If you are keen on personal privacy, you might have come across Brave Browser. Brave is a Chromium-based browser that promises to deliver privacy with built-in ad-blocking and content-blocking protection. It also offers several quality-of-life features and services, like a VPN and Tor access. I mean, it’s even listed on the reputable PrivacyTools website. Why am I telling you to steer clear of this browser, then?
You must log in or register to comment.
Thank goodness that we can post things in here without Braves astroturfed PR community galavanting to save face like what happened when any story against brave posted on the other site
Which other site? Twitter?
I’m almost certain they mean Reddit, but there are a lot of sites that aren’t lemmy.dbzer0.com … like lemm.ee and infosec.pub … even some sites that aren’t Lemmy instances like infosec.exchance or hachyderm.io.
anyone believing brave is good for privacy is quite naive
It’s good for privacy from the websites you visit, from itself is up for debate though lol
far better than chrome, edge or Firefox without modification
It’s good for playing youtube without ads and Netflix which doesnt work with my firefox setup for some reason. That’s all I use it for.
Ublock Origin on Firefox can also play YT without ads…
Netflix Idk
Yea, I dont really have problems with YT in Firefox. Just use brave because it’s on my “watching stuff” monitor. Brave did seem to work better during that period where they were being more aggressive about ad blockers but I haven’t seen that for a while.
tldr:
- CEO was forcefully ousted from Firefox for anti-LGBTQ views and donations.
- Replaced existing ads on sites with Brave’s own “private” ads.
- Collected crypto on behalf of others without their knowledge or consent
- Injected referral links into crypto websites to steal crypto revenue
- Put ads in the new page tab
- Shipped a TOR feature that leaked DNS
- Doesn’t disclose the ID of their search engine crawler via useragent
- Removed “strict” fingerprinting protection
- CEO is generally a right-wing dick.
It’s so “weird” how the same kind of person who would be openly anti-LGBTQ would also make a such a sketchy product.
Librewolf users (totally not biased)
Please tell me you have the whole set. I have waited for someone to post this since literally 2018
Simply amazing
i notice they are all past tense save the last 3
This is like saying “I see he was murderer until he got caught”. No shit Sherlock some of those are past tense, because he got caught. If you want to go ahead and get exploited by a dickhead and his future pending scams go ahead.
“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, and apparently I end up supporting the right wing all the time because I’m a dunce” is apparently how it works these days.
well no you’re accusing all the contributors of brave of being a murderer
they stopped murdering a long time ago
Murderer is a noun. Once you’ve murdered that’s what you are, regardless of past or present or future. People can change, but that doesn’t change what you’ve done in the past and have become, because you can’t undo what you did.
6 months to 5 years isn’t “A long time ago” btw. I think it takes at least a decade to start considering something a long time ago.
you know murderers get rehabilitated and released all the time
What rehabilitation have the offending parties on brave gotten beyond amassing wankers who make excuses for them?
After a significant amount of time. Longer than Brave’s blunders. And rehabilitation is not erasure. Likewise, murder enough and society will consider to instead remove the person from society as well instead of rewarding them.
the time can be scarily short and quite rarely ends in life terms in civilized societies
My take: No other browser is sustainable without advertising. Orion looks to be that guy, but we will see. We’ve already seen many other browsers stop development, like Mull and LibreWolf, due to lack of resources. Firefox itself is on the chopping block with Google potentially being forced to sell Chrome. We’ll see what Kagi is able to manage with Orion, though releasing it with pretty much all the features one could want for free doesn’t appear promising. I think taking a “private advertising” approach is the best we’re going to get. This makes Brave sustainable.
The CEO is a dick, no doubt, but they pretty much all are, and every browser has it’s drawbacks.
As far as the useragent, I kinda agree with Brave on that one. Sites want to be crawled by Google but they will block anyone else, which obviously creates an anticompetitive environment in an industry that severely needs competition.
As for the fingerprinting, I kinda get it. I’m sure some users were turning on strict protection and then complaining about the browser not working properly and ultimately ditching it while complaining to others. That being said, even with “standard” fingerprint blocking, Brave is the only browser I’ve used on CoverYourTracks and it returned “you have a randomized fingerprint”. I’m not any sort of tech genius but I think the folks at EFF are and I trust them.
My take: We can have an open source browser. No resources are required. We don’t need ads to view content we make. There is no need for a megacorp or any entity taking money and controlling us.
Those are good reasons to ditch a product. Yet, at the same time, inside the Apple ecosystem this is the only browser that allows cross platform watching of yt without any ads, therefore suffocating Google and the fat cat MKBHD influencers from income.
So it’s like an evil to tame another evil to me atm.
Of course the best path forward would be to ditch both Brave and yt and then just get Nebula/patreon or something for serious content browsing.
I’m curious though: if I just use Brace only with a few yt tabs open and never open the new empty tab or visit another site, does Brave get any revenue from me?
Can you not use Firefox on apple products? They’ve got extensions for that I’m sure
CEO was forcefully ousted from Firefox for anti-LGBTQ views and donations.
I think this is making mountains out of molehills. My understanding is that he had a very good working relationship w/ LGBTQ people in the org, and he had been working for many years at Mozilla before this point. The issue was his private donations to an anti-same sex marriage initiative. He didn’t push for any company policy change, didn’t advertise the donation, and didn’t use company funds (used personal funds), so it really shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
I personally disagree with his political views, but I think he was a fantastic candidate for CEO of Mozilla. How he votes or spends his personal money shouldn’t be relevant at all.
Replaced existing ads on sites with Brave’s own “private” ads.
I like this idea in principle, but not in implementation. Brave should have worked with major websites to share revenue, but what Brave actually did was remove website ads and insert its own, forcing websites to go claim BAT to get any of that revenue back.
My preference here is to not use a cryptocurrency and instead have users pay in their local currency into a bucket to not see ads (and that’s shared w/ the website), and that should be in collaboration w/ website owners.
Collected crypto on behalf of others without their knowledge or consent
This is a big nothing-burger.
Basically, Brave had a way to donate to a creator that wasn’t affiliated with the creator. The way it works is you could donate (using BAT), and once it got to $100 worth, Brave would reach out to the creator to give them the money. They adjusted the wording to make it clear they weren’t affiliated with the creator in any way.
Injected referral links into crypto websites to steal crypto revenue
Yeah, this is totally wrong, and they reversed course immediately.
Put ads in the new page tab
Not a fan, but at least you can opt-out.
Shipped a TOR feature that leaked DNS
Mistakes happen. If you truly need the anonymity, you would have multiple layers of defense (i.e. change your default DNS server) and probably not use something like Brave anyway (Tor Browser is the gold standard here).
Doesn’t disclose the ID of their search engine crawler via useragent
Also a bad move, though I am sympathetic to their reasoning here: they just don’t have the resources to get permission from everyone. Search has a huge barrier to entry, and I’m in favor of more competition to Google and Microsoft here.
Removed “strict” fingerprinting protection
This was for better UX, since it broke sites. Not a fan of removing this, they should have instead had a big warning when enabling this (e.g. many sites will break if you enable this).
CEO is generally a right-wing dick.
Fair, but that should be a separate consideration from whether to use a given product. Using Brave doesn’t make you a right-wing dick.
You probably wouldn’t like the CEO of any company whose products you like, so basing a decision of what product to use based on that is… dumb.
I personally use Brave as a backup browser, for two reasons:
- it’s a chrome-based browser
- it has ad-blocking
My primary browser is something based on Firefox because I value rendering-engine competition. But if I need a chromium-based browser, Brave is my go-to. I disable the crypto nonsense and keep ad-blocking on, and it’s generally pretty usable.
Holy copium batman, imagine excusing malware and checks notes literally aiding in denying rights to LGBTQ+ people.
Let me guess, you pretend to be centrist by day, and you wear
By night?
You got me, I guess? But don’t tell my POC SO that I’ve been happily married to for >10 years.
Seriously though, this is the kind of extreme take I’m pushing back on. I strongly disagree with the Lemmy devs’ politics, yet here I am on their platform. I’ve even contributed bug fixes. I strongly disagree with Eich’s politics, yet I use Brave as my backup browser. Why? It meets my technical requirements. Firefox is my main browser though.
I’m not a centrist either, whatever that means, but I guess of you average out my extreme takes it could look that way. Conservatives call me socialist, Progressives call me far right, so I guess the middle of that is centrist?
For what it’s worth, I agree 100%. I’m awfully tired of this whole “everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi/KKK” extremism. It’s a great disservice to the severity of those atrocities.
My understanding is that he had a very good working relationship w/ LGBTQ people in the org
Then why betray them? He has nothing to gain from funding such a campaign. There is no logical explanation and sure as hell no justification for it.
[…] so it really shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
How he votes or spends his personal money shouldn’t be relevant at all.Oh, shut up. When this asshole funds a campaign that’s actively fighting against the rights of millions of people, it absolutely is our damn fucking business.
Yeah, this is totally wrong, and they reversed course immediately.
It’s bad enough that they even got the idea, let alone implement and actually ship it. Negative reactions shouldn’t be the first deciding factor for reversing such decisions.
Brave should have worked with major websites to share revenue
Not just share, completely give up that revenue. Blocking ads is one thing, but to then also monetise other people’s content should not allow Brave to earn even a single cent.
Your proposed solution sounds fine, though.CEO is generally a right-wing dick.
Fair, but that should be a separate consideration from whether to use a given product.
Again, no. Maybe if there weren’t any alternatives, but there are plenty.
You probably wouldn’t like the CEO of any company whose products you like,
That’s probably true, however, Eich is a different story. Despite not gaining anything from it, neither for his companies nor for himself, he was willing to go out of his way to support a campaign in favour of discriminating millions of people, proactively. This doesn’t just make me not like him, it makes me despise him.
Other CEO’s typically at least keep quiet about politics, and make me dislike them mainly because of self-interest and their resulting business decisions, which can at least still be somewhat understandable.And let me be clear that I’m not going to jump on people who use Brave for whatever reason. But under no circumstances will I defend those who downplay or justify Brave’s, and especially Eich’s, actions.
He has nothing to gain from funding such a campaign.
He obviously believes that same sex marriage shouldn’t be performed by the government. If you want to know why, ask him, not me.
That said, I don’t see this as “betrayal,” it was a private donation. The only reason we’re talking about it is because someone dug through his donation history (donations to such orgs are public record) and made a big deal about it. AFAIK, there were no accusations of him treating LGBT people unfairly, only opposition to his donation.
It’s bad enough that they even got the idea,
I’d like to see an explanation beyond, “yeah, we screwed up.” Who signed off on it, and what was their justification?
Your proposed solution sounds fine, though.
Thanks. The idea is that the browser has a vested interest in protecting the privacy of it’s users, so finding a workable solution for both the user and the website should provide some funding for the browser.
But yes, either the browser should block ads so nobody gets revenue or work something out where everyone wins. Profiting off someone else’s content without permission will always be wrong.
Maybe if there weren’t any alternatives, but there are plenty.
Do you have a better suggestion for a chromium-based browser that’s FOSS and has effective ad blocking and tracking protection?
I use Firefox (or fork) most of the time, but I need to test on a chromium browser and need a backup for the odd website that fails on Firefox.
Brave sticks out as the obvious solution here.
Other CEO’s typically at least keep quiet about politics
He tried to. He never advertised his political beliefs, donations, etc. Someone just found out and blasted him for it. For an org that supposedly cares about privacy, that’s pretty alarming!
But under no circumstances will I defend those who downplay or justify Brave’s, and especially Eich’s, actions.
Nor will I. But I will separate my criticism of them.
I’m 100% happy to jump on board an Eich’s political positions hate train, and I probably share the resentment. But I will not jump on a Brave hate train just because Eich is associated with it. I’m happy to blast Brave over technical mistakes it makes (I avoided it for a long time until BAT was deemphasized), but I won’t transfer that frustration into a personal attack on Eich. They can and should be treated separately.
It’s tempting to see his donations to prop 8 as just his personal business, but like so many others you’re missing the fact that when your political beliefs are that other humans are actually subhuman and not equals, that goes beyond “personal politics.” Like outright naziism, there should be no safe place for a single ounce of this thinking. If you think it’s akin to liking shrimp more than chicken, you should deeply rethink your own “personal politics” because you’re casually glancing over the dehumanization of other people with a shrug.
you’re missing the fact that when your political beliefs are that other humans are actually subhuman and not equals
Wait, so believing same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed means you think gay people are sub-human? That’s quite the leap. It may be true, but you’ll need a bit more evidence than a private donation to a group pushing a bill to ban same sex marriage.
Even if he is literal Nazi trash (big doubt), his company produces FOSS, which can and should be evaluated on its own merits.
Look, I’m married to an immigrant POC. If he supported banning immigration interracial marriage, that would piss me off, but it wouldn’t have any impact on the quality of the browser. I bet CEOs of companies that make a number of products I use have terrible political takes or like Eich, but that doesn’t change the quality of the product.
If he brought his politics into his company, that would be different. But how he spends his money and free time doesn’t really matter to me.
Fair, but that should be a separate consideration from whether to use a given product. Using Brave doesn’t make you a right-wing dick. You probably wouldn’t like the CEO of any company whose products you like, so basing a decision of what product to use based on that is… dumb.
So it’s ok to buy a Tesla nowadays in your opinion? Genuinely curious.
So it’s ok to buy a Tesla nowadays in your opinion? Genuinely curious.
Yes, if it’s the vehicle that fits your needs the best. Elon doesn’t need your money, and with Tesla getting roasted in the media, you can probably pick up a good deal.
That said, I wouldn’t buy a Tesla for other reasons, such as:
- poor manufacturing quality
- poor reliability (the Model 3 is the “best” and it’s just average)
- poor repairability
I do boycott certain products though, first among them is Wal-Mart, but that’s because I find Wal-Mart to be anti-competitive (drives smaller stores out of business) and they contribute to poor working conditions either directly (i.e. their own products) or indirectly (i.e. forcing suppliers to cut costs). I’ve been boycotting them for ~20 years, and honestly haven’t bothered checking if they’ve improved. I also try to avoid buying from Amazon for similar reasons.
Maybe Tesla is similar to those, idk. I personally don’t buy Musk’s products because I find them lacking, and I haven’t needed any more reasons to avoid his products than that.
I literally don’t care about the political views of the CEO/owner of a company. I dislike Chik-Fil-A’s founder, for example, but I like the food there and the workers seem to be treated well, so I shop there. I especially like that they’re closed on Sundays, which guarantees workers get at least one day off. Whether some idiot gets rich from a fraction of the money I spend on a certain product doesn’t bother me, I mostly care that the business is run well and the product is good.
He didn’t push for any company policy change, didn’t advertise the donation, and didn’t use company funds (used personal funds), so it really shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
It’s everyone’s business that cares about those people.
How he votes or spends his personal money shouldn’t be relevant at all.
Using products from a company that benefits him is empowering him to do those things.
Brave should have worked with major websites to share revenue
That’s a monumental task. They would have had to create their own ad network similar to Google and then somehow out-compete them to get their business without any of the information that Google has about users.
they weren’t affiliated with the creator in any way.
Yes, that’s the problem.
Yeah, this is totally wrong, and they reversed course immediately.
Only because they got caught, and they didn’t refund any of the crypto they earned in the interim.
Mistakes happen.
When it comes to TOR, mistakes can be a matter of life and death. People only use TOR when they need complete anonymity.
they should have instead had a big warning when enabling this (e.g. many sites will break if you enable this).
They did indeed have exactly that. It said in the actual setting itself “Strict, may break sites”.
You probably wouldn’t like the CEO of any company whose products you like, so basing a decision of what product to use based on that is… dumb.
Not true. I like Our Lord Gaben. I like Meredith Whitaker. I like lots of CEOs.
It’s everyone’s business that cares about those people.
But is it though?
Believing that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be a government-supported institution isn’t the same as believing LGBT people are “invalid” or “wrong” or whatever.
For example, I personally oppose government-supported marriage entirely (despite being married myself) because I think marriage should be a religious/personal thing instead of an official government institution, and that we should replace it with a series of contracts that grant certain legal privileges (e.g. joint tax filing, power of attorney, etc) in an a la carte type setup (i.e. you may want to join finances w/ someone, but not give them hospital visitation rights). I think we should also allow more than two parties to enter into these agreements to cover a wide variety of unique living situations (e.g. you may want to joint file with a parent that you care for).
I don’t know Eich’s personal political views, and I honestly don’t care, as long as they don’t interfere with his role.
That’s a monumental task. They would have had to create their own ad network similar to Google and then solicit every site on the web to participate.
Not necessarily. For example, they could partner w/ someone like Axate, which basically does just this.
Only because they got caught, and they didn’t refund any of the crypto they earned in the interim.
My understanding is that they can’t really do that, because the payments are anonymous. I could be mistaken though.
When it comes to TOR, mistakes can be a matter of life and death. People only use TOR when they need complete anonymity.
And if that applies to you, you should be very careful about the tools you use. Brave is a new thing and is relatively unproven. Use established, proven tools like Tor Browser.
Not true. I like Our Lord Gaben. I like Meredith Whitaker. I like lots of CEOs.
Eh, I don’t really like Gabe Newell, but I certainly appreciate the investment into Linux. It just so happens our interests align more than they don’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if GabeN’s personal politics were quite conservative, because conservative policies generally benefit rich people like him (the closest I can see is maybe libertarian).
Meredith Whitaker is an absolute treasure, we don’t deserve her.
Believing that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be a government-supported institution isn’t the same as believing LGBT people are “invalid” or “wrong” or whatever.
How is it not?
we should replace it with a series of contracts that grant certain legal privileges
I mean, legally, that’s what marriage is.
you may want to join finances w/ someone, but not give them hospital visitation rights
You don’t have to do either of those things just because you’re married. Marriage just gives you the option.
For example, they could partner w/ someone like Axate
And what would they bring to this partnership?
And if that applies to you, you should be very careful about the tools you use.
You should be. But companies also should not be creating tools that propose to give you those protections when they’re not smart enough to. Just leave it to the professionals.
I wouldn’t be surprised if GabeN’s personal politics were quite conservative
As long as he keeps his mouth shut about them and doesn’t financially support them, he’s doing worlds better than Mr. Eich.
Believing that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be a government-supported institution isn’t the same as believing LGBT people are “invalid” or “wrong” or whatever.
How is it not?
It seems incredibly obvious to me. For example, here are some things I believe:
- gambling is bad - yet I support legalization of gambling; why? Personal freedom comes first.
- prostitution is bad - yet I support legalization of prostitution; why? Sex work will happen, so it’s better for it to be properly regulated than happen on the black market
- drug use is bad - yet I support legalization of recreational drugs; why? Illegal drugs laced w/ fentanyl are a big problem, and most drug users would be better off w/ a regulated service.
Personal beliefs about what government policy should be can be very different than personal beliefs about what is “good” and “bad.”
To be clear, I support same-sex marriage because it’s on the table and my preferred alternative has almost no shot of being considered. So I support it as a harm-reduction policy, not because I actually believe the government should actually regulate marriage.
I mean, legally, that’s what marriage is.
Marriage is a basket of contracts (power of attorney, joint custody, financial obligations, etc), and it’s limited to two people, which is odd. The original intent seems to be to encourage procreation, but it’s hardly enforced at all, nor is that particularly important in most countries (except maybe Japan).
We should treat marriage similarly to corporations. If you want to call your civil partnership “marriage,” more power to you. If you want to call it being BF/GF, life partners, or whatever else, more power to you. The government should only care that you meet the requirements for whatever the benefit is.
You don’t have to do either of those things just because you’re married. Marriage just gives you the option.
In many (most?) states, it is enforced unless you specifically opt-out (e.g. a pre-nup). Laws certainly vary by state, but generally speaking, if you’re legally married, anything you earn in the marriage is considered joint assets, even if you keep them in separate accounts. In some areas, things you bring into the marriage are also jointly owned, unless they are never interacted with.
That’s why divorces are so messy, the couple could have agreed to keep things separate at the start, but without any evidence of that, it’s up to the courts to decide what’s fair. And pretty frequently, they’ll lean on the side of 50/50 for all assets, regardless of when it was acquired or what the understanding was.
And what would they bring to this partnership?
Integration into the browser product, users, and marketing.
I’ve been wanting Firefox to do something like this so get more visibility w/ online services. I’d love to be able to load up an account balance and click “view article” and the website owner sucks a few pennies from that balance or whatever. But my only options are:
- find a workaround w/ my ad-blocker - reader mode, archive, etc
- make yet another account and maybe pay for a monthly subscription (why do that when I only want the one article?)
- not read the article
Axate provides more than that, but so few online services work w/ it. A browser could bring them a ton of visibility.
But companies also should not be creating tools that propose to give you those protections when they’re not smart enough to. Just leave it to the professionals.
Agreed. But like I said, users request features, bugs happen, etc. At the end of the day, the responsibility is on the user to pick the right product for their needs. Brave isn’t that product for at-risk individuals until it has been vetted by actual security experts.
As long as he keeps his mouth shut about them and doesn’t financially support them, he’s doing worlds better than Mr. Eich.
Eich did the first half of that, his only “sin” was that someone found out about his donation. That’s it. My understanding is that nobody was aware of it until someone dug into the donation records.
gambling is bad - yet I support legalization
Got it, so being gay isn’t “wrong” or “invalid”, it’s just “bad”?
it is enforced unless you specifically opt-out (e.g. a pre-nup)
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. You might call it a “contract”.
Integration into the browser product, users, and marketing.
They don’t need Brave for that. They need the website owners. If you’re talking about injecting Axate ads where Google and other ads already are, then we’re back to square 1 where you’re ripping off content creators from their revenue for their content.
I’d love to be able to load up an account balance and click “view article” and the website owner sucks a few pennies from that balance or whatever.
The problem with doing that with fiat is that there are transfer fees. You’d essential be paying a $3 to transfer 5 cents. That’s why everyone uses crypto for this.
But like I said, users request features
Users can request features all day, developers are the ones who have to implement them.
bugs happen
It’s a completely unnecessary bug from someone trying to replace a perfectly safe and secure tool with their own and build value for themselves. This isn’t just any bug. Like I said, people’s lives can hang in the balance in a very real way. They need to get it right or just stay the fuck away.
the responsibility is on the user to pick the right product for their needs
Bullshit. Both are responsible.
Brave isn’t that product for at-risk individuals until it has been vetted by actual security experts.
Then they shouldn’t have launched it.
Eich did the first half of that
Not good enough.
Got it, so being gay isn’t “wrong” or “invalid”, it’s just “bad”?
I didn’t say that.
My point here is that personal views can differ from political policy views.
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. You might call it a “contract”.
The issue is that it’s opt-out. Instead of that, people should opt-in only to the parts they want.
If you’re talking about injecting Axate ads where Google and other ads already are
No, I’m talking about creating a protocol where browser clients can inform website owners that the customer is using this separate method of payment. It could happen separate from the browser (e.g. as an extension), but the browser gives it a lot more visibility.
The UX here would be pretty simple: if the user has enabled this feature, websites would prompt users for payment or to show ads.
Browsers win because they get a revenue stream, Axate wins by having more customers, and websites win because they’re getting paid instead of customers blocking ads.
The problem with doing that with fiat is that there are transfer fees. You’d essential be paying a $3 to transfer 5 cents. That’s why everyone uses crypto for this.
That’s why you batch up transfers. General flow:
- users load up a balance (say, $20)
- service (e.g. Axate) tracks which payments have been made and bulk pays website owners monthly or whatever
Boom, total number of transfers are pretty low, no need for cryptocurrencies.
Both are responsible.
Sure, but the browser vendor has very little at stake, whereas the user has everything at stake. At the end of the day, it’s on the user.
Not good enough.
You’re welcome to your opinion. I personally don’t have an issue with how people spend their money, I only have an issue with how they treat their employees and choices they make about their product.
Using software made by people who are politically aligned to sell out your country to russia is stupid stupid stupid and makes you an idiot, idiot, idiot.
Its not just politics when the politics are treason and electing a kgb asset. In a normal country and time it wouldn’t be a big thing wether your browser maintainer wants feee public transit or not but in current time right wing means you literally voted to destroy the entire us in order to weaken nato for the russian invasion.
It sounds like you need to step away from social media and touch some grass.
But let’s say you’re right, pretty much every big company is sucking up to Trump, and you’d be hard pressed to find something in your shopping cart that doesn’t benefit someone that supports him. That’s an untenable position.
The better approach, IMO, is to avoid products from companies that mistreat their employees. That’s why I avoid Walmart, Amazon, and a few others, because that sends a clearer message and funnels my money to a better cause.
Avoiding Brave is just virtue signaling, it doesn’t actually accomplish anything. If Brave goes under, Eich will still be conservative and probably still donate to causes you don’t like, but we’ll have one less competitor to Google’s absolute hegemony over the web browser market.
Use Brave if it solves your problems, don’t if it doesn’t. Don’t base that decision on the personal views of the person who happens to be in charge.
but we’ll have one less competitor to Google’s absolute hegemony over the web browser market.
Brave isn’t a competitor to Google, it’s an enabler. It uses the same engine, which is all Google cares about: Their engine, their internet.
It absolutely is a competitor. Yes, it uses the same engine, but it blocks their ads. And at the end of the day, serving ads is what Google wants to do.
But again, Firefox (and forks) is my main browser, and it’s what I recommend to everyone. But Brave is on my list of acceptable Chromium browsers, assuming you need a Chromium browser (I do for web dev at my day job).
Yes, it uses the same engine, but it blocks their ads.
Which means nothing, when Google can, and is, pushing technology to freely unleash their ad network on all web pages, as a function of the engine itself.
No, it’s not a competitor. Excepting in their ad markets, and frankly, it’s not a competitor, it’s a statistical blip.
the crypto and the asshole ceo aside, nobody should trust a browser that claims to respect privacy that’s based on chromium.
Chromium is much more secure than Firefox, so your privacy depends on your threat model here: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html
What’s wrong with ungoogled-chromium? Or Vivaldi?
Vivaldi sends an unstoppable user counter signal to their main server, promised to change the system and now they’re ignoring any requests for updates on the issue.
That rustles my Jimmies, dings my bell and waves my red flags.
I’m using brave lol. As a web developer I really need to test the work I do on a chromium based browser. Brave seems to be the best chromium based browser that still supposed ad blocking after the whole manifest v3 thing.
So let me pose this question to you. As someone that needs to use Chromium for work, what’s the best Chromium based browser that still supports ad blocking?
I get that Firefox is better. Heck Tor is even better. But realistically what is something I can actually use to get real work done?
Edit: ok I read the article. That is kinda bad. So please find me a chromium based alternative that I can use for work
This week I’m going to try out ungoogled Chromium and Vivaldi. I know Vivaldi is partially closed source, but I’m not actually in the camp that thinks all closed source is bad.
I use Apple products which are definitely more closed source. I would prefer open source but there are unfortunately more variables in play then just “is it open source”.
ultimately they’re still chromium and they still contribute to chrome’s dominance.
Okay, but that’s not a privacy reason.
Isn’t every chromium browser going to lose manifest v2 eventually, causing the real ublock origin to stop working?
I’m using Vivaldi, and ublock origin seems to be still working for me.
June 2025 is when manifest v2 is supposed to die for good. I think the issue is that it’s not really possible for Vivaldi or Microsoft or whoever to keep the code in there long term even if they wanted to.
It is still a privacy reason. You are still contributing to googles plans to dominate and control the internet by using a chromium product its a privacy threat, and an everything else threat too.
But neutered Chrome (aka repurposed + degoogled Chromium) isn’t the same as Google Chrome. I 100% understand what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t file this under “privacy” (at least not without some asterisks).
A neutered fascist is still a fascist.
its still furthering googles control of the internet, which is an inherent threat to privacy, regardless if you think you are participating in it or not.
Once again, that’s not privacy (the context of this discussion). Your point is that using Chromium encourages websites (as in, developers) to keep making sites that are Chromium-optimized, instead of browser-agnostic.
When you take all the “Google” out of a browser, they’re not getting any information from you because those mechanisms no longer exist. Again, I’m talking about Google and Chrome. You’re combining 3 different “issues” and slapping a “PRIVACY” label on them.
The real issue is that people default to Chrome, because for years it was the most performant browser (until it became a bloated shitfest). People need to become the change they wish to see (like me, who switched from Brave back to Firefox on all devices). That’s how you defeat a browser monopoly. This is just Internet Explorer from the 90s/2000s all over again. Remember how everyone used to default to it because it’s what they were taught? We (collectively) need to stop telling people “download chrome” as the default. It’s the equivalent of saying “google it”, instead of “look it up”.
They bait and switched people promising tokens which they never ended up giving them in exchange for tracking them. Total scam.
Why I recommend against pushing people away from Brave:
Most people are still trapped in an ecosystem owned by either Microsoft, Google or Apple. We’re yet to see a perfect web browser for everyone, but in the meantime we choose one, maybe two or three if we feel a bit more picky for each task, and use them to the best of our capacity. Making anyone feel guilty and ashamed for choices like this, when the best options are few, relative, and often come at a cost, is just useless.
I suggest reading the settings guides available at privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/ or checking the browser comparison at eylenburg.github.io/browser_comparison.htm to know the details that anyone who actually wants a better browsing experience cares about. Better to lend a hand than push around.
If whoever reads this still can’t get over it and needs to play a blame game with someone about why everyone should boycott Mozilla, Brave, Proton and other privacy focused FOSS companies because of what someone said, did or thought, please at least find a decent fork, toss a coin to it’s devs, share their work and help others benefit from it.
At this point there is a pretty solid list of reasons to avoid Brave and use another FOSS privacy focused option.
Personally, everything I’ve read about Brave makes me trust them even less than Microsoft, and Google.
Brave has great anti-fingerprinting measures I just wish I could get that without installing crypto malware on my pc
Use Firefox with the Chameleon addon, works on Fennec as well (Android fork with Mozilla telemetry removed).
You only need uBlock basically, beware of other extensions. They’re mostly snake oil and Firefox has anti-fingerprinting features per default.
Mullvad Browser comes with fingerprint blocking mechanisms of Tor Browser, without connecting to tor. I recommend it.
All the crypto stuff is opt-in.
Brave search allows misinformation goggles for anyone that believes 2 + 2 = 5.
Of course Brave would so something like this. This isn’t surprising whatsoever. It’s still horrible they’re even choosing to enable this whatsoever.
Edit: I just checked what kind of shit they pull up on Transgender issues when using those goggles. It’s as bad as I thought it would be. Fuck Brave for enabling this garbage.
I mean Daily Mail should set off an alarm for any sentient being.
Am I misunderstanding something? That’s what I would expect to see from any search engine when you search for “vaccines” and “news from the right”.
Yes, the feature is working exactly as intended, and therein lies the problem.
So people would rather Brave doctored their search results than showed them what they searched for? I genuinely don’t know what else right-wing news outlets would write about vaccines 🤣
We need to get some moderators in here. Lots of bigotry in this comment section…
Also don’t use Opera. They’re opera-ted by chinese mafia.
Thanks. I read an article yesterday about how it’s one of the best privacy browsers out there.
I prefer either TorBrowser or Waterfox.
TorBrowser is, hands down, the best privacy browser out there but it’s a bit slow because it operates like a decentralized VPN.
Waterfox browser is built on Mozilla’s Gecko Engine just like firefox, but it isn’t managed directly by Mozilla.
Chinese Mafia aside, opera GX sill benchmarks faster than any other browser, except maybe thorium
The CEO of brave is a homophobic bigot if that helps push anyone over the edge for changing their browser. It was the last straw for me.
That’s not even his worst crime. His worst crime was inventing JavaScript.
Especially when the alternative they were considering was having Scheme in the browser.
This post shows that it’s much worse than that.
Yeah brave has it own issue, but overall it is still more privacy respecting than chrome or edge. Brave is personally not my choice. I use librewolf. Still, if someone ask me for a browser to use for their privacy journey I will undoubtedly tell them to just use brave. Firefox(and the forks) isn’t a choice for most normal people it often break Captcha. Some website even straight up just don’t allow Firefox based then tell you to use chrome. I am not by anyway try to defend Brave action, but I can’t see much choice that just work for people who don’t even know what an OS is.
Over Vivaldi?
I know that I am overly paranoid but they do the weird user ID thing. It it opt in as they said in their privacy policy.
When you install Vivaldi browser (“Vivaldi”), each installation profile is assigned a unique user ID that is stored on your device. Vivaldi will send a message using HTTPS directly to our servers located in Iceland every 24 hours containing this ID, version, cpu architecture, screen resolution and time since last message.We anonymize the IP address of Vivaldi users by removing the last octet of the IP address from your Vivaldi client then we store the resolved approximate location after using a local geoip lookupAt least to my knowledge brave do not do anything like this or maybe it is opt out by default. But honesty, I think from now, I will recommend both of them and just let people choose.
There’s always Ungoogled Chromium. If you do want to suggest Brave to people, please tell them about these downsides as well.
Ofc I will try my best to tell people about up/down side of a product. When it come to ungoogled chromium do they still support manifest v2? If yes then it will be also a great choice for desktop.
Orion all the way
It seems to me that nothing in life is free, including browsers. Yeah, free software exists, and that works fine for many kinds of software, but not browsers. Browsers are a living thing, they have to change constantly to adapt to the changing environment. Maintaining a browser takes effort, to an extent that far exceeds that of other programs, word processing, games, image editing, etc. A browser is a primary attack surface for all manner of malware and exploits. It’s web facing and it executes code provided by external sources. That last sentence should give you chills.
So all that is to say, that it is very much non trivial to maintain a browser. So it only stands to reason that maintaining it consistently won’t actually happen without some amount of compensation.
So how do you pay for a browser? Well everyone seems to agree, with ads. This method is apparently quite viable as a business. But I probably don’t have to tell you that there are a bunch of problematic aspects to it. User data collection (and resale) is probably top on the list of problems. It’s a pretty serious breach of privacy, I hope I didn’t have to convince anyone of that.
To get to my point though, Brave is the only browser I know of attempting to use a different model to support their project. They’re trying to allow people to just pay for the web themselves, rather than let advertisers pay for the web while users give up all their data. It may not be a perfect implementation, but from where I’m standing I don’t see anyone else even trying…
Correct me if I’m wrong though, i’d love to see other viable models.
That’s a long winded way to try to excuse secretly mining crypto, far right misinformation pushing, transgender phobia, and more that Brave does / has done.
I also want to point out an operating system is a huge project to create and maintain, and yet Linux has accomplished this without all the shit Brave has pulled.
PS: technically Brave has used ads as well.
I have been using Brave for many years hands up
