Brave Talk – Privacy-Preserving Video Conferencing
brave.com
brave.com
1) Using the Brave Browser
2) Have Brave Rewards (their crypto-and-ads service) turned on.
Not loving that.
Edit: the first one is fine (although a little strange that it is a requirement here but not for their other products, like Brave Search). I'm irked by the second one.
There are different definitions for "free".
a) advertise that Brave Rewards is required ("Brave Talk is free, ad-supported), or
b) have a payment tier between premium and free that allows me to pay-per-call or something, without the premium features.
I assume someone could turn on Brave Rewards, start a call, and then turn it off later?
Web technologies should be browser independent.
https://brave.com/privacy/browser/
Our terms are better for privacy than 8x8’s, e.g., callstats are disabled in Brave Talk.
For the no-cost option, enabling Brave Rewards helps Brave to cover the costs of video infrastructure
The second one, I addressed directly for all Brave products that have significant fixed and per-user/usage costs, the other week on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/pl2lgi/comment/...
Quote:
"A free browser is a free lunch, and TANSTAAFL. Brave has sponsored images on by default, we don't pretend to be free by selling default search to Google as Firefox does. Privacy-conscious users know that nothing on the Web, no app or service, is free.
The salient difference about Brave in this context: we put users first and deal them in for >= the revenue we make on any attention-based revenue where we take the gross. This can't be done with search deals: Google, Bing, and others forbid paying users a share of the revenue that the search partner shares with the browser maker. But we aim to do it when ready with self-serve keywords-at-auction private search ads.
Before then, we hope to offer private ads via a partner, but that's not a sure thing. Details if and when we have a deal. That's the free leg of Brave Search. The premium is ad-free search for a small monthly fee (a few dollars, discounted if paid annually).
This is necessary because Brave Search has per-user as well as fixed costs, which we must cover with a reasonable margin. I think users understand this. In all cases, Brave Search remains private: no tracking or use of IP even for short-term query-refinement "sessions". But if users won't pay, we will put private-until-and-unless-clicked ads in the free leg. This freemium model goes for Brave News too."
End Quote
TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (popularized by Robert A. Heinlein).
Hackers here on HN may be able to self-host a Jitsi instance, even build their own browser. Most users cannot. We at Brave aim to provide all users with a truly user-first, privacy-designed+engineered-in-&-on-by-default products to take on Big Tech with its centralized data collection, surveillance based ads, fraud and abuse problems, and monopolistic, user-hostile tendencies.
We know TANSTAAFL is true so we don't pretend to offer a free lunch and we don't track users. We will work to add more "buy out my ad inventory" ease of use, including for Rewards as well as News. Those who can't or won't pay can still use Brave as a fast, tracking/fingerprinting-blocking browser. We aim to get enough of you using Rewards to keep our lights on, and we'll have to work on distribution and promotion of search to get it covering its costs (premium ad-free or free private ads leg, you choose).
I hope this helps explain what we're trying to achieve, and that you'll give us a try.
EDIT: Some people took offense, so I am more explicit in my hypothetical here.
Edit: Oh, you meant literally homophobia. Not sure how I'd never heard of him opposing gay marriage. Interesting.
Frankly it was an interesting observation of yours, but a less charitable view of your comment is that you were subtly trying to start the same idiotic flame thread found at the bottom of any Brave post on this forum. And you did.
In case your observation was in good faith, I don't think Mozilla would have gone so deep into crypto and those little unsavoury sponsorships (Binance, etc.) had Eich never left his top spot, and I am positive his governance would have kept Mozilla and Firefox itself in a better place than whatever is happening over there right now.
Feels like we're watching the slow death of a beloved tech company that's one of the cornerstones of net neutrality, and I can't see a way out for them without radical changes in direction and management.
Nope. I simply stated the facts, not that it really was the point of my comment anyway, hence the edit.
> In case your observation was in good faith, I don't think Mozilla would have gone so deep into crypto and those little unsavoury sponsorships (Binance, etc.) had Eich never left his top spot, and I am positive his governance would have kept Mozilla and Firefox itself in a better place than whatever is happening over there right now.
It's hard to say. I don't agree with crypto and think it's not really a great way to go, but Mozilla has Google funding - I don't think it's ridiculous to think Mozilla Rewards or equivalent could've been introduced somehow (with or without crypto)
By they I assume you mean Brave - by this I assume you mean Jitsi, which Jitsi also offers free to everyone via any browser.
Jitsi is eating that cost. Nothing is free.
Brave is eating that cost. Nothing is free.
btw. thanks for the circular conversation. utterly pointless.
Brave Talk, both free and premium, is powered by the stable/production 8x8 infrastructure, that has been vetted, usually for weeks before. Brave intends to run this as a fully reliable service that our users can count on.
I get the crypto stuff is not everyone's cup of tea (certainly isn't mine) but get the basics straight, at least?
> Rather than displaying Ads on web pages, Brave Ads appear as push notifications on your device that you can choose to engage with or dismiss.
I did not say it is a default behavior, but in the end you are blocking ads and bringing new ads, hence replacing. Just an another way to provide ads. Just a different way of seeing the concept as a whole.
I know it's a bit of a tangent from the topic at hand, but I'm really curious what Privacy Badger has broken for you? I (and all the staff at my office) have been using it basically since release, and not once has the root cause of a website not working properly been Privacy Badger.
If you still want to support creators but do not want to receive any kind of ads, just buy some BAT at any exchange, load your wallet and schedule monthly contributions.
If you want to support a publisher who is not on the creators program - send them a message and let them know they have another income alternative.
Can you give an example of publisher/creator that you support directly, and that is not interested in joining Brave Creators?
If I am a popular creator who relies on, e.g, Patreon or Ko-Fi for some sustained income, and I learn about a platform that gives people money and it makes it easy for them to pass along that money to me... why wouldn't I be interested?
The ad ecosystem is multisided, not two-sided. We put the user in first place and cut out the ad-tech intermediaries who raid privacy, enable fraud, and take north of 50%, 70% in one case (the Guardian bought out its ad space and got 30p on the GBP).
Please check your facts before attacking us. It's one thing to operate on misinformation, but another to throw "escheated" around like a lawyer. It sounds impressive, but it's based on falsehoods all the way down. Again, tips from rewards users to unverified sites and channels sit in the browser, time out back to the user, and can be canceled. Look for "Pending tips" in rewards settings.
It's up to the browser user to notify the creator about the tip or contribution they're sending. We don't and can't know who the creator is and we wouldn't spam them. Fans can and do get creators to sign up. This is the clean way to do it, and fits our user-first principle.
If you want a publisher-first play, Scroll (Twitter bought it) was doing a portable paywall with publishers. Not user-first, no rev share to users, users pay. Not us. Have to serve one master or the other.
But I claim our user-first way is best because users can then get sites and channels they've tipped to come and sign up. Going the other way means getting users to subscribe, always a conversion funnel and usually low rate.
* Wikipedia.org
* SmithsonianMag.com
* ArsTechnica.com
* TheRegister.com
* Archive.org
* TheGuardian.com
* LaTimes.com
* DuckDuckGo.com
* NPR.org
I think it's slimy to do what you just did. Why'd you do it? We didn't do the first thing you said, and we shipped and then fixed the bug on the second. I don't see how you can excuse your action.
I'm now familiar with how you aggressively and dishonestly attack people who call out Brave's actions. I know I'm not special - that's just how you do business - but you aren't going to intimidate me.
I will make one concession to your attack though, I will declare that I'm not affiliated with any party in this and am simply doing my best to objectively judge the facts.
> If you don't believe me, then there's no point in talking.
Ok, something we can agree upon!
? I think you're misunderstanding my comment- maybe you are going to fast. (I must admit that you've got energy.)
Be careful what misinformation you parrot. It doesn't help anyone looking for better privacy products or trustworthy commenters.
I'm fully aware that you don't show them within the content (but in notification) and that it's an opt-in thing, but that doesn't make the statement inaccurate. You absolutely are removing them and showing others. In other words, you're replacing them.
verb: replace; 3rd person present: replaces; past tense: replaced; past participle: replaced; gerund or present participle: replacing
1. take the place of. "Ian's smile was replaced by a frown"
2. put (something) back in a previous place or position. "he drained his glass and replaced it on the bar"
Using "replace" implies in situ (which is false as you admit), or else you seem to think the page owns all your display and OS-mediated window-system attention "surface area". It does not, no page even needs to show for an opt-in Brave User Ad to be posted.
So as you've kindly admitted the "in a previous place or position" sense is false, you must mean any page owns your eyeballs if it's anywhere near a user ad. I demur and so do our users. Publishers don't own your eyes, desktop, toolbars, tab strip, new tab pages, or notification channels.
In general, I'm all for the concept of micropayments to websites. But your implementation, weasly language (like here), and of course your homophobic donations makes Brave pretty unappealing to me. I'd rather choose freaking Chrome with a stripped down ad-blocker than it.
...I mean, using Brave is still using Chrome(ium) with a different skin on top, leaky Tor integration, and your own coin that you own... how much of?
My only gripe is that the crypto integration with Uphold to pay creators is/was hard to use. I love the idea that I can pay $20/month to use the web and that money is disbursed to the sites I visit most!
Update: This motivated me to login to Uphold again and relink Brave Rewards so I can use the auto-contribute feature. Uphold didn't have recurring transactions for debit/credit cards originally so it was too much friction to use, but it is all working now.
I’m not sure I understand Braves claim about “sharing revenue” with rewards users. Rewards users are getting paid in BAT no? I assume Brave is getting paid in USD. Do they have an arbitrary treasury of BAT tokens? It seems like Brave isn’t sharing any revenue if they’re paying out in tokens they created. Can’t they just create more BAT tokens or switch to BAT2 whenever they please?
I am genuinely confused here and would love to be enlightened.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3102890/goodbye-hello-firefo...
I'm excited for our launch of Brave Talk in part due to the timing, but also for the technology, and the team behind the effort. WebRTC has come a long way, and the additional encryption options offered are really appealing.
First it was ad replacement, then it was a patreon thing that took donations (illegally) for third parties that didn't want it, then it was ad blocking, then it was a search engine, then it was videoconferencing....
What exactly is their revenue model?
Seems they're still trying to figure that out.
EDIT: some of you think we should do only a browser, but we also have a search engine now (https://search.brave.com/). We're going big across privacy and user-agent models that fit together well and provide our users with value in the form of products, also in revenue shares including >= what we make on any opt-in attention economics. Think big, avoid pigeonholing us as some of you did and still do Mozilla. My advice!
Are there any plans to enable installable third party app/extensions with talk.brave like zoom is currently rolling out their app store?
Will definitely shoot you a note when we've got something built. Thanks!
On one hand, the features are at least somewhat adjacent to their core business of building a web browser. On the other, whenever Mozilla did something like this they were panned for spreading themselves too thin and diverging from their core mission.
More seriously, I don't think for-profit/non-profit really matters here. Mozilla's reasoning was pretty clear (for better or worse) that they saw these adjacent services as helping to break into the lock-in of Apple/Google/MS who used either their own browser-adjacent services to push their own browsers, or to provide privacy-respecting versions of services (in an attempt to displace, say, Zoom).
I think initiatives like Pocket, Brave Search, Brave Talk, a privacy-respecting ads ecosystem, Vivaldi's Mail/Calendar/RSS setup and integrated barebones Notes module are all pretty much exactly what should happen. There was an article about how using Firefox alone is meaningless: http://dpldocs.info/this-week-in-d/Blog.Posted_2021_09_06.ht...
I'm drawn to agree: The browser alone is a hard sell, a bit like how Steve Jobs said that Dropbox is not a product, but a feature. A browser company needs to provide services for users to stay relevant. Search, notes and communication tools are part and parcel of that. If you're just a window, you're going to die.
As soon as Firefox on mobile isn’t a thing people want to use, desktop Firefox suddenly has a “it won’t sync with your mobile” hill to climb.
Cutting revenue for those who make the Web wonderful is not ideal, so an alternative approach was needed to help those who creator the content that keeps us 'coming back' to the Web. This is where Brave Rewards came in, and Brave's User Growth Pool. We distributed BAT to our users, inviting them to ear-mark it for the creators they appreciated most. Some of those creators signed-up to claim our tokens, while others didn't.
From the start, Brave has been focused on privacy, security, and sustainability. In the vein of privacy, we introduced Brave Search. An engine with its own index, not connected to you or your online activities, existing only to help you find what you're seeking on the Web.
Our revenue model is largely ad-based, but quite different from the ads we all have come accustomed to on the Web. Brave's Ad model is consent-based, user-configurable (you control ad-frequencies, etc.), and private-by-design. Rather than sending your data off to third-parties, we send regional ad catalogs to you. These are studied in the private enclave of your machine so that your data is never transmitted elsewhere. When users participate in Brave Ads, they receive 70% of the associated revenue (for their attention). Brave gets the remaining 30%.
I hope this helps
How can you be so disingenuous? You removed ads, then introduced your own advertising. You may see those as two separate events, but the consequence is the same as if you had chosen to replace ads.
But perhaps this first reading wasn't the proper exegesis; perhaps the author meant only "Brave blocks Google's ads, and has created its own advertising model in its place." If that's the intended understanding, then yes, that's correct. Google's ads are privacy-leaches who parasitically attack to non-consenting hosts, sucking as much data out as possible.
Brave Ads replaces Google Ads. Brave Ads is based on consent, privacy, and equity. With Brave Ads, you have to opt-in to participate. If/when you do, you receive 70% of the revenue, and you share [no data] in the process. Google's model is quite the opposite; you don't opt-in, you don't get revenue, and your data is piped out to a third-party where it is sold, rented, and/or amended onto whatever profile exists for you on the Web.
Yes, Brave replaces Google
I agree. Although I'm sure it's clear that I believe "replace" is semantically compatible with "remove advertisements from X, instead serving ads from Y in a different location".
>perhaps the author meant only "Brave blocks Google's ads, and has created its own advertising model in its place."
This was my interpretation.
>Brave Ads replaces Google Ads.
I guess we both agree that "replace" is within the semantic range. Which is why "We never replace ads." didn't sit well.
For what it is worth, I'm neither for nor against Brave. Just surprised about how vigorous Brave employees are being in the thread.
>Google's model is quite the opposite
Don't worry, I'm not on the Google train either.
Brave is definitely working hard to replace that which doesn't work on the Web, advertising being one such thing. We're pushing for a model that is based on consent, equity, and an a priori commitment to privacy (don't touch the user's data). If we can successfully replace (however you wish to interpret that) Google with such a model, then I'm content
1) non tracking on page 2) tracking on page 3) brave ads
The user can chose to block or allow each. It could be considered Brave replacing them if the default was to not have (2) and have (3) but you have to enable brave rewards yourself. You could say it allows the user to replace the ads but that wouldn't be very specific as the ads are of a different type and value.
I mean, ffs, the FBI or Interpol or whoever could release such an app using keywords that mean nothing these days. Privacy preserving, no tracking, no installation, no special permissions.
We just match everyone on video against a criminal database, but it's fine, we don't save your mugshot if you're not a criminal!
Also, what is your approach to CSAM? Do you plan to go the Apple route and do endpoint scanning?
We don't host content. For Brave Search, we have been using a neat trick: not serving pages that Google doesn't index (we can cheaply test in our service with no privacy loss), but as we scale up, we are looking at top vendors who can help filter.
I'm not one of those people that doesn't like redundancy or thinks that people developing tools that serve a purpose for which other tools already exist is a waste of time. I like options, I want people to build what they think they should build.
But I honestly do not see a point of this, except that Brave is trying to become an ecosystem. I don't want another ecosystem.
If this is true then its another shady thing by a self proclaimed privacy company.
They used to do the protection racket thing where they indirectly threatened website owners with the ultimatum that if they don't work with them, they will man-in-the-middle them to replace the website's ads with their own and not give them a cut of the profit.
Also, Brave has been caught modifying URLs and adding its own affiliate links in them compromising user privacy to earn $$$ for itself.
I don't really want to set any kind of precent that browsers should somehow be forced to display web pages exactly as sent.
Taken literally this would mean that browsers would be allowed to re-write, either actively or by deleting sections, the actual content of articles. Surely there has to be some expectation that what a person publishes on the internet will be faithfully represented? And if faithful representation of the original is respected for the writing, why shouldn't it be respected for the writer's business/advertising arrangements?
Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?
No, but the point is that it's a bit more nuanced than your original post suggests. Users should have the control over how a page is displayed to them. I want to tell my browser to block ads, and which ads to block. I don't fully trust it to make the same exact decisions in that area that I might want, or to not selectively block ads based on an agreement it may or may not have with advertisers.
>Do you all not not feel that the browser is ya know the user's agent?
It is the user's agent, and as the user, I want the control. I want to make the decisions.
This is a very reasonable desire, but Brave also seems clear that their service does something different. Where other tools focus on blocking ads, Brave is more about their hybrid blocking of 'bad' ads (whatever that means) and replacing those ads with theirs.
Are you saying that you feel like Brave is deceptive in describing how their service works or that the entire idea of a tool that blocks some subset of ads that the user cannot configure and replaces them is fundamentally unethical?
I genuinely don't have an opinion regarding whether or not I think Brave is being deceptive. Rather, I've always been generally untrusting of bodies such as Brave making "it's cool, trust us" claims. It could be that they're being 100% honest and that's great, but I just can't get my own pessimism to get on board, particularly when there's money/profit involved.
Ultimately, yeah, I would say that the idea of a tool that doesn't allow me to eliminate ads entirely as it substitutes ads it says are "OK" is unethical (for/to me - if others are fine with it, cool, use Brave!). Going back to my lack of trust, I can't trust that they won't make a user-hostile decision around ads in the interest of their own bottom line down the road.
My personal issue is that Brave is an advertising company which is blocking competitor ads where content-creators are getting paid (the company which the content-creators chose to partner with), and replacing them with ads of their own (regardless of the format of them).
It's a great business model - but IMO it's just stealing or subverting ad revenue from the people who actually generate the content you are reading and maintain the infrastructure.
Hate ads? Get Firefox and block them.
Don't mind ads and are happy for the revenue to go to the content creator? Get Firefox, it blocks most tracking anyway.
Don't mind ads but hate the idea that the revenue will go to the content creator, and you would rather give it to some random shady company that might give you a cut of their subverted/stolen revenue in crypto? Get Brave!
What kind of decisions do you want to be able to make? Unless you're writing all your own filters (in which case, kudos to you!), you're still ultimately delegating these decisions primarily to a handful of filter list maintainers you've probably never met. Brave's source code and filter lists are all developed in the open and are heavily customizable, as well.
As are so, so many of the filter lists developed by "maintainers [I've] probably never met." Every list I've added to my pihole is fully readable and customizable.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, depends on what the browser developers want.
That said, there is something dubious with how ad blockers take an author's written content, "liberate" it from the ads that pay the author's bills, and make it available for free.
I sense Brave is trying to solve that problem, but everything I've read about it seems weird.
(Separately I see nothing dubious about tracking protection. I wish tracking were less inseparable from the advertising; I'm perfectly willing to see ads as long as I'm not being shadow profiled).
That's... exactly what I want.
I would like browsers to reinterpret what is sent for me (and noone else, definitely not for the browser maker) and display something more readable and useful (lightweight, queryable, cross-referenced, hyperlinke, actionable, etc.).
I'd love to never see the site owner's design or interact with their UX 95% of the time (if you're an artist or musician I probably want to see what you designed, that's about it). Reader mode probably makes it 50% but is not designed for any kind of interactivity so I still have to use horrible booking pages, shopping sites, etc. I'd love my bropwser to extract the ueful and completely standardise the UI every time.
I want my browser to display the page exactly as sent until I tell it not to. It should be serving pages to me as-is, and things such as ad/content blockers, and reader mode, should be my choices. I don't want the browser making those decisions for me ahead of time and without my input.
To that extent, I think if Brave is open and honest and says "we're a browser that reformats pages in this way" that is ok. It's sneaky shit, dark patterns, bundling things you want with things you might not, etc. that make me distrusting of them.
Brave does offer an optional feature called Brave Ads, which enables users to view privacy-respecting ads (as notifications, and high-quality New Tab Page wallpapers) for 70% of the associated revenue. This revenue (in the form of BAT rewards) can then flow out to verified publishers as a form of support. No user data is collected; ad-matching happens on-device, and in accordance with user-specified constraints.
Dream big, they say :)
If Bob sends me a letter, I expect Postal Service to deliver it to me exactly as sent.
If Bob sends me an email I expect email service to deliver it to me as sent.
If Bob sends me a webpage I expect it to be delivered as sent.
We can discuss changes & preferences on presentation layer, but invisible, uncontrollable substitution of content, I have no idea how they're either justifiable or desirable.
I am likely not interpreting your comment correctly. Perhaps if you elaborate it may become clearer.
They just require you to allow their ads during your call. It's privacy preserving ad tech in exchange for 1:1 video calls.
That's way better than sites requiring you to allow 3rd party ads to use their site.
EDIT: I just saw they let you set your ads to "0 per hour" and still let you use this service. I wonder if that's an oversight.
In a nutshell, enabling Rewards is their incentive for giving the product away for free, otherwise they charge via Premium.
Does this offer scheduling, or just initiating calls in real time?
Nobody asked for their browser to be a messaging system in 2021, nor for exclusivity of initiation based upon browser. Lol?
Does it notify participants when they go over 20 and does then everyone stop encrypting at the same time?
I wonder how all the US BAT users plan to answer IRS 1040 question "did you receive, sell, send, exchange, or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?"
I use bitcoin.tax and recommend it (for no compensation). Are you just anti-crypto in general?
They have attempted many kinds of new business models. VPN partnership with Mullavad is really promising one, and maybe they finally get new source for income.
That probably explains why their brand is declining.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study...
As long as they have Google's money and have them as the default search engine, their stance on privacy is a joke. In fact, they knew about the joke about 'Mozilla living without Google' since 2007 [0] and 14 years later they once begged to Google to renew that contract and now they continue to bite the same hand that kept them alive.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
Receiving money is not making someone automatically bad. You become bad when you do other things than originally agreed for receiving the money, in benefit of money provider.
> As long as they have Google's money and have them as the default search engine, their stance on privacy is a joke.
Also to my knowledge, you can change search engine anytime you want.
When you install Firefox, and fire up that first session, your keystrokes in the address bar are sent to Google. There is no warning, or permission prompt. The same would happen if you accidentally pasted-in your social security number, or some other sensitive information—it gets sent right off to Google. It was this type of behavior, in part, that led independent researchers at Trinity College to grade Firefox lower than Brave in terms of out-of-the-box privacy: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf. In fact, Brave was found to be in its own class as the most private browser tested.
The time for a new engine may come, and I saw a clean room one go by on HN the other day. It's very hard to get to webcompat. Gecko loses compatibility as Firefox loses market share. For now, the more important fight is a level up: tracker blocking, users dealt into the economics, intermediaries and big tech dealt out.
Your not liking a company that is giving them money and Brave's actual record of being endlessly slimy and untrustworthy.
Mozilla undermines Google at every chance so clearly the only result of Google money is what you see in Firefox and that is easily changable.
The internet is not made "good" by by browser manufacturers. This is something we fought about when Chrome assumed dominance, and it holds true today. The thing that makes the internet good is content: a perfect browser does literally nothing except format content properly into an open window. That's why power-users will still reach for Firefox, Chrome, or god forbid Safari before they consider trying "the cryptocurrency browser by a guy nobody trusts". Hell, I'd probably install the stupid Opera Gaming Browser before I'd be caught using Brave. That only leaves you the market of people who would like to earn pennies on the dollar browsing the web, but also pay for their DSL access every month. In all fairness, it's a market you've capitalized on very well, which is why it so closely resembles abuse. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck... I won't believe you when you're telling me it's actually a lion.
In fact Google did Chrome because it learned from Firefox that browsers are high-value user agents, and if they camouflage as passive/blind agents, then the big tech network superpower can have its way with the user, both through top sites such as Google search tied into default omnibus search engine setting, and over time via Google's browser tying (an antitrust term) other Google products, Google's accounts and analytics systems, and even full ad-exchange user-tracking, into its browser.
As for user feedback falling on deaf ears, you are simply making stuff up. Chrome ignores user complaints, Firefox too (roasted endlessly over killing XUL add-ons, Proton UX, etc.). Brave is all over Twitter and Reddit and we do live customer support there. I spend a good chunk of every day on it.
As Chesterton put it, one can always be blind to a thing so long as it is big enough. That seems to be the case with you and your "format content properly" statement here. If you are a Chrome user, I hope you disable account-based tracking in your Google account(s). If you use Firefox, ditto, and beware tracking pixels they whitelist on Google's SERP.
This line alone makes Brace insecure. It relies on the upstream project. Whenever the upstream project gets a security patch, it will be exploited on the downstream and there is X time for the update, unless you have the userbase of Edge or something.
But everybody has opinions to prioritize and we can discuss about them forever.
Huh? Trust is what it all comes down to! You are trusting them with your data and access to your devices.
Brave is the last browser company I would trust (based on their record) and to me that it the key.
This is not the case. The most common claims are "Brave accepted donations for others", "Brave replaces ads across the Web", "Brave injected/modified referral links"—each of these claims are unequivocally false.
You are right that Brave is an "ad based company," however. But that needs to be explained a bit, since Brave is unlike any other ad-based company you've likely encountered on the Web.
When people think of "ad-based company," they often picture something like Google. A company that has its hands in most of what you do on the Web, existing as a third-party resource in most of your traffic.
But compare Brave with Google for a moment. Brave's ad-model is consent based, while Google's is not. Brave's model follows the user's configuration for determining how often/whether ads should be shown, while Google does not. Brave's model pays the user 70% of the associated revenue, while Google does not. Brave collects [no user data], while Google does the opposite. The Brave model is built on consent, equity, and privacy. Google's model is the opposite, in every regard.
How so? For example the case "Brave injected/modified referral links" https://github.com/brave/brave-core/blob/master/components/o...
The "problem" of open-source is, that you can see what is happening.