Why I recommend against Brave.
-
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.
God damnit.
Every browser I switched to since Firefox has been a good user experience, and then I find out some horrible bullshit.
Is there any safe browser that isn't run by hateful assholes?
-
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?
This is a very well written an thorough article and I highly recommend reading it. If you don't want to however, here is a summary of the key points:
-
- Brendan Eich donated to anti-LGBT political organizations, politicians, and initiatives such as CA Prop 8 which was a proposed ban on same-sex marriages.
-
- Brave promised to replace ads with privacy friendly ads that would actually pay publishers and even users with a volatile cryptocurrency while keeping a cut for themselves. This never actually came to life and was criticized as "blatantly illegal".
-
- Brave collected donations for popular content creators without actually involving or seeking consent from said creators. In short they accepted donations in crypto for creators, but would only pay out if it reached a minimum value of $100. When called out, Brave said refunds were impossible.
-
2020 — Brave injects referral links when visiting crypto wallets
-
- Brave injected their own referral links for services such as Binance without informing users or asking permission.
-
- Brave turned their home screen image rotator into a place to serve ads, many of which were suspicious or crypto related.
-
- Brave added a Tor feature which exposed users DNS requests
-
- Brave refuses to disclose their crawler bot to websites since many websites want to block Brave Search. Brave will only chose not to crawl a website if it also blocks Google's crawler.
-
2024 - So-called "privacy browser" deprecated advanced fingerprinting protection
-
- Brave removed a the Strict, Block Fingerprinting privacy feature from their browser.
-
- Brave paid for targeted ads for users searching for Firefox in the Play Store and ran a campaign to "Forget the Fox". When called out on this the VP publicly denied it and claimed it was photo-shopped.
-
- The VP of Brave, Luke Mulks, frequently posts about all things crypto, from NFTs to FTX, and uses AI-gen images to promote them. He also frequently re-tweets right-wing activists.
-
- Brendan Eich's feed also frequently contains right-wing content and Republican propaganda despite his claims to be "independent".
-
I see no legitimate reason for not using a User Agent string, like all the other crawlers use, other than the desire to hide the crawler and make it difficult to block.
I don't accept his explanation. I see it as gaslighting.
-
Thanks, but I'll keep using it.
Here come the downvotes fro the supposedly tolerant
idiotsgood people out there, lol -
Disabling Brave Rewards on a new installation is not any harder than disabling Firefox's Pocket crap, or Edge's Copilot integration, or Chrome's send-everything-to-Google behaviour.
I wish one day we can get a browser that serves the user instead of browser maker, but for now i'll keep using Brave (it's at least open source).
disabling ... Chrome's send-everything-to-Google behaviour.
Is that even possible?
-
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.
-
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.
No browser is sustainable without money because
- The infrastructure and labor costs money
- Google charges out the ass for Widevine which is a must for Netflix, Apple TV+, etc
-
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.
-
Brave bought ad space on YouTube, and showed an ad on how to block ads on YouTube.
Mozilla could have done something similar with UBO but they just keep missing so many golden chances.
Mozilla has millions of reasons to not rock the boat with Google.
-
It's not about 'Google' vs 'the other sear h engines'. It's about transparency. You've probably read some news about how AI crawlers have been destroying infrastrucure and half the time does NOT declare themselves as crawlers in their UA.
Can confirm that nealy 90% (read hundred of thousands) of daily visits to several of my websites are made by crawlers from datacenters and I HATE not knowing whose who. Because when I don't know, I block and report. Website owners already have enough between AI, Page Rankings, and Research Agencies who all exploit free infra for their own business.
Do I make exception for Search Engine crawlers? Yeah, I do. I've seen Google, Bing, and Mojeek, but weirdly enough, never Brave. Now I know why. And frankly, if they can't be bothered to be transparent about their crawlings, then I won't be bothered to make exceptions for them. They're freeloading just as much as the rest. If they act like shady chinese crawlers, then they have no right to go pikachu face when they're treated like one.
-
The article is unfair about the fingerprinting issue. Brave utilizes a technique they call farbling and it does a really good job at keeping websites from knowing who you are, in theory anyways.
You're not just licking the boot you're giving it the good sloppy
-
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.
Most browsers are open source. They're all funded by advertising (except Safari). When you find one that has some sort of sustainable model that isn't advertising, please let me know. I'll be all over it.
-
No browser is sustainable without money because
- The infrastructure and labor costs money
- Google charges out the ass for Widevine which is a must for Netflix, Apple TV+, etc
I don't understand your point.
-
God damnit.
Every browser I switched to since Firefox has been a good user experience, and then I find out some horrible bullshit.
Is there any safe browser that isn't run by hateful assholes?
Firefox? Mozilla are just stupid, not really hateful
-
God damnit.
Every browser I switched to since Firefox has been a good user experience, and then I find out some horrible bullshit.
Is there any safe browser that isn't run by hateful assholes?
i found one called waterfox that is a nice little firefox fork ive been using. super chill.
I've been loving it.
-
I don't understand your point.
A Web browser is a complex piece of SW that needs to provide many, many, features and work with great performance. Therefore you need a large team of experienced developers (full-time and maybe volunteers) collaborating on the development and testing. This is cost in labor and infrastructures (servers, storage, internet connection, hosting of platforms, etc)
One such feature that is a must-have is playing videos, from YouTube, Netflix, Prime, Twitch and what have you. Most widely spread video codecs are proprietary, you need a license to implement the decoder and these licenses are expensive. H.264 is one such codec, very widely spread across many content and platforms. You wouldn't want a web browser that lacks the ability to decode H.264 videos. There are many such codecs that are considered essential, and this cost a lot of money in total.
In conclusion, this is an argument as why developing a web browser costs money and requires a sustainable financial plan, even though it is open-source and developed mostly by volunteers.
My personal opinion: advertisement sucks. I don't want it anywhere in my life. I would prefer to pay upfront for my web browser if it come to this.
-
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.
Since when did LibreWolf stop development? First I heard of it, and concerning if accurate.
-
A Web browser is a complex piece of SW that needs to provide many, many, features and work with great performance. Therefore you need a large team of experienced developers (full-time and maybe volunteers) collaborating on the development and testing. This is cost in labor and infrastructures (servers, storage, internet connection, hosting of platforms, etc)
One such feature that is a must-have is playing videos, from YouTube, Netflix, Prime, Twitch and what have you. Most widely spread video codecs are proprietary, you need a license to implement the decoder and these licenses are expensive. H.264 is one such codec, very widely spread across many content and platforms. You wouldn't want a web browser that lacks the ability to decode H.264 videos. There are many such codecs that are considered essential, and this cost a lot of money in total.
In conclusion, this is an argument as why developing a web browser costs money and requires a sustainable financial plan, even though it is open-source and developed mostly by volunteers.
My personal opinion: advertisement sucks. I don't want it anywhere in my life. I would prefer to pay upfront for my web browser if it come to this.
Yeah, no, I understood all of that. I think we all do. I'm just not sure why you felt the need to explain it?
-
Yeah, no, I understood all of that. I think we all do. I'm just not sure why you felt the need to explain it?
[email protected] is supporting your argument.
-
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.
We've already seen many other browsers stop development, like (...) LibreWolf, due to lack of resources.
Wait, what?
Two things:
-
When did Librewolf stop development?
-
On funding, they say in their FAQ:
If we don't need funding, we won't risk becoming dependent on it. And also: no donations means no expectations. This means that people working on LibreWolf are free to move on to other projects whenever they want.
Librewolf seems to very consciously not looking for "resources" from advertising or donations, or etc. The only resource they seem to want is motivation.
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
I think that having expectations and funding to continue is important, like you say.
But I'm still confused about what you mean by the "resources" comment re: Librewolf.
-
