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

161–170 of 231 posts

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#161

Post by input_sh »

BrendanEich wrote: post #85
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.

No, we never replaced ads on websites with our own; and no, we made nothing from the binance.com/.us autocomplete bug (no other URLs, no links in pages) getting affiliate codes. Be careful what misinformation you parrot. It doesn't help anyone looking for better privacy products or trustworthy commenters.

How would you describe stripping ads from websites and then displaying different ones? Personally, I'd call that replacing website ads with your own.

I'm fully aware that you don't show them within the content (but in notification) and that it's an opt-in thing, but that doesn't make the statement inaccurate. You absolutely are removing them and showing others. In other words, you're replacing them.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#162

Post by mistrial9 »

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?

I am quite interested to see this -- thank you BrendanEich

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#163

Post by vrc »

BrendanEich wrote: post #138
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…

You're wrong, nothing leaves the user's browser for us to take a cut in the case of an unverified creator. Those tips or donations sit in the browser, and cancel after 90 days. The user gets the tokens back and can cancel the pending tips or contributions at any time. The ad ecosystem is multisided, not two-sided. We put the user in first place and cut out the ad-tech intermediaries who raid privacy, enable fraud, an…

Because you’re you and I was basing it on working in the space 3 years ago, I admit I was wrong. But I really do want to solve this problem. Despite my mistake, the spirit of the question is unresolved — you claim that you allow publishers/creators to be paid for their work. In the case a pub isn’t on your platform, you don’t pay them — you return payment to the user. So content continues to go unfunded. How do you intend to get publishers to hook in to your system and get paid, instead of just making users feel like they’re supporting the open internet and instead not actually funding the sites they care about?

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#164

Post by soundnote »

jonathansampson wrote: post #80
sciurus wrote: post #26

Time to bring back Firefox Hello? https://www.pcworld.com/article/3102890/goodbye-hello-firefo...

There have definitely been some really nice features shipped in other browsers, or by other vendors, in the past. Timing is often a curious element. I wonder if Hello might have found more success if it were introduced in 2020-2021, given the great exodus of people from offices, schools, etc., and their increasingly heavy reliance upon the Web to remain in touch. I'm excited for our launch of Brave Talk in part due t…

Firefox's Pocket integration definitely was just years too early, people hadn't gotten used to paying for web services anywhere near today's extent.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#165

Post by mNovak »

thegabez wrote: post #159

Easily the best browser on the market and continues to produce great features. Very bullish on its crypto token BAT which is earned by viewing their ads ($5-10/mo). If you're going to use a browser why wouldn't want to use Brave with rewards turned on, honestly?

I use Brave, but turned off the ads. Only so many times I want to see ads for crypto exchanges and such.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#166

Post by soundnote »

smoldesu wrote: post #100
DonHopkins wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many times does this need to be repeated? Mozilla didn't fire Brendan Eich. He resigned of his own free will, against the Mozilla board's request that he stay. His own words and the Mozilla FAQ quoted below, I'm not just making this up. Down the following thread, Brendan suggested googling "constructive separation" -- but I'm not sure if he meant for that euphemism to apply to how he left his job at Mozilla, or t…

I hate playing cards and hate disagreeing with a personal hero even more, but as a gay person I frankly have a hard time caring. Eich is an idiot on the same level as Rob Monster, but he has a right to espouse or endorse whatever completely bonkers shit he wants. That's the reason why open source exists, and why we reserve the right to maintain a fork of someone's software if their leadership comes into question. I u…

It's probably criminal to be this level-headed nowadays, kudos.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#167

Post by trompetenaccoun »

KarlKemp wrote: post #58
endisneigh wrote: post #17

I wonder if Brave (the company) is what Mozilla would look like if Eich ended up being CEO of Mozila. EDIT: Some people took offense, so I am more explicit in my hypothetical here.

Quite the bullet we dodged. It’s a good example for my pet theory that seemingly irrelevant (for the work) things like homophobia tend to pretty good heuristics for general shiftiness (I had a different word in mind, but autocorrect did a smart thing)

What was the warning sign with Eich back in the day?

Edit: Oh, you meant literally homophobia. Not sure how I'd never heard of him opposing gay marriage. Interesting.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#168

Post by BrendanEich »

blitzar wrote: post #36
dkdk8283 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Mozilla any better? They’ve lost their way and Google remains their largest source of income.

Hard to imply they are a paid shill of google when they are the only thing stopping us from Chrome browser 100% adoption rate.

No, Apple stands in the way. If you mean browser engine, still true: WebKit was forked as Blink on 4/3/2013 and diverged on both sides since.

The time for a new engine may come, and I saw a clean room one go by on HN the other day. It's very hard to get to webcompat. Gecko loses compatibility as Firefox loses market share. For now, the more important fight is a level up: tracker blocking, users dealt into the economics, intermediaries and big tech dealt out.

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#169

Post by [deleted] »

rglullis wrote: post #134
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…

> high quality and you’d happily spend on Can you give an example of publisher/creator that you support directly, and that is not interested in joining Brave Creators? If I am a popular creator who relies on, e.g, Patreon or Ko-Fi for some sustained income, and I learn about a platform that gives people money and it makes it easy for them to pass along that money to me... why wouldn't I be interested?

[deleted]

Re: Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing

#170

Post by smoldesu »

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?

I'll gladly explain for the other people who might be scrolling by, since time immemorial has proven that user feedback falls on deaf ears at BraveCorp.

The internet is not made "good" by by browser manufacturers. This is something we fought about when Chrome assumed dominance, and it holds true today. The thing that makes the internet good is content: a perfect browser does literally nothing except format content properly into an open window. That's why power-users will still reach for Firefox, Chrome, or god forbid Safari before they consider trying "the cryptocurrency browser by a guy nobody trusts". Hell, I'd probably install the stupid Opera Gaming Browser before I'd be caught using Brave. That only leaves you the market of people who would like to earn pennies on the dollar browsing the web, but also pay for their DSL access every month. In all fairness, it's a market you've capitalized on very well, which is why it so closely resembles abuse. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck... I won't believe you when you're telling me it's actually a lion.

Post reply on HN