Russian news sources. I don’t need or want anyone else to decide for me what qualifies as “misinformation” I will decide that for myself. It surprisingly comes up for image searching. Google for example has been known to cen…

this is exactly why i switched from ddg to brave

I didn't even know about Brave Search! Thanks for the heads up, I'll switch now and see how it compares. DDG's CEO praising censorship of Russian sites definitely soured me on them.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#132

Post by gettodachoppa »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #16
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see they say "if a domain or page is not crawlable by any search engine (it has a noindex tag), or if it is not crawlable by googlebot, then Brave Search’s bot will not crawl it either." 1: https://brave.com/search/api/

What if I want googlebot to crawl it but not bravebot? Every other search engine lets me block its crawler specifically. Only Brave has this shady policy.

Youu want the monopolistic tech giant to crawl you but not a small privacy-focused company? What possible justification could you have for this attitude?

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#133

Post by jaystraw »

Grimburger wrote: post #110
tympious wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I want what I publish to be known only by word of mouth? What if I consider (some or any of) my ideas to be un-indexable, not directly suitable to representation in any hierarchy other than those I may set them in?

Then you should hide them behind a url that isn't linked elsewhere on your site that you can easily propagate by word of mouth only. example.com/correcthorsebatterystaple If you consider "word of mouth" to be public posts on a forum which millions can read at any time then block googlebot IP's

...after decades of what i considered friendship, here you are on hn talking about my horse battery staple

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#134

Post by ColinHayhurst »

mg wrote: post #34

As far as I can tell, that makes for 5 independent image search engines on the web: Baidu Bing Brave Google Yandex You can compare their results on this search comparison page I maintain: https://www.gnod.com/search/?engines=p,o,br,n,q&nw=1 (If you want to also search image libraries like Flickr and Pexels, click on "more engines" to select all places you want to search)

You missed out Mojeek. For an independent take: https://seirdy.one/posts/2021/03/10/search-engines-with-own-...

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#135

Post by jaystraw »

magicalist wrote: post #67
isaacremuant wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave is the one that censors less, from all those. Specially doesn't censor for political motives that I'm aware of. That already makes it worth of support. But Google having become so bad of late has made switching quite easy, even if brave is not getting better super fast, Google unfortunately is getting worse and making up for it.

> Specially doesn't censor for political motives that I'm aware of What are the censored image searches you found?

I'm sure this isn't in the spirit or meaning of what you said, but to respond jokingly, I haven't found many censored anythings :-P turns out...

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#136

Post by [deleted] »

reitanqild wrote: post #123
soundnote wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they more or less lied about their relationship with Pocket. Can you elaborate? I don't really remember much about those kinds of things. > - Nerfing the extension API. This I think was necessary if you want a modern, secure browser. Wouldn't be against a more extensive extension API that double-checked with the user wrt access to more dangerous permissions, which is partly what the current ones do already.

The implementation of the old API was a problem: extension authors could do almost whatever they wanted. Today however Mozilla stalls at giving us back basic primitives like for example a programmatic way to hide the top tab bar when an extension provide an alternative tab bar like Tree Style Tabs or Sideberry.

[deleted]

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#138

Post by user_named »

onli wrote: post #102
pierrefar wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be bad, and it is already bad that Google and Microsoft control so much of search queries, but the decision about which search engine indexes a website is purely the publisher's.

A publisher publishes. Once something is published, once something is public, the control a publisher has over the published thing is limited. For example, a publisher can not choose who reads a book after it is sold, who reads an article after it got printed. It is not a given at all that a publisher should have any say about being indexed. The search engine relies on a public fact - X wrote Y. That's legal (limitat…

You are completely wrong. A publisher controls the publication of a work, text or other, including it's duplication and licensing. Other companies cannot xerox a book and sell it. Clear?

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#139

Post by memefrog »

pierrefar wrote: post #91
jaharios wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This make me want to use Brave search now. When I use a tool I expect it that it serves me, not the material it provides. > A publisher should have full control to discriminate which search engine indexes the website's content If you want someone to not see what you publish block him yourself. Also why would you want to do that? Do you want google to own the web or something?

There is a a difference between a human being able to access content vs a search engine indexing it (and in the case of Brave, "licensing" it on). I share your concern about Google having this much power, and I'd add that Microsoft Bing is equally bad but gets away with it because they're smaller. Still, the final decision about which search engine indexes a website is purely the publisher's.

There is a difference between Americans and Chinese people but that doesnt mean discriminating on racial lines is justified. Just saying "there is a difference" isnt an argument. Indexing a website isnt the same as reading it, but it is a form of consumption and I see no reason why they should be treated differently.

And to use that analogy even further, if you want to block Chinese visitors you block Chinese IPs. You do not add a file called "countries.txt" containing "China block" and then expect Chinese users to see it and voluntarily cease to use it, and threaten to sue them if they don't.

Repeatedly asserting that "the final decision is with the publisher" is stupid. That is the point you seem to want to defend. Defend it! Give us a reason. Just saying the same thing over and over again doesnt make it true.

Re: Brave Search launches own image and video search

#140

Post by memefrog »

user_named wrote: post #138
onli wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A publisher publishes. Once something is published, once something is public, the control a publisher has over the published thing is limited. For example, a publisher can not choose who reads a book after it is sold, who reads an article after it got printed. It is not a given at all that a publisher should have any say about being indexed. The search engine relies on a public fact - X wrote Y. That's legal (limitat…

You are completely wrong. A publisher controls the publication of a work, text or other, including it's duplication and licensing. Other companies cannot xerox a book and sell it. Clear?

Indexing has clear analogues from before the Internet. It is obviously not copyright infringement. Quoting a small snippet to give context for a search result also obviously isnt copyright infringement.
Post reply on HN