Why I recommend against Brave.
-
It is still a privacy reason. You are still contributing to googles plans to dominate and control the internet by using a chromium product.
-
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
-
Please tell me you have the whole set. I have waited for someone to post this since literally 2018
I do not but now wish I did
-
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?
-
Eh, I think that's a stretch. Right now, Lemmy is going nuclear on Firefox. Should I also stop using Librewolf, too, because ultimately, it contributes to Firefox? Chromium is solid and I think it's better to show what type of chromium we want instead of outright boycotting the entire open source project.
-
Wait, what's wrong with Firefox?
-
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.
-
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?
I made the mistake of responding to Lumiluz on a different comment thread. They haven't responded yet, but based on this communication here I will just ignore any reply. It's strange we live in a world where you can be accused of being a KKK member due to unrelated tools one uses to browse the Internet.
-
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.
-
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.
That's great and all, but we don't live in those times yet. Not granting people the right to marry whoever they want in current times based on the premise that we should change the marital law somewhere in the future is still nothing short of discrimination. And let's not forget that Eich supported a campaign that was very explicitly against gay marriage, not the current concept of marriage altogether. Weak argument.
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)
That's what marriage already is for the most part in many parts of the world. And in those cases, the resulting financial disadvantage for example also makes it more apparent, why being against gay marriage is not just about names on a piece of paper.
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.
How empathetic of you. Might as well support Josef Mengele with that attitude. A bit more personal responsibility couldn't hurt.
My understanding is that they can’t really do that, because the payments are anonymous.
Well, last I checked it's just another ERC-20 Token and not a new Monero, so I have my doubts about that. I also assume that they must keep transaction logs somewhere to keep track of the amount of BAT donated to a creator. But I can't be sure either.
Use established, proven tools like Tor Browser.
It's also kind of useless for Brave to have implemented Tor in the first place. Even if Brave matures further, there's basically no reason not to use the Tor Browser for its intended purpose.
-
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.
So brave is for people who want privacy and security and are fine when their private, secure software is designed by people who see no problems with not investigating russian cyberterrorism, russian bots and propaganda and see no issues with sharing some of the highest state secrets over some fucking messenger group with random people from outside the government. OH and not to menition think traitorous felons who failed a coup should be punished with 4 years in the highest office.
I do not know about you but that seems like the software is fucked from start.
-
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.
-
A neutered fascist is still a fascist.
If one forks Chromium like Firefox has been forked to hell and back, then I view it as effectively taking the power out of Google's hands. The issue with Chrome supremacy is that Google gets to, directly or indirectly, shape how websites/the internet operates/are built/optimized (since web devs will use it to do their web dev).
So then wouldn't a better strategy be to make a Firefox-like, Chromium browser that is truly "neutral" (like Firefox is *on paper)? Also, remember that Mozilla receives a huge chunk of funding from Google, directly, in order to "keep Chrome from being a monopoly".
Now, that last part depends on whether you considering Chrome to be Chromium, which I don't. Here's my understanding/view, overall (feel free to cherrypick or challenge any of it; I welcome and respect your opinions/corrections):
-
Firefox has existed for longer than Chrome, but Chrome on release was leaner and faster (I speak from personal experience). The only other option was Internet Explorer, which was "Chrome" at the time (as in, average people defaulted to the "blue e" icon)
-
Chrome became the dominant browser because it was lean and fast for its time. It's obviously different now, but you cannot retroactively fault people for choosing an objectively-better browser [for the time]
-
Genuinely not defending Google here, but my opinion is that a large reason we began to transition from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 is because of Chrome (and any other modern browsers). This meant Chrome-optimized sites that didn't work well with other browsers, but I view it as a no-fault situation (it's just how tech progresses; it breaks compatibility with existing tech sometimes)
-
Most people use "Google-everything" these days; I myself have had a Gmail account since it was a closed beta. This means they're more likely to lean towards Chrome, because Google recommends it anyway
So to me, the issues are actually that people default to Google-everything, including Chrome (thus feeding Google info about their entire lives, 24/7). But I don't see Chromium itself as evil. On its own, it's open-source (minus Google bits obviously), which is what allows forks to be made that not only avoid the Google bits, but outright block them. I think it's taking power back. I don't think "EVERYONE SHOULD SWITCH TO FIREFOX OR A FIREFOX FORK IMMEDIATELY" is realistic (and I say that as someone who switched back to Firefox months ago)
I also think that web devs themselves should stop being biased towards..."Chrome-sponsored" (figure of speech) best practices. But I also think that Mozilla should [continue] making their browser more compatible with modern websites, and even maybe get more involved in establishing web design best-practices (meaning practices/technologies that work well equally regardless of browser or rendering engine). In fact, recently Mozilla highlighted their Web Compatibility reporting tool, so that people can let them know about sites that don't render correctly in their browser
-
-
I don't use very many extensions, but it works with all of the ones I've tried such as uBlock Origin.
Thanks for Waterfox. Looks awesome.
-
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?
anyone believing brave is good for privacy is quite naive
-
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).
Forks of Firefox are still Firefox, no matter how neutered it is.
-
Forks of Firefox are still Firefox, no matter how neutered it is.
That's my point. So then what's the solution when there are essentially two mainstream/mainline browsers? How far do you believe one needs to take it? Is a fork that de-Mozilla's/de-Google's the browser enough (and changes the name)? Or is that "still bad"?
Because eventually you'll run out of [usable/daily-drivable] browsers, if you consider any fork to be "evil" by virtue of coming from Chromium/etc.
-
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).
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.
