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

91–100 of 128 posts

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#91

Post by josefx »

asvitkine wrote: post #83
josefx wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wont work, the moment this lands in Chrome websites will check for it and if your non chrome browser doesn't implement it they will redirect you to an upgrade your browser page. Browsers that fake it will get the same treatment, do not track has already shown that advertisers will not respect any attempt to prevent tracking by the user.

Controversial opinion: Why is that wrong? If you want to consume content that costs money to produce that is being paid for via advertisement, and your user agent blocks said advertisement, why should you be entitled to that content?

Controversial counterpoint: If you want any minimum wage job your boss should have the implicit right to install cameras in your bathroom and sell videos of you showering on the internet.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#92

Post by stingraycharles »

donkarma wrote: post #84
WithinReason wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Brave was initially (supposed to be?) based on Firefox but needed support for a feature that only Chromium supported and had go with that.

feature was DRM

IMHO it was a big mistake of Firefox fighting the DRM for so long. It pushed many users and projects towards Chromium.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#93

Post by waffle_maniac »

GeorgeWBasic wrote: post #51
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.

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…

A substantial number of those critical of Brave haven't put in the time to understand how Brave works. Example: David Gerard doesn't know the difference between a link and an address bar.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#94

Post by waffle_maniac »

pkulak wrote: post #44
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.

Brave hate is a meme because any time anyone wants to talk about anything internet, 100 accounts come out of the woodwork to tell us some Chromium wrapper is the second coming of Christ. The rest of us are sick of all the promotion and get chippy in response. If you’ve been around long enough, you know they’re at least paying YouTubers to use and promote the browser without any disclosure. Who knows how far past that…

> you know they’re at least paying YouTubers to use and promote the browser without any disclosure

How do you know that? You sound jealous.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#95

Post by waffle_maniac »

xg15 wrote: post #66
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.

I'm still skeptical how that could reasonably work on an opt-in basis. Being annoyed daily by ads in exchange for some obscure crypto currency which might be worth something in the far future doesn't seem like a proposal to me that could convince a lot of people. So I wonder, how many Brave users actually do opt-in? More than five?

Plenty of users in /r/BATProject fighting to get their $2/month earnings into their bank accounts. Average person thinks passive income, $5 or $10, is pretty cool. It buys a coffee or tea.

I think it's 8M+ users that have opted into ads. I could be wrong though.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#96

Post by izacus »

josefx wrote: post #91
asvitkine wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controversial opinion: Why is that wrong? If you want to consume content that costs money to produce that is being paid for via advertisement, and your user agent blocks said advertisement, why should you be entitled to that content?

Controversial counterpoint: If you want any minimum wage job your boss should have the implicit right to install cameras in your bathroom and sell videos of you showering on the internet.

Comparing user configurable topics of interest (in full control of the user and the browser the user decides to use) to involuntary camera recording in your home is some next level disingenuous bullcrap.

Do better here please.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#97

Post by waffle_maniac »

smoldesu wrote: post #38
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.

Quoted post unavailable.

He made a donation. How is that refusing to back down? False narrative.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#98

Post by waffle_maniac »

bfung wrote: post #12

Use a different browser that’s not chrome. Problem solved. Disclaimer: I don’t use Brave because I don’t want to see more ads. In the 90s, there were little banner ads that ran on your pc in the same app that helped you connect to the internet. That’s essentially what Brave is, except I don’t NEED to see more ads, as I needed to pay for internet in the early days. Just us a browser that blocks cookies.

I use 100% of my earnings to donate creators (mostly YouTube and Github). I'm very generous and very cool.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#99

Post by waffle_maniac »

bfung wrote: post #57
omneity wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 norm…

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

Not true. Brave blocks YouTube ads.

Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues

#100

Post by waffle_maniac »

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…

> But the mis-aligned incentives are there for Brave just as much as they are for Google.

Machine learning is local; can't be evil. They are committed to not going public. I suggest doing some more research before making assumptions.

Post reply on HN