Brave is not a privacy-focused browser. It is an ad-focused browser and the business model of Brave is just this: ads, through Basic Attention Tokens. Privacy and BATs are in conflict and Brave will never be incentivized to respect the privacy of all its users. If you want privacy for you and for everyone, competition except Chrome is already better.
Brave is not a solution for a browser user's problem.
At this point there are only two browsers left: Firefox and Safari.
AMP, for what it’s worth, is based on existing web standards. It’s a restrictive way of using those standards, but it sits on top of existing standard tech. And Google is using their position as a search engine to push that, not their position as a browser vendor (as evidenced by the fact that AMP has the same effect in Firefox/Safari as it does in Chrome).
But this comment thread includes the claim that their influence over Chromium is being used to push AMP, and I don’t see how they are using their position with Chromium to push AMP, a technology that uses a specific subset of existing web technology and operates cross-browser already.
Each member gets one vote. Membership to the group is decided by the group, with a goal of no more than 1/3 coming from one company. The distinction I pointed out is both technically and practically correct.
https://github.com/ampproject/meta/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md
Brave is clearly a privacy-focused browser: it takes very little time for a technically-minded, veteran HNer to kick the tyres on that project's focus and codebase to understand that privacy is their USP.
It's obvious the whole team believes in the idea of a user agent being an Agent of the User.
A little more time reviewing key figures, from Yan Zhu through to Johnny Ryan, reveals the calibre and integrity of people working on this project.
They are attempting to build a model that upsets the current surveillance capitalism status quo, so it's no surprise that there are attempts to spike perceptions around the project.
Google's Chrome has distorted that historical idea so they are agents of the ad network and advertiser, working against the user.
As for homophobe, I reject your definition. Call me what you want there, but “racist” is a lie. Either yours or your “last I checked” source’s.
From what you write, nonprofits are innocent and for-profits are guilty. I worked for a nonprofit or its wholly owned for-profit subsidiary for 11 years, and I can tell you that the profit motive does not go away in nonprofits. Check the 2017 form 990 on Mozilla’s site for the top salary, >$2.3m. I never got 1/3rd that and went down to 1/15th to start Brave.
Brave uses all open source for auditability and we pay for audits as well as bug bounties. We pay the user 70% of user private ad revenue. For publisher ads (not yet done, working with publisher partners) we will pay users the same 15% we get - publisher gets 70%. So we won’t make revenue without our users being happy and making more than we make. Let’s see Firefox share Google search revenue (which held up tracking protection in Firefox for years) with its users, giving more to the user than Mozilla gets.
You ad hominem argument against an open source product is absurd on its face. Should right wingers use only software from righties? How many tribes must hive off and build their own software, and reject open source that’s ritually unclean? Judge products on their observable design, implementation, and business properties.
If you don’t have enough brand awareness to get your PR out there just latch your story onto someone that does...
Do you think Mozilla, Chrome, and ad blockers were also part of this marketing effort, or is it possible that all this was just normal context?
Sure moving forward they do but they sure did take their time getting there.
That's why the Tor browser is setup to be as homogeneous as possible. Using Tor within Brave does not provide the privacy that users might expect, and Brave even point that out in their website. Hiding your IP is a good start alongside blocking known trackers, but it's only one component of properly avoiding tracking online.
Mozilla is investigating Tor integration: https://blog.torproject.org/mozilla-research-call-tune-tor-i...
No they don't. They just have a proven record of not being good at exploiting the massive amount of surveillance data they collect.
Anyone who thinks Mozilla is on the side of the user in privacy matters should start by asking why they support the beacon API.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo...
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...
At least they were "transparent" about the second one. But sending my browsing history to a company I've never heard of is a big ask. At least I can choose to have Chrome sync with Google, this wasn't ever asked.
Give an inch, take a mile. It's always like that every time by every single company in existence.
All of their efforts to wean themselves of the Google cash have been not only pathetic failures, but also breaches of trust.
Many people and long time Firefox users felt back then that Mozilla did do something wrong.
Anyway, I wanted to give this more airtime so I upvoted you ;)
Any links to best practise in this space?