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

Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 231 posts

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#141

Post by ElijahLynn »

zormino wrote: post #51
jp42 wrote: post #21

May be naive question. How does Brave earn money to sustain its operations?

By replacing ads on websites with their own, and url hijacking for referral profits. They are not a good service, they're content thieves with a mask on.

I've been using Brave for over a year now. I don't use the opt-in Brave Rewards Ads but do use the Brave Rewards Auto-Contribute. I love Brave and think it is actually going to save the web from becoming a shitty, slow experience over the years to come.

My only gripe is that the crypto integration with Uphold to pay creators is/was hard to use. I love the idea that I can pay $20/month to use the web and that money is disbursed to the sites I visit most!

Update: This motivated me to login to Uphold again and relink Brave Rewards so I can use the auto-contribute feature. Uphold didn't have recurring transactions for debit/credit cards originally so it was too much friction to use, but it is all working now.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#142

Post by DonHopkins »

BrendanEich wrote: post #120
tomComb wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with your record - you sell it endlessly. Your getting in early at Mozilla doesn't make up for the damage you've done to the web with Brave.

"damage"? Be serious. Brave even at 40M users has not done enough to the Web to merit such fake-drama langauge from you. What's your issue?

Since you claim to be so honest and open and brave, then please finally and truthfully answer my questions about all the damage you intentionally inflicted on same sex couples in California, by donating your money to the Proposition 8 campaign, who used your money to produce hateful anti-gay propaganda full of outright lies and "fake drama language", like this "Gathering Storm" ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzLrn5JVIo

Why did you successfully try to destroy other people's marriages by donating your money to support Proposition 8?

Please explain why you believe same sex couples shouldn't have the same human rights to marry the person they love that you presumably enjoy?

Was your own marriage undermined as badly as you intentionally undermined many other people's marriages, after the Supreme Court declared same sex marriage legal?

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#143

Post by ElijahLynn »

vrc wrote: post #131
rglullis wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave rewards is opt-in. If you don't want to receive ads, just don't turn it on. If you still want to support creators but do not want to receive any kind of ads, just buy some BAT at any exchange, load your wallet and schedule monthly contributions. If you want to support a publisher who is not on the creators program - send them a message and let them know they have another income alternative.

Right. You’re missing my point. From the consumer side that makes sense. Very few publishers (ie those that are high quality and you’d happily spend on) are hooked up to receive funds from Brave, or will ever choose to receive funds from Brave. So lots of these transactions leave your wallet, Brave takes a cut, and then the remainder sits in limbo or is escheated to the state. The ads ecosystem is a 2-sided marketpla…

FWIW, these sites are all setup on Brave Rewards to receive funds via Brave Rewards contributions. I got this list from my history by going to brave://rewards/ in Brave:

* Wikipedia.org

* SmithsonianMag.com

* ArsTechnica.com

* TheRegister.com

* Archive.org

* TheGuardian.com

* LaTimes.com

* DuckDuckGo.com

* NPR.org

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#144

Post by BrendanEich »

DonHopkins wrote: post #136
BrendanEich wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never harassed anyone at Mozilla or anywhere else. You wrote "They [Mozilla] told about harassment against their employees by Brendan Eich." Where did Mozilla allege any such thing?

Why did you successfully try to destroy other people's marriages by donating your money to support Proposition 8? Please explain why you believe same sex couples shouldn't have the same human rights to marry the person they love that you presumably enjoy? Was your own marriage undermined as badly as you intentionally undermined many other people's marriages, after the Supreme Court declared same sex marriage legal?

Hi Don, you shouldn't jump in here to harass me. BTW, I still have all those Facebook messages you sent years ago, some violent in tone and metaphor, to which I never responded (but I did report to Facebook). Should I publish them here?

I was not talking to you, for good and now obvious-to-everyone reasons. You are so unbalanced when it comes to me that you didn't even read the comment above to which you copy-pasted the same blob of text that you've spammed elsewhere on HN, about how I quit and I wasn't fired. The commenter above never said I was fired.

You're wrong on "destroy": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891

The issue with Prop 8 was the definition of, not right to, state licensed marriage (it proscribed bigamy and polygamy too). Try not inserting your hostile conclusions as premises of your questions. I'm not going to reply further to you.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#145

Post by nicce »

BrendanEich wrote: post #135
nicce wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are always two sides for the story. So how did they harass? They told about harassment against their employees by Brendan Eich. I guess the main question is whether that is harassing. Brendan Eich did the same publicly against his employees.

I never harassed anyone at Mozilla or anywhere else. You wrote "They [Mozilla] told about harassment against their employees by Brendan Eich." Where did Mozilla allege any such thing?

Harassing can also be considered as opposing the "equality". It is a dangerous path to take part for some specific politics, when the target of those politics are working under the same company. If the employees feels that this brings inequality for them inside the company, it can be considered as harassment, if it is showing in some way. As Mozilla, I referred multiple employees which came with above feelings at that time, and I can say only based on what I read.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#146

Post by barnabee »

jjulius wrote: post #48
barnabee wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reader mode proves that "exatly as sent" is the opposite of what I want. I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.). I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or mu…

I actually largely agree with you. I should clarify my original comment a bit, I think. I want my browser to display the page exactly as sent until I tell it not to . It should be serving pages to me as-is, and things such as ad/content blockers, and reader mode, should be my choices. I don't want the browser making those decisions for me ahead of time and without my input.

This is fair, or at least, if they do make those choices ahead of time they should be well publicised and configurable, or it should be a specialised, single purpose browser.

To that extent, I think if Brave is open and honest and says "we're a browser that reformats pages in this way" that is ok. It's sneaky shit, dark patterns, bundling things you want with things you might not, etc. that make me distrusting of them.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#147

Post by BrendanEich »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #141
zormino wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By replacing ads on websites with their own, and url hijacking for referral profits. They are not a good service, they're content thieves with a mask on.

I've been using Brave for over a year now. I don't use the opt-in Brave Rewards Ads but do use the Brave Rewards Auto-Contribute. I love Brave and think it is actually going to save the web from becoming a shitty, slow experience over the years to come. My only gripe is that the crypto integration with Uphold to pay creators is/was hard to use. I love the idea that I can pay $20/month to use the web and that money is…

Off topic but please shoot me a message (I'm easy to reach, first at company dot com) with what you find hard to use. I may agree and we're working on better ways to support creators, but I hope to capture your specific issues. Thanks.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#148

Post by soundnote »

tolien wrote: post #43
sneak wrote: post #24

How many times have Brave pivoted at this point? First it was ad replacement, then it was a patreon thing that took donations (illegally) for third parties that didn't want it, then it was ad blocking, then it was a search engine, then it was videoconferencing.... What exactly is their revenue model?

> How many times have Brave pivoted at this point? On one hand, the features are at least somewhat adjacent to their core business of building a web browser. On the other, whenever Mozilla did something like this they were panned for spreading themselves too thin and diverging from their core mission.

On the other hand, Mozilla fans are mostly morons who are actively hostile to success and want a pristine FOSS project funded entirely on donations. (I was one of those morons back in the day)

I think initiatives like Pocket, Brave Search, Brave Talk, a privacy-respecting ads ecosystem, Vivaldi's Mail/Calendar/RSS setup and integrated barebones Notes module are all pretty much exactly what should happen. There was an article about how using Firefox alone is meaningless: http://dpldocs.info/this-week-in-d/Blog.Posted_2021_09_06.ht...

I'm drawn to agree: The browser alone is a hard sell, a bit like how Steve Jobs said that Dropbox is not a product, but a feature. A browser company needs to provide services for users to stay relevant. Search, notes and communication tools are part and parcel of that. If you're just a window, you're going to die.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#149

Post by BrendanEich »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #143
vrc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. You’re missing my point. From the consumer side that makes sense. Very few publishers (ie those that are high quality and you’d happily spend on) are hooked up to receive funds from Brave, or will ever choose to receive funds from Brave. So lots of these transactions leave your wallet, Brave takes a cut, and then the remainder sits in limbo or is escheated to the state. The ads ecosystem is a 2-sided marketpla…

FWIW, these sites are all setup on Brave Rewards to receive funds via Brave Rewards contributions. I got this list from my history by going to brave://rewards/ in Brave: * Wikipedia.org * SmithsonianMag.com * ArsTechnica.com * TheRegister.com * Archive.org * TheGuardian.com * LaTimes.com * DuckDuckGo.com * NPR.org

See https://bravebat.info/ for the full list of sites and channels.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#150

Post by barnabee »

shreyshnaccount wrote: post #65
barnabee wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reader mode proves that "exatly as sent" is the opposite of what I want. I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.). I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or mu…

what impossible fantasy! you expect software you use, which a for profit company made to,, lemme get this right,, respect your requirements, wants and make your life less terrible? and not distract you? make things easier? hah! if only our big tech overlords meant what they said about caring for us /s

I'm not dead set on it being made by a for-profit company but otherwise yeah, that's about right.

Dream big, they say :)

Post reply on HN