Live data from Hacker News

Goodbye Brave

arunmozhi.in

161–170 of 252 posts

Re: Goodbye Brave

#161

Weird that this person doesn’t even consider Firefox, the only browser that lets you have Adblock and other addons on mobile (but not on iOS, sadly).

Opera and Vivaldi both have ad-blocking and tracking prevention by default

Opera has sketchy, for-profit owners. Vivaldi seems like it has better ownership.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#162
post #76
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't pick out the issue with large corporations sinking billions of dollars into trying to manipulate your behavior?

No, I can't. There are many things that influence my behaviour and that is low down on the list of influences that worry me. Even Hacker News is probably a worse influence than the average ad. What do you think is the problem here? And it isn't billions, you need to normalise by audience size. Any company spending billions to influence my behaviour is bankrupt, I don't have enough money for them to make that back.

[deleted]

Re: Goodbye Brave

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no free lunch, the ads provide you with the ability to see things on the internet for free.

I think FLOSS people ought to disagree with you. Also, this very site has no ads. Neither does wikipedia. Nor librivox, or Project Gutemberg...

HN has ads for YC companies.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#164
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want ads on my web pages and TV in the same way I don't want ads in my novels, on my bedroom ceiling, in my bathroom, in my car, in my mail, the same way I don't want to be proselytised to, recieve junk mail, spam, view propoganda, etc. once you understand not desiring one, you can understand not wanting the rest, since they're all fundamentally the same thing.

The thing is: you paid for your bedroom ceiling, your bathroom and your car. You also paid for your computer & screen, but you did not pay for the content you're watching on it. I am entirely with you on not wishing any ads at all, anywhere. I just think that it's not realistic to remove ads entirely on the open web today. This should not be an excuse for the way ads are being run today. It is fundamentally broken. I…

There's a couple of issues with this line of thinking, but I'd also just observe that this split is technically an additional tangent. My point up above was that of course people understand why people don't like advertising, and that most people don't like advertising themselves. It's not some unknown or alien thing on which to feign ignorance. Indeed it borders on universal human experience. Like the old quip about "everyone understands atheism, I just believe in one less god than you", practically everyone understands an inherent distaste for advertising, some just want less advertising than others and some actively want to produce and push it on others while not having it forced upon themselves. After we've established that, now we get into if or when it's ok or justified.

Firstly, I'd urge everyone to deny the initial premise. The right or desire to be free of or avoid advertising has nothing inherently to do with the act of paying money or being able to amass or claim property rights over things. That's not why i hate junk mail. That's not why I don't want to be proselytised to. That's not why i shouldn't have to view propoganda. Of course, the addition of private property rights issues is one more barrier that advertising would have to overcome in order to be deemed acceptable, but on the contrary, i think a better premise is to start with WHY or WHEN advertising should be allowed, given that it is almost universally loathed or objected to. I wouldn't want to live in a world where people are subjected to advertising because they haven't payed for things or own things or content. That's dystopian.

At the very least, I think people should have the ability to say no, and for that desire to be respected and not interferred with. I think there's good grounds for advertising, or at least many types of advertising, to not be allowed in many public areas or via many public resources. I have no problems with companies or organisations not delivering material or allowing access to general consumer goods as a consequence of saying no to advertising, but that's different to users saying "no i don't want ads and I don't want to be tracked" and having the companies go "but I'm gonna do it anyway and you shouldn't be ad blocking".

Finally, I always come back to what the web is, or at least what it was, in that I deny the underlying unspoken premise that the web is there to run business models or pay money for content to be put on it. If businesses can make it on the web, good for them. But if they can't, the web is more important than business.

To be clear, the internet and web and content came first, then the businesses arrived and co-opted it for their purposes. Now the narrative is trying to be rewritten so that you can't possibly let people consume material on the web for free without people paying for it via advertising.

So let me be clear: I pay for my computer. I pay for the bandwidth of my ISP. This allows me access to a public network of computers where I can make requests to other computers on the network to send me information. People can also pay to put content up on that network to be requested by others, but no one forces them to do so, AND, no one forces them to answer my computer's request for content. When i use an ad-blocker, the main activity is for me to determine client-side that there are certain computers I don't want to talk to, and certain content I don't want to see. In an ideal world I wouldn't be tracked also, but that's just an additional abuse or manipulation of the system.

Several years after this whole system had been operating just fine, companies arrived and started trying to make money, and today we have a feigned victim-complex retcon narrative about how people not paying for content should view ads.

On the contrary, if companies do not want me viewing their content: don't put it up on a public open network that's publicly searchable, publicly addressable, and that responds to my requests for that content. Put it behind a paywall, put it behind authorisation, put it on your own intranet or network.

Keep the open web as the web. Keep it open. Keep it in good faith and respect user's explicit preferences. The hosting computer decides what content it wants to make available and who it wants to talk to. And my computer decides who it wants to talk to and what content it wants to see.

And in an ideal world, advertising should be delegated to the bare minimum of places because the starting assumption should be that most users, rationally, justifiably, and understandably, don't want it.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#165
post #66

For people discussing alternatives, consider LibreWolf. It is firefox with the privacy nob turned to 11 out of the box, have been daily driving it for a few months now without any issues. https://librewolf.net/

Don't forget to enable IPv6 and WebRTC.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#166

Hi author, if you're here on HN please consider ditching sketchy extensions like Ghostery (sells your user data) and Adblock+ (participates in paid bypass of "acceptable ads" program) for the open-source and user-focused uBlock Origin ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock ). Also, if you haven't tried Firefox since the quantum days come back and give it another try.

Disclaimer: I work for Ghostery. I respond to protect my own name, not my employer.

Ghostery is not selling user data.

Let me point out a few facts:

All browser-side code is open source https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-extension and https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-dnr-extension.

Yes, Ghostery has a subscription based business model and that another reason to great care in protecting users privacy. Take a look on how we use blind tokens to authenticate subscribed users while searching on glowstery.com https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-search-extension (notice that even when you are a subscribed user there is no session cookie so queries cannot be linked).

Hope this sheds some light on the accusation. If that’s not enough, I do sincerely recommend uBlock Origin or AdGuard on Apple’s platform.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#167
Anecdote-tier remark: Try to edit "search engine definitions" which Mozilla pushes to your Firefox deployment when they just discovered who are you to kill intrusive and thin affiliate entries and then allow Firefox to update itself to see it restores their monetization stuff.

PS: I don't get why that tweet about making tea is relevant at all.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#168
post #66

For people discussing alternatives, consider LibreWolf. It is firefox with the privacy nob turned to 11 out of the box, have been daily driving it for a few months now without any issues. https://librewolf.net/

Don't forget to enable IPv6 and WebRTC.

As far as I am aware ipv6 and webrtc are privacy regressions, so one should enable them only if necessary.

Re: Goodbye Brave

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is less secure, as has been said many times here already. You might dislike the Blink hegemony but they're the only ones who invest enough in security. Vivaldi's closed source, and Firefox doesn't have site isolation on all platforms yet. (Neither does Safari). Chrome had it in 2018. 3 years is not excusable when a 0day can be the difference between freedom and jail (or worse). "Privacy" is defective when you…

Can you cite one real-world example of someone who's been infected using Firefox in newer times? The link you're referencing talks about NT kernel syscalls - if the computer is already infected it doesn't matter what browser is being used. If one is a high-value target for a nation state or something of that caliber I would agree with you - but that doesn't apply to regular users. Atleast to my knowledge. Another cou…

Once an exploit allows running arbitrary code in a sandboxed browser process, NT kernel syscalls become relevant even if your computer isn’t otherwise infected. See project zero for a rundown of NT kernel vulnerabilities actually exploited from sandboxed processes (Firefox uses the same sandbox as Chrome on Windows): https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2021/01/in-wild-serie... .

Re: Goodbye Brave

#170
post #152

Emphasis mine in the below quote: > "Arunmozhi is a freelance programmer and an open-source enthusiast." I'm surprised, shocked and dumfounded that Firefox is not even mentioned while Vivaldi and Chromium are being considered. For someone who put up with Brave for years and its other issues, it really seems strange that Firefox is not in consideration.

Is it really surprising that he’s only looking at Chromium based browsers? The trigger that ultimately caused him to drop Brave was being unable to use an extension from the Chrome Web Store. Switching to Firefox doesn’t fix that.

I think so, yes.

There's no reason for him not to consider Firefox, since installing extensions reliably led him to become exasperated with Brave relying on backend servers, which then led himto the decision to stop using Brave. So since most if not all of the extensions he's looking for are very likely either ported to Firefox, or have (often better) equivalents, why not switch?

I'm not trying to be pedantic, just using the opportunity to promote switching to Firefox, because it's great :) and there are less bumps on the road than people make out.

When I switched back to Firefox after quantum hit, I actually discovered I didn't even need a few of the extensions I needed in Chrome.

Post reply on HN