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

Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 128 posts

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#51

Post by GeorgeWBasic »

colordrops wrote: post #27
GeorgeWBasic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't forcing it on you. It's opt-in. Google's trying to force things on all their users: manifest V3, this, et cetera.

The brave-hate meme is self perpetuating at this point. Brave is privacy-oriented out of the box. You have to opt in for the ads and crypto. Isn't that what everyone has been asking for? opt-in instead of opt-out? I'm convinced that Google is behind a smear campaign against Brave. If Brave got real traction it could be a serious threat to their business.

I was about say, before the trolls responded, that I'm about 50/50 on it being that and it being that Eich hasn't stayed cancelled, that he's done well for himself despite that, which just infuriates a certain crowd here. But then they came and made that point for me. The pleasant surprise is how they are a minority even here. And in my recent years in the tech world, I discovered that half of my coworkers used Brave. They don't care what the vocal minority thinks, and neither do I. The Brave community grows anyway.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#52

Post by brnt »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #10
fellellor wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least you get paid for having your privacy treated as a commodity. If these people are selling indentured labor, then google is straight up promoting slavery. Brave is obviously the lesser evil.

"Lesser evil" implies Chrome and Brave are the only 2 reasonable options. You could install Firefox or ungoogled-chromium and an ad/tracker blocker.

Or, you know, do not go out of your way to enable BAT after you install Brave.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#53

Post by adamsvystun »

I hate tracking as much as the next guy, but this article is so disingenuous that it's painful to read.

If you literally look up the most upvoted HN article about FLoC [1], it specifies two main issues with FLoC in BOLD: Fingerprinting and Cross-context exposure. Which if I understand correctly the Topics API fixes. But the article implies that these are minor problems that we never really cared that much about.

Whether it is this or constant aggressive writing, it seems that the goal of this blog post is to simply inspire anger and hate, while not furthering the discussion on the topic. Which makes this article unhelpful (if not damaging) to the goal of personal data privacy.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013 [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#54

Post by colordrops »

smoldesu wrote: post #41
colordrops wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The topic at hand is whether or not people's hate towards Brave is legitimized. I'm explaining to you how people come to despise the browser and it's developers. You can take it or leave it, but you can't act surprised when people come out in droves to tell you that they don't want to use a browser developed in-house by the same people directly commoditizing the attention market.

But out of hundreds of negative omments I've read across several posts, yours is the first I've heard that mentioned the ethics of a founder. That's got nothing to do with the comment I responded to, and if it was the reason for everyone else's hate, it's awfully strange that it's never mentioned.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#55

Post by colordrops »

beebeepka wrote: post #50
smoldesu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic at hand is whether or not people's hate towards Brave is legitimized. I'm explaining to you how people come to despise the browser and it's developers. You can take it or leave it, but you can't act surprised when people come out in droves to tell you that they don't want to use a browser developed in-house by the same people directly commoditizing the attention market.

Well, I actually respect the guy for creating JS and his work in the field but I'd never willingly support a person donating money intended to stop certain people from having basic rights. A very distant second is the whole chromium bullshit

That's fair, but that's not what was being discussed.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#56

Post by the_duke »

colordrops wrote: post #27
GeorgeWBasic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't forcing it on you. It's opt-in. Google's trying to force things on all their users: manifest V3, this, et cetera.

The brave-hate meme is self perpetuating at this point. Brave is privacy-oriented out of the box. You have to opt in for the ads and crypto. Isn't that what everyone has been asking for? opt-in instead of opt-out? I'm convinced that Google is behind a smear campaign against Brave. If Brave got real traction it could be a serious threat to their business.

Google is often dismissively called an ad company.

Why is that? Because most of their revenue is from ads.

How does Brave make money? With ads.

Privacy-centric positioning makes sense to capture a part of the market. But the mis-aligned incentives are there for Brave just as much as they are for Google.

Are they better right now than Google? Probably. Is it smart to trust a company that only makes money with ads with control over your browsing experience in the medium term? Not so much.

It's quite amusing to me how well their marketing works.

What we need is a browser that can exist as a viable business without being chained to ad revenue.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#57

Post by bfung »

omneity wrote: post #36
bfung wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How are you seeing ads in Brave I don’t, I’ve never used Brave. From https://brave.com/brave-rewards/ Brave Ads do not replace current web page ads. By default, Brave blocks privacy-invading web ads and trackers that are embedded in page content. Joining Brave Rewards and viewing Brave Ads does not affect your current blocking settings for each website you visit. The ads you see as part of Brave Rewards are shown s…

> I don’t, I’ve never used Brave. In this case your entire comment is pure FUD and a cheap shot at Brave. I’ve been using Brave for 2 years, never saw a single ad.

> never saw a single ad

That cannot be true; brave cannot block first party ads.

I’m saying something very simple:

1. Brave is a browser like any other, in fact, built on top of chromium.

2. The ad blocking can be achieved with ad blockers using normal browsers. There’s ways to block cookies too.

3. Brave has presets for 1&2. Additionally, Brave adds on top more opt-in ads using BAT as an incentive.

Hence, use a normal browser with ad blocking, not chromium based, and FLOC is a non issue. Don’t use chrome, don’t use brave, no need to bother with this article about floc or whatever google api.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#58

Post by eitland »

tadfisher wrote: post #17
fartcannon wrote: post #8

I would use Brave if they didn't use chrome as a backend. We need more diversity in rendering engines otherwise things like FLoC happen.

If you want to ship a browser without writing a browser engine, there are three realistic options. Chromium is the best of these options.

> [...]there are three realistic options.

Is the Librewolf option included in those three? Because that (a patch on top of newest Firefox) is something I have been wanting for a long time and I just recently realized someone had done it.

> Chromium is the best of these options.

Easiest is maybe the word you are looking for here?

Because best depends on your goals. If your goal is to reduce dependency on Google (as it is for many here) it could be close to directly counterproductive.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#59

Post by mikro2nd »

codetrotter wrote: post #46
omneity wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a cheap shot because you have to explicitly go out of your way to enable it. There’s no conceivable way a Brave user sees ads without very explicitly digging through the settings and enabling them. Which leads me to wonder, have you yourself ever used Brave?

I use Brave. I have the rewards enabled. When you open a new tab, does it not show an ad for you as the wallpaper of the new tab? I thought that space would show an ad regardless of rewards are on or off. The ads that I get that I know are because of rewards is the desktop notifications that it pushes, that you can click on. Only ever clicked on a couple of them at most I think, but still have them enabled because I…

I use Brave. I don't use Rewards. When I open a new tab I see a wallpaper, a randomly chosen picture, often a landscape scene, never an ad.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#60

Post by gundmc »

the_duke wrote: post #56
colordrops wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The brave-hate meme is self perpetuating at this point. Brave is privacy-oriented out of the box. You have to opt in for the ads and crypto. Isn't that what everyone has been asking for? opt-in instead of opt-out? I'm convinced that Google is behind a smear campaign against Brave. If Brave got real traction it could be a serious threat to their business.

Google is often dismissively called an ad company. Why is that? Because most of their revenue is from ads. How does Brave make money? With ads. Privacy-centric positioning makes sense to capture a part of the market. But the mis-aligned incentives are there for Brave just as much as they are for Google. Are they better right now than Google? Probably. Is it smart to trust a company that only makes money with ads with…

Same exact thing applies to duck duck go.
Post reply on HN