And if we’re going to start talking about creators let’s start talking about the people that made this site LMAO maybe it’s not the best candlelight to hold this issue against…
Okay, first and foremost: I do not use brave. I have used it years back (long before the URL-Rewrite-thing) and thought it felt weirdly bloated with stuff I didn't use (a little like Opera). I would not recommend Brave to anyone at this point, because it's... weird. I was out when they started to wave at you with their strange pseudo-currency-wallet that had to be set up and all. I would not recommend such a browser to someone who might then just ask me questions about the weird things the browser I told them to install does. No way, Jose!
Now for the but: The article is bad. Like... baaaad.
Let's have a look, shall we?
"Some higher-up of the company did something that is not moral"
You do not become CEO of a company íf your moral compass is a high priority for you. Period. We still need to keep the perspective here: the donation shows views I really dislike, yes. But given how much many of those suited-up nutjobs in upper managements give to really shitty causes... these 1000 dollars were peanuts. Besides: How does a CEO with indefensible political views make the product bad?
The Peter Thiel bonus fact:
Can we stop to attribute any investments by large funds as a morally motivated thing? There was a guy at Peter Thiel's fund who saw the project and went "Eyyy that's gonna get us some Dollary-doos". That's it. That's how business works. Those funds constantly shift tuckloads of money into truckloads of projects.
There was a super stupid idea in the initial plans for the browser
Yeah... thing is: They didn't do it. You'd be surprised how many really "scummy" ideas get pitched in companies every day and how often some management-guy just kinda runs with them. That's just business as usual really.
BAT
It is kinda weird, yes, but remember: At the time they started this, crypto was everywhere and it made the company money. I don't see why the mere addition of this stuff is a reason that "Brave Browser is irredeemable". It doesn't interfere with the browser's functionality, it just adds bloat. The article doesn't distill that though. It just says "It has crypto in it", goes on with something else and then concludes that "therefore bad" out of nowhere. What about the BAT thing makes the browser bad? Tell me, author!
Brave had FTX-Partnership-stuff and didn't apologize
The apologize part is what baffles me.
They some (probably paid) partnership with a company that tricked lots and lots of people. Why do they need to apologize for (unknowingly, naively perhaps) working with a firm that turned out to be fraudulent? Does your ISP have to apologize for every scammer who did scams over their landlines?
Random listing of crypto stuff
What is bad about this? Tell me, author! They went into the booming crypto sphere and got some users that way. I dislike the crypto-bubble as much as the next guy but why does that make the browser bad? My bank sponsored a local motocross-event. I do not like motocross. Is my bank account now bad, too?
Please tell me why the product is bad if you want me to think that the product is bad.
Affiliate scandal
finally something of substance. Yeah, that one was a shitshow.
But as much as I try to resist, I have to be nerdy here:
This is not an argument now, I just could let this one slide.
I’m not aware of another browser ever rewriting what the user types in the address bar.
Again, not part of the argument, the affiliate-thing was bonkers and justifies scolding, just that one phrase ground me gears, as they say.
Ultimately, Brave Browser is the apparatus of an advertising company
hey, another real reason to dislike the product, to the point. See, author? you can do it! No need to ramble on for pages over pages without any point or conclusion! Just a few words do the trick!
Brave Browser is irredeemable, and you should not use it under any circumstances.
<queue Backstreet Boys> Tell me why!
No really, that's my main issue with the article: It lists a bunch of stuff and leaves it to the reader to assume that the listed stuff is devaluing the product of this company, basically because the tone of the article is "Brave bad", but the article never reasons why the things brought forth makes the browser bad. it never concludes any point, just rambles on to the next like a slightly tipsy Thomas the Tank Engine between stops.
Besides: How does a CEO with indefensible political views make the product bad?
By using the product one benefits the company and thus the CEO. If you don’t like someone or their views you might not want to contribute to make them richer.
I sometimes need it because of its functionality to connect to the Tor network. The Tor browser itself is just too slow for what I need. Yes, I am aware that using Tor like that is significantly less secure than it would be with the Tor browser. I just NEED the speed increase it provides over the Tor browser.
Does anyone know of a way to do the same thing in another browser? Preferably Firefox? I would love to be able to use something else.
Thanks, but it seems like this thing requires a local tor network to be running on the host. They provide scripts to do that for mac and windows, but not for Linux. Sure, I could probably do it manually, but then I would have to manually start it every time I want to connect to tor. Not ideal.
I challenge anyone to cite an incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.
Well for starters you donated $1,000 in support of prop 8
The article appears to be biased against Brave Browser and its associated company, presenting a negative viewpoint on various aspects of the browser's development, functionality, partnerships, and the background of its founder. The tone is critical and skeptical at best.
TL;DR : The Brave web browser has gained attention as an alternative to mainstream browsers, marketed for privacy and backed by cryptocurrency enthusiasts. However, it’s been criticized for its association with Brendan Eich, who faced backlash for supporting a proposition against same-sex marriage. Brave’s attempts at a privacy-centric approach included plans for a unique advertising model, which faced legal challenges. The browser’s cryptocurrency, BAT, faced volatility and its ad replacement system didn’t provide substantial rewards. Additionally, Brave collaborated with controversial crypto entities. Privacy concerns were raised when the browser added affiliate codes to URLs, and its complexity and associations have led critics to recommend other browsers like Firefox or Vivaldi for privacy-focused users.
To be fair it goes both ways. I don’t understand the hate for it either. Is Brenden Eich an asshat? Maybe, but that doesn’t affect how good the browser is or isn’t. And the crypto/ad stuff is opt-in. You can leave it off and it is just chromium with a built-in ad blocker.
What else are you going to use if you don’t want to use Firefox? Vivaldi is the option suggested the most but that isn’t open source. And extensions and codecs are a pain point with Ungoogled Chromium. As far as I’m aware Brave is the best currently available open source chromium-based browsers.
I don’t even use it, I use librewolf for the record.
For the record, have you also tried the Goanna-based Pale Moon web browser, and compared how well it stands to all those other browsers you've actually dug deeper info on?
Yup, Brave is my go-to Firefox backup. I need a chromium browser for work to test our product, and it’s nice to have something with an ad blocker built in. I use Firefox 99% of the time, but that last 1% goes to Brave.
So in other words, there no “real” reason to not use it. Just read the article and it’s a bunch of worthless nothing. The author just seams like a pissed off lefty. What am I going to use instead? Chrome, Explore? Lmaooo give me a break. Brave is amazing and they’re NOT attached to Microsoft or Google. None of the issues the article talks about are even remotely real issues that anyone cares about.
Brave Browser has marketed itself as a privacy-preserving web browser and has gained attention from cryptocurrency enthusiasts.
The company behind Brave, founded by Brendan Eich, faced backlash due to Eich's previous donation in support of California's Proposition 8, which aimed to ban same-sex marriage.
Brave initially planned to replace ads with its own ad units and split revenue with publishers, but this idea was met with legal issues and criticism from both inside and outside the company.
Brave introduced Basic Attention Tokens (BAT) as a way to reward users for viewing ads and content, but the rewards are minimal and the value of BAT is volatile.
Brave has incorporated various cryptocurrency-related features, including a full crypto wallet, but many of its crypto partners have faced controversies and scandals.
Brave was involved in a privacy scandal in which affiliate codes were added to URLs typed into the address bar, allowing the company to collect revenue from user signups or purchases.
The article concludes that Brave is a flawed software project and should not be used, recommending Firefox or Vivaldi as privacy-focused alternatives.
Most of those are irrelevant or fall under “shit happens” and “shut definitely happens when you are doing new stuff”. Who cares if BAT is volatile? You don’t have to hold BAT because it can be traded for other currencies as needed. By when you need abs sell when you need. If you need large enough quantities where it’s going to make a difference then that means some aspect of it is actually working.
I can see not wanting to use it for the same reason one would not got to Chick-fil-A.
The only point on that list that really holds universal weight is the second from the last. Except that it’s broken to because “was involved” is not the same as “is involved”. They stopped doing that. So unless one believes they would do it or something similar again now that extra attention is in them it’s irrelevant to current usage.
Add comment