I think the only relevant criticism I see is adding affiliate codes to urls (until they were caught).
The author also forgot the polemic of adding twitter and facebook trackers to the whitelist, and impersonating people in their ads. There are some interesting criticisms against brave, I don’t understand why their detractors are obsessed with the CEO and crypto.
Exactly. They do a lot of things I don’t like, which is why I don’t use them. However, I do recommend them over Chrome if someone isn’t willing to use Firefox (or Safari on iOS with an ad blocking extension).
That said, the ad replacement thing was an interesting idea, and if it got better click-through rate while preventing sites from stealing PII, they probably could’ve cut a profit sharing deal and users would’ve been better off vs the status quo. They could also have a “premium” option where they pay a certain amount for no ads, and that amount gets split with websites who would normally serve ads.
There are some good ideas there, but unfortunately the good ideas don’t seem to have really worked out as intended. I still think they’re better than Chrome, but things can change.
BAT can be distributed to publishers of content you go to based on percentage of visiting those sites. You can purchase BAT or subscribe to the ad program. Nobody in this thread knows even the basics of BAT, smh.
Well nobody is perfect, this thread is making that abundantly clear. If they were still doing all that shit years later everyone might have a point. Make mistakes and learn from it and move on is the only thing I can really ask of anyone. Brave is doing the right thing IMO. As to your comment about BAT, it’s the classic problem of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Not recommending it because it’s not being used so nobody’s recommending it lol.
I don’t recommend it because there are better options. Firefox is privacy respecting, and since it still has an independent rendering and JavaScript engine, it’s better for open web standards. On iOS, all browsers have the same rendering engine as per Apple’s rules, so I recommend Safari with an ad blocker.
If Brave actually offered something tangibly better for the open web, I would recommend it. But it doesn’t, so I recommend something that does.
However, if you need a chromium-based browser, I think Brave and Chromium are about on par, so I recommend both.
By default, pocket makes suggestions to you based on your browsing history and then the aggregate of that is sent to Mozilla. How is that privacy respecting again?
The aggregate of your interaction with sponsored content is sent to Mozilla (sponsored links you’ve seen, clicked on, and how many times you’ve clicked on them). Your browsing history is never sent, either in whole or aggregate. It also sends your region, country, state, and county, but not your IP or anything that could uniquely identify you.
Since you aren’t being identified, nor can you likely be identified, it’s privacy respecting. Other advertisers attempt to build a uniquely identifying profile on you where they grab as much information as they can. When compared, Pocket looks a lot better than every other advertiser.
Regardless, I’m not comfortable with Pocket, so I disable it. I can’t disable advertisers tracking me.
Firefox by default sends search queries to your search provider to help you discover common phrases other people have searched for and improve your search experience if your selected search provider supports search suggestions… Learn more, including how to disable this feature…
…
If you enable “Improve the Firefox Suggest Experience,” we and our partners may also receive your search queries.
So it sends search queries to get search suggestions. I didn’t see it mentioned one way or the other, but I’m assuming Firefox doesn’t send any personally identifiable information with it, though the server probably can track you somewhat with your IP address.
I think the only relevant criticism I see is adding affiliate codes to urls (until they were caught).
The author also forgot the polemic of adding twitter and facebook trackers to the whitelist, and impersonating people in their ads. There are some interesting criticisms against brave, I don’t understand why their detractors are obsessed with the CEO and crypto.
Exactly. They do a lot of things I don’t like, which is why I don’t use them. However, I do recommend them over Chrome if someone isn’t willing to use Firefox (or Safari on iOS with an ad blocking extension).
That said, the ad replacement thing was an interesting idea, and if it got better click-through rate while preventing sites from stealing PII, they probably could’ve cut a profit sharing deal and users would’ve been better off vs the status quo. They could also have a “premium” option where they pay a certain amount for no ads, and that amount gets split with websites who would normally serve ads.
There are some good ideas there, but unfortunately the good ideas don’t seem to have really worked out as intended. I still think they’re better than Chrome, but things can change.
BAT can be distributed to publishers of content you go to based on percentage of visiting those sites. You can purchase BAT or subscribe to the ad program. Nobody in this thread knows even the basics of BAT, smh.
Yes, it’s possible, but that’s not how it works in reality.
I think it’s a good idea, but with some missteps by Brave. They need to get sites on board before I can truly recommend them.
Well nobody is perfect, this thread is making that abundantly clear. If they were still doing all that shit years later everyone might have a point. Make mistakes and learn from it and move on is the only thing I can really ask of anyone. Brave is doing the right thing IMO. As to your comment about BAT, it’s the classic problem of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Not recommending it because it’s not being used so nobody’s recommending it lol.
I don’t recommend it because there are better options. Firefox is privacy respecting, and since it still has an independent rendering and JavaScript engine, it’s better for open web standards. On iOS, all browsers have the same rendering engine as per Apple’s rules, so I recommend Safari with an ad blocker.
If Brave actually offered something tangibly better for the open web, I would recommend it. But it doesn’t, so I recommend something that does.
However, if you need a chromium-based browser, I think Brave and Chromium are about on par, so I recommend both.
By default, pocket makes suggestions to you based on your browsing history and then the aggregate of that is sent to Mozilla. How is that privacy respecting again?
The aggregate of your interaction with sponsored content is sent to Mozilla (sponsored links you’ve seen, clicked on, and how many times you’ve clicked on them). Your browsing history is never sent, either in whole or aggregate. It also sends your region, country, state, and county, but not your IP or anything that could uniquely identify you.
Since you aren’t being identified, nor can you likely be identified, it’s privacy respecting. Other advertisers attempt to build a uniquely identifying profile on you where they grab as much information as they can. When compared, Pocket looks a lot better than every other advertiser.
Regardless, I’m not comfortable with Pocket, so I disable it. I can’t disable advertisers tracking me.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/
Here’s the actual quote about search:
So it sends search queries to get search suggestions. I didn’t see it mentioned one way or the other, but I’m assuming Firefox doesn’t send any personally identifiable information with it, though the server probably can track you somewhat with your IP address.
Sending queries to partners is optional.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Wrong section but I misread it and its an opt in.