Still more trustworthy than the mainstream alternatives (Google, Mozilla, Apple or Microsoft).
I personally treat all software with a level of distrust. But brave has done things which all point to a certain behaviour in which people should think twice before using the product. You can get the benefits of privacy that Brave touts from other browsers. If you want to donate to content creators, plenty of ways to do so as well.
> Firefox and safari
For a long time Firefox called home... not to Mozilla but to Google upon installation (hence, before you could install any privacy extensions that would have prevented Google tracking). This was only rectified after a number of tweets about this problem became viral. The fact that Mozilla’s survival depends on its relationship with Google also created some other issues over time so after being a user for many years, I decided that Firefox was no longer a viable option for me.
Safari is a non starter since I can’t even use it outside of Apple’s walled garden (no Linux or Windows version is available).
All of the above in my personal opinion outweighs the issues that Brave had, which I don’t negate but in my eyes are minor.
So for now I stay with Brave.
Edit: I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is no perfect solution out there and you have to evaluate pros and cons based on your personal circumstances or goals.
It's no different than what happened with Brave, except that Brave acknowledged it was bug behavior and that the identifier is only for the browser, not user data.
As for ways to donate to content creators, please do tell: is there any solution out there that let us be rewarded by getting privacy-preserving ads and to contribute the proceeds further to other people?
Im not going to get in to the game of finding specific ways to donate to content creators. There are ways to do it. If you want to do it anonymously, I am sure you can do so as well, I have never been interested in doing so. If the reason you want to use brave is to donate money anonymously, more power to you, personally, I would caution people against using it due to their past shady behaviour (The affiliate link is just one of many examples).
Mozilla’s very existence is based on its financial ties with Google, those utm parameters are there because of that relationship.
There are also other issues stemming from that problematic relationship e.g. Firefox privacy settings by default are more lenient towards Google than Facebook (you get a prompt inviting you to install the official Fb container, by contrast the unofficial Google container did not even get the “trusted” status, hence making it less visible to new users, even though it’s based on the same code).
Firefox is a good browser but there are issues.
> There are ways to do it.
It's more than "donating anonymously". I asked if you can point an alternative that lets me monetize my attention and give it forward. Show me any system as straightforward as Brave that lets me give 2-3€ every month to wikipedia and archive.org and any one else I desire.
> The affiliate link is just one of many examples.
Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. I see you already failed at providing an alternative for supporting content creators, will you also back out of showing what "many examples" you are talking about?
PS.: Curious that you single out the CEO. If you don't want to use Brave for having a beef with the CEO it's one thing, but at least be honest about instead of making it about the product.
Why should I research for you a topic which does not negate the shady practices that Brave has been at fault for? If you want to donate money using Brave go for it, the evidence of what Brave has done, and done so consistently on many fronts is out there. If you want to look into it, go for it, I am not your personal researcher, a lot has already been done for you.
Two different people talking about the exact same issue does not constitute "much evidence".
I am not a supporter of the "browser". I am a supporter of having an alternative way to have a healthy economy on the internet that does not rely on Ad Tech.
Tracking, privacy violations, the billions of dollars that go to waste due to ad fraud and the maintenance of an oligopoly that only exists due to it all... These are the real "shady practices" that we should be be pissed about, not "they added a button to the webpage that is actually aligned with their value proposition".
If Brave ever gets to do something that violates user privacy or works as a hostile user-agent, then I would gladly be the front of the line to call out for "shady practices". But the points you are arguing are none of that. What you are doing is basically Googling for "Brave Controversies" and spitting out whatever confirms your biases. This is irresponsible and creates a self-reinforcing loop of bad, unfounded reputation for you people that are working on something you don't care about, but that is important to a growing number of people.
> If you want to donate money using Brave go for it.
It's not a matter of "donate money using Brave". Brave is not the point. Brave is just a tool to build something bigger: a way to have a global digital economy free from Surveillance Capitalism. If lynks gave me that, I would use it. But Apple and Microsoft is not interested in doing that, and Mozilla has shown nothing but some naive idealism and very kind words of support (while at the same time paying enormous amounts of money to its board members). I would love to go back to Firefox if they had something similar to the BAT network. I would love if Mozilla started offering paid services to foster and fund an open web free of tracking and privacy violations, but they don't.
Brave (the company, through the browser) does. They have built a (completely opt-in and configurable) system that allows people to receive money for attention and which lets them use this to circulate in the economy, or even cash out. So when I ask you for an alternative, it's not because I want you to do the work for me. It's for you to realize that there is not any other system out there that compares to this, which then maybe will make you understand that the only reason I am "fervent supporter" of Brave is because it's the current best shot we have.
You can send tips to unverified accounts (different thing from a monthly donation), and if the target does not verify their account in 90 days you get the funds back.
There has NEVER been link hijacking or content injecting on a page, what are you smoking?
Content injection: https://community.brave.com/t/does-brave-inject-buttons-onto...
The second... You are technically right, but I thought you meant the browser was injecting their own ads on someone else's page. The tip button does none of that, it does not disturb the user or gets in the way of any action, can be disabled and is there to help the creators network. I don't see anything to get worked up about.
I like keychain, it makes Safari the only browser with password management I trust. Browser dev history has been littered with poor implementations. I want to say Chrome still stores shit unencrypted, but this is just what I recall off the top of my head from reading tech news. I'm no expert, and that's pretty much my point. I trust keychain and don't want to write a phd thesis on how secure the other options are.
I like the ios integration. Other browsers offer this, but it's just another account to worry about - do i trust this company, will they still be around (and still be trustworthy) in ten years? browser history is the most personal thing I do on a computer so this matters a lot to me. (I guess both of these points are just tldr walled garden)
The lack of good adblocking kills it for me. It's too much of a sacrifice, even with a pihole running at home.
Also, as you said, they move slowly. Not just with shiny new tech, but also basic privacy things like if I type "old.reddit.com/r/embarrassingThingsImInto" or whatever, why are they still defaulting to http, and waiting for the web server to decide to upgrade the connection (leaking the initial request)? Why is defaulting to https hidden away in the developer menu? Developers are the only people these days who should be dealing with http anyway, and in those cases there's probably a ".local" at the end they could use to make a determination.