Why I recommend against Brave.
-
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.
-
That thread is several months old, and is specifically about integrating Arkenfox settings changes. I wouldn't say Librewolf has ceased development based on the fact that their default settings differ from Arkenfox. Their Codeberg site shows ongoing work.
That thread is several months old
And? You have new evidence that things have improved?
and is specifically about integrating Arkenfox settings changes
Why does that matter?
-
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.
-
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.
My point here is that personal views can differ from political policy views.
That makes absolutely no sense. You would advocate for and even donate to political reform for something you don't personally believe in?
At the end of the day, it's on the user.
No, it isn't.
I personally don't have an issue with how people spend their money
Nothing says more about who a person is than their political donations.
-
I don't care about the personal life of the CEO, and I don't care about crypto, and everything else is a giant pile of nothing. Ads in the home screen? Like who gives a shit??
So the CEO of the company funding Prop 8 to overturn gay marriage is nothing? Stealing from the creators it claimed to be funding? Being a right wing hotspot is cool with you?
Good to know that's where you stand.
-
Oof. It seems that most of the users simply don't care.
Every time someone uses Brave, I know I can ignore their opinion. They're either a useful moron who is too dumb to look around them, or they support every single one of these things.
It's no wonder why 4chan's /g/ loves Brave.
-
My point here is that personal views can differ from political policy views.
That makes absolutely no sense. You would advocate for and even donate to political reform for something you don't personally believe in?
At the end of the day, it's on the user.
No, it isn't.
I personally don't have an issue with how people spend their money
Nothing says more about who a person is than their political donations.
You would advocate for and even donate to political reform for something you don’t personally believe in?
Yes. I believe in personal freedom, so I'll support the freedom to do things that I believe are harmful like drug use, gambling, or prostitution. You doing those things doesn't impact me or anyone else so it should 100% be your right to do it. In short, I believe principles should carry the day.
I may not agree with you doing something I believe to be bad, but I'll defend your right to do it.
In the same vein, I believe governments should be as small as possible, and no smaller. The role of government is to protect me from you, and vice versa. It's not to ensure I'm making good choices, in fact it shouldn't be in the business of deciding what's "good" or "bad," it should merely enforce laws that protect people from eachother.
Does the government deciding which marriages are valid protect me from you? Not really, all it does is determine who can take advantage of certain benefits. That sounds exclusionary with no particular purpose, so the government shouldn't decide that.
So I really can't speak to why Eich donated to the prop 8 fund (or whatever it was). Was it because he hates gay people? Or because he thinks same sex marriage goes counter to the reason marriage exists as a government institution? Or something else? I don't know, nor do I really care, provided it doesn't get in the way of doing his job.
-
Prop 8 was not merely proposed, it was approved by voters and actually banned same-sex marriage for several years before it was ruled unconstitutional.
Brendan Eich contributed to the actual banning of same-sex marriage in California for several years.
Corrected the mistake, thanks.
-
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'm waiting on Ladybird to come out next year into alpha
-
Corrected the mistake, thanks.
Thank you!
-
-
So the CEO of the company funding Prop 8 to overturn gay marriage is nothing? Stealing from the creators it claimed to be funding? Being a right wing hotspot is cool with you?
Good to know that's where you stand.
As long as his personal life doesn't influence the product, I'll just throw him on the pile with all the other Nazi supporting CEOs. which is most of them.
-
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.
Both are responsible
Brave is licensed under the MPL. Section 7, Limitation of Liability. Go read it.
TL;DR It is your screwup, stop blaming the devs
-
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?
-
i found one called waterfox that is a nice little firefox fork ive been using. super chill.
I've been loving it.
Might give this a crack. Been waiting on Ladybird to come to PC.
-
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?
Why I recommend against pushing people 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.
-
If you want to block youtube ads, I think it is really the only option as of now. Adguard can be downloaded on the app store and it does a mediocre job blocking ads, but the placeholder space for them remains and it straight up fails to block some for me. I am stuck with brave for now until something better comes along.
Do you use the paid version of Adguard?
For me on iOS it's almost as good as uBO on Firefox.
No blank spaces where ads go, support for every filterlist I want, especially nice for blocking cookie notices. -
Does anyone have a recommendation for a browser to use on my iPhone other than Brave? I tried Firefox first, but evidently I can’t install extensions for ad blocking due to iPhone restrictions, so I’m using Brave on just this one device.
But you can install Adblock extensions (but only in Safari)!
The best by far is Adguard. -
Do you use the paid version of Adguard?
For me on iOS it's almost as good as uBO on Firefox.
No blank spaces where ads go, support for every filterlist I want, especially nice for blocking cookie notices.Interesting. I have never paid for an adblock before, but it’s good to know there’s a backup. It seems a bit wild to pay for an adblock when free and open sourced solutions exist I guess…
