I think we need all support we can get to fight Google on this, so I welcome Brave here actually.
Use this link to avoid going to Twitter:
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/BrendanEich/status/1684561924191842304
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t get all the hate Brave gets. I understand that techies have some issues, but for me as a user I have nothing bad to say. Ads are blocked everywhere, including YouTube. There’s an option to use tor…
If you don’t like the crypto options don’t use them. I always thought crypto was bunk, but I wish I bought a bunch of bitcoin when I first heard of it.
As a normal browser user:
The browser works fine, although with time they kept adding more and more stuff that I had to disable. I could deal with it, but it’s not a browser I’d recommend to most of my friends.
After a few years using Chrome and then Brave, I moved back to Firefox. Not as polished, but works fine for me.
As a Brave Rewards/Creators user:
I simply don’t trust them anymore.
I used it for a while to make some money with my site. Some people used Brave (like me), so since they were blocking ads, I confirmed my site so I could get some of the automated donations the browser sends to the top sites people visited that month. I received a few payments, had everything confirmed, paid taxes on the revenue… all 100% legit, never tried to game the system or anything like that. It wasn’t much, but helped with running costs.
One day I couldn’t login to see my balance, but ignored it and forgot about it. Then they sent me an email asking me how I was making that money, to which I replied. Months went by without any reply… until I forced the issue. Then they banned my account without providing any reasons or a way to appeal. My site was still verified, so I assume I was still receiving donations, which I could not access. The site continued to be displayed as “verified” even after them banned me… I have no idea if they sent the donations back to the senders. I actually had to ask them to un-verify the site if they were going to keep my account banned.
The way they dealt with it was bad and receiving donations to a banned account is shady as fuck. I wouldn’t use the word “hate”, but I just can’t trust them.
deleted by creator
Brave have started their marketing spree to try and distract from their most recent controversy. Like clockwork, every time they do something controversial they start marketing to drum up new users.
Just a reminder that Brendan Eich who founded Brave was ousted from Mozilla for being a homophobic piece of shit.
Brave is the edgelord of browsers.
Don’t forget that he inflicted the blight that is JavaScript upon the world.
JS is one of the most fun programming languages ever created; how dare you slander its great name.
sure mate, just tell me the result of the following without trying it out.
0 && 1 && false
If I remember correctly, 0 and 1 are considered falsy and truthy respectively, so it should be
falsy and truthy and falsewhich I believe would return false.Tried it out to double-check, and the type of the first in the sequence is what ultimately is returned. It would still function the same way if you used it in a conditional, due to truthy/falsy values.
yes, that is a solid logic, one that I also applied and expected to be the result.
that is until a Vue component started complaining that I am passing in a number for a prop that expects a boolean.
turns out the result of that code is actually: 0, because javascript
of course if you flip it and try
false && 0 && 1
then you get false, because that’s what you really want in a language, where && behaves differently depending on what is on what side.
Brendan Eich who founded Brave was ousted from Mozilla for being a homophobic piece of shit.
He was ousted because he donated 1000$ to a political project that he personally supported, which yes, was banning of homosexual marriage.
I specify that, even if I shouldn’t, the project in question is not something I agree with. Yet firing him and continuing to attack him years after (like you’re doing here) over opinions he kept personal (he didn’t bring it to Mozilla nor did he comment openly about this opinion) is a little shocking to me.
Let’s say you personally supported a wildly unpopular, some might call bigoted, societal change, say drug criminalization in states that legalized it. As long as you just not exposed this in your professional life, how would you feel if your work fired you over it and if people kept bashing you (without knowing anything about you) and your future professional endeavors for the rest of your life?
We should probably just chill out on that part.
From his lack of response on the topic it’s clear he still supports that position (being anti-gay marriage). He was ousted in part because Mozilla is supposed to be and open and inclusive place to work, hard to do that when your boss doesn’t believe you should be allowed to marry.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
Jobs fire people ALL THE TIME over personally held beliefs or things they say/do outside of work. We can argue that’s not right but as long as it happens to the rank and file I think it appropriate to at least try to hold C-level to the same standards. If it helps you sleep at night I’m almost sure he would have survived the backlash at any company that wasn’t like Mozilla, lord knows C-level came get away with murder most places.
He was ousted in part because Mozilla is supposed to be and open and inclusive place to work,
So by “open and inclusive” that means “everyone has to have the personal opinions, even when they don’t bring any of those opinions to the company?”
To clarify, I think gay people should be allowed to marry. I don’t agree with the supposed position Brendan Eich has. I say “supposed” because you haven’t provided any proof that this is his position.
Here’s 2 great questions you should answer:
- Should Muslims be allowed to work at Mozilla?
Islam is very anti-gay, and if you’ve met any Muslim immigrants, I have, they don’t think the gays should marry either. Among, uh, other things. Depending on age and where they’re from.
- Should you be penalized/reprimanded/fired by your employer for having opinions they don’t agree with?
Let’s say this: you work for a Pakistani Muslim and in a workplace that’s predominantly Middle Eastern and North African. He doesn’t believe in gay marriage, you do. You donate like $50 to some LGBTQIA+ organization. Should your boss fire you?
Or let’s be less controversial: you want to legalize all drugs and donate to a candidate who thinks the same. Your employer had a family member who died of a heroin overdose, and they’re pretty anti-drug. Should they fire you?
Or lastly: you’re a Republican. Your boss is a registered Democrat. Neither of you talk politics at work and you get along well and you do your job. Should they fire you?
hard to do that when your boss doesn’t believe you should be allowed to marry.
Was Brendan Rich going out of his way to tell any gay people at Mozilla he thinks they shouldn’t marry? Was he bullying gay subordinates? If he was, yea, he should absolutely be fired. If not, it doesn’t make sense to me for an employer to fire you for personal opinions you hold that don’t effect your day-to-day job.
Fire the Muslims too if they take any public actions to oppress others, I say.
Sure, I don’t disagree. But you can’t fire them simply because Islam isn’t pro-gay.
But I need proof that Eich was going out of his way to specifically oppress the gays, not a “well obviously” or tangential claim. If he simply donated to some Republican who later turned out later to actually be anti-gay marriage, who’s to say Eich didn’t know they had that position?
And we don’t even know if Eich is against gay marriage, no one here has shown proof of that. Should I assume you’re possibly Islamaphobic because of your comment? I don’t think I should.
We can’t assume people’s positions based on nothing tangible. It comes off as obnoxious mind reading. In fairness, the internet created these mind reading games all political sides do, because it gets attention and likes. If someone truly holds a disagreeable opinion, you should be able to sufficiently counter it. Granted, that’s a whole different think when we’re talking about being in the workplace.
Jobs fire people ALL THE TIME over personally held beliefs or things they say/do outside of work
I thankfully (at least in my opinion) live in a country where this is illegal and it does seem well-enforced (I live in France). I understand this can and does happen in the US, but I still find it shocking enough for me to comment on it. The firing of Brendan Eich had a pretty big backlash so I’m not the only one.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
I do not use brave either because I’m not comfortable with the philosophy and whole crypto thing, but using that as a proof to “the lack of morals and character” of Brendan Eich is a big shortcut to take IMO. Ironically that quoted parts also sounds like something I normally would more likely hear from someone at the opposite side of the political spectrum - from what I guessed is your political affiliation - but I digress and my guess may be completely wrong (in any case, I don’t care much, I just thought it may help me to make you get my point).
Then to make things clear, I’m not against boycotting companies due to the personal actions of someone you vehemently disagree with, I’m against the idea of insulting publicly both him and the projects he’s affiliated with every time his name comes up. This is the very annoying and toxic part.
Let me translate your comment with equivalent wording that reveals it’s true nature.
Imagine being caught calling for the eradication of jews in private and then being fired and called an anti-semite for the rest of your life. Even though you didn’t bring this into your workplace and then companies being reluctant to hire you.
also your drug criminalization is an entire load of false equivalence bollocks, drug criminalization is a far more complex issue than Gay Marriage, or rather whether we should treat people equally. There are very valid arguments for certain drugs to be criminalized that are way too easy to abuse and kill people with, like fentanyl and I say that as someone that’s a supporter of full drug decriminalization.
Not to mention there are levels to drug criminalization, there is a difference if you have a gram of drug on you or a metric fuck ton.
There is no version of treating LGBT+ as just somewhat less equal that’s morally defensible.
also your drug criminalization is an entire load of false equivalence bollocks, drug criminalization is a far more complex issue than Gay Marriage, or rather whether we should treat people equally. There are very valid arguments for certain drugs to be criminalized that are way too easy to abuse and kill people with, like fentanyl and I say that as someone that’s a supporter of full drug decriminalization.
Sorry english is not my first language, so that wasn’t clear. By drugs, I meant cannabis here, well I don’t know the details in the US but “soft drugs” that’s being de-criminalized there. Not other kinds of drugs. Though that was just an example to make people realize that expressing unpopular opinions, as long as they’re not illegal, should not lead to firing people and insulting them for life.
Also, you’re the one exposing false equivalences with your godwin point. Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder. And the action of calling for the eradication of any people is (rightly to me) illegal in any case.
There is no version of treating LGBT+ as just somewhat less equal that’s morally defensible.
Never defended the guy’s opinions, I just find comments here a little bit (euphemism) extreme.
Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder.
How do you think genocides start?
how are you not defending him? you are literally making arguments in his defense or in the defense of someone like him, trying to get people to empathize with him for having an “unpopular opinion”
so if you think mass murders are a bit of a stretch (it really isn’t if you know anything about fascism) let’s say he donated to a political group whose goal is to make interracial marriage illegal, do you still think you need to make comments about how that’s “just an unpopular opinion”?
I only use it for the rare web app where I really don’t want the browser ui on pc, any suggestion, preferably before this cryto scam go down? I tried Gnome Web, but on my pc it freeze and crash wherever there is a video on screen.
You can enable PWA in Firefox, try with this https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox
deleted by creator
Yeah it’s really hard to say it’s only a reskin. It’s clearly not.
There is also https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium as an option.
The DRM will be so interwoven into the core engine that they won’t be able to remove it. chromium is a sinking ship
Chromium is open source. Brave can just fork it.
What do you mean Brave “can” fork it? It’s already a fork.
Yes, and Brave employs software developers that do this sort of thing as a primary task of their job.
“Just” fork it. Right.
It’s a massive undertaking to maintain a fork of something that large and continue pulling in patches of later developments.
Not to say that Brave doesn’t have the resources to do so - I really don’t know their scale - but this notion of “just fork” gets thrown around a lot with these kinds of scenarios. It’s an idealistic view and the noble goal of open source software, but in practical and pragmatic terms it doesn’t always win, because it takes time and effort and resources that may not just be available.
Did you read the tweet from Brendan Eich linked in the OP? According to him, Brave already is a fork, and he provides a link to a (surprisingly) extensive list of things that are removed / disabled from chromium on their browser.
This is correct - any “Chromium-based” browser is literally a fork unless it’s completely unchanged from upstream (even rebranding and changing the logo and name would require maintaining a fork).
Time to switch to Firefox as the base.
Amen. I’m just waiting for them to screw everything up and I’ll follow along.
t. Currently using Brave
Just use Firefox. I already like it better than brave personally.
It really isn’t though. I also started using Firefox recently and I miss tab groups on mobile as well as on my PC. Yes, there is the simple tab groups add-on, but it just doesn’t compare.
Brave is also easier to set up ad-blocking, because it comes with ad-block enabled and script-blocking two clicks away.Don’t get me wrong, I will continue to use FF, but Brave has some features, FF does not have (yet).
The more that use Chromiun, the more likely WEI will be rolled out and the death of ad blockers comes quicker.
No need to wait, Firefox is already a strong competitor (in terms of features, not market share). Adblock on Firefox mobile makes mobile sites so much easier to use.
I don’t know how people navigate the internet without adblock on mobile. Each website is a nightmare with the majority of the screen being ads.
Yeah, ff mobile may be complete garbage UX/security wise, but its the only usable mobile browser IMO, simply because of ublock support.
What makes Firefox on mobile complete garbage security wise? Genuinely curious.
According to the GrapheneOS docs
Firefox does not have internal sandboxing on Android.
Apparently Firefox’s sandbox is still substantially weaker than chromium and it is currently much more vulnerable to exploitation.
Does this mean anything, I mean they can just prevent us accessing to site. And even though this is something we dont wish many websites are going to implement web integrity; which lead us to being forced to use a browser compatible with web integrity if we want to use web.
I know there are always alternatives to services that are probably going to implement web integrity(mainly referring big techs’ services) but we all sometimes use their services in some cases.
All google has to do is make this web DRM mandatory for websites to use its advertising engine Adsense, and suddenly a majority of the internet may refuse your browser. There are apparently about 56 million sites using Adsense. Here is a list of the top 1k by traffic. All of these could be blocked, along with 56 million more.
Yes, it means a lot.
Bold claim for a chromium-based browser.
Not really. It’s easy to see exactly where the code is for a new feature by reading the commit history. It shows more or less exactly what to cut out.
And that’s easy to do right now.
But that’s permanent, unfixable, and potentially ever-increasing tech debt they are taking on.
How easy will it be to do when it’s an old feature?
“Permanent, unfixable, and potentially ever-increasing tech debt” is just a description of maintaining a web browser. Using Chromium is still orders of magnitude less work then starting from scratch.
And orders of magnitude worse than just firefox.
It’s just code. It’s not like it’s cursed.
It’s just code…
I don’t understand.
There’s loads of people for whom 3 or 4 sites make up 99% of “the web”, and those sites will just stop working for people using browsers without WEI support.
I just don’t really see how a browser could be viable in the future without WEI support.
And that’s exactly the point. WEI makes it a world where big tech decides if they are going to support a competing browser, a competing operating system like Linux, or plugins against ads. They can also force you to have any number of plugins installed, from their choosing.
It destroys the free web completely.
This is my take too - Google Search and YouTube especially which are owned by Google.
Even if Chrome had like 5% market share, surely they could just push this anyway? While the Chromium monopoly is partially to blame for this, I’d argue the centralisation of the web is as well.
Sure, “Google Search is useless now, you can’t find what you want!”, but the vast, vast majority of people still and continue to use it, and nothing will change that most likely.
Google search isn’t useless. It’s getting worse but still Google is the best search. For a lot of general searches, Duckduckgo and Kagi have been sufficient for me. “What year did WW2 end” “what is the population of Crimea” “north Korean famine 1990s”
But for example I had a picture of a specific motor an employee sent me that I had to find a replacement for online. It’s a niche motor we use for a large air compressor. All I had was some model / serial numbers. I tried plugging in different variations of the numbers and “motor” into both Duckduckgo and Kagi with no luck.
On Google, the first result was a PDF of a Honda motor guide that had every single niche Honda motor and I was able to find the model name of the exact motor I needed, which allowed me to find a viable replacement on Ebay.
It hurts me to say it, but the other web searches still haven’t reached total parity with Google. I use Duckduckgo as my primary and then when it doesn’t find me what I need, I go to Google.
I would use Kagi but after it couldn’t find me the engine, I stopped paying my monthly subscription. Until then I was happy with it, but if I’m paying for a service and it isn’t any better than the free options…
You could use a SearX instance. It includes google’s results.
Their business model is replacing ads with ads they get paid for. Obviously they aren’t going to like Google making that harder.
Brendan Eich is an asshole deep in the Conspiracy Victim Complex too. I like Brave search as an alternative to Google but I’m still using Firefox
Have you given Ecosia a shot? I find it better than Brave’s search, with the side-effect of not having a shithole CEO.
Ecosia “tree planting” is bullshit though. They only raise funds towards the statutory goal when you click ads, so if you have an ad blocker in your browser or purposefully skip over sponsored search results then they don’t make money towards the tree planting programme.
Well yeah, that’s how search engines make money. They aren’t magic
Exactly, and yet they claim “each search plants a tree”.
You may be right but I have been using Brave on iOS simply because you can’t just install Firefox and uBlock, and since I reconfigured the new tab page I haven’t seen any ads anywhere at all.
From now on, any browser that refuses to implement Google‘s evil shit should be worth a look.
Why not stick with Safari with the Adblock extension and all the others that are available?
Because this way, instead of two apps it’s just one and with better control over content blocking.
But every browser on iOS is just a wrapper around safari… So you’re still just using safari plus another app
Isn’t Brave doing this because they have their own way that they sell ads for coins?
I don’t entirely approve, I think. But if it helps fight Google’s domination of the market, fine.
Had been using Brave for 4 years. Switched from it to Firefox after the Google DRM news came out. Firefox is awesome!
I never liked Brave. The whole “allow ads to get awards” thing doesn’t sit right with me. The only adblockers that do that are the ones that are in bed with the ad companies. Firefox with UBlock Origin and NoScript is all you need.
(I mean, there are other good addons for privacy as well, but it’s easy to go down a rabbit hole and next thing you know you have 30 different extensions installed and websites are breaking. Then you have to start disabling things one-by-one until you find the culprit. Setting your security settings in FF to “Strict” and using those two addons should be good enough without going overboard.)
Edit: only thing that sucks about Firefox is that it still doesn’t support HDR and RTX Video Super Resolution yet, so in the meantime I use the “Open in Chromium” browser extension when I’m watching videos on YouTube, so that they display properly with all the enhancements.
I’m an avid YouTube watcher on Firefox. What does HDR and RTX Video Super Resolution do?
HDR is High Dynamic Range. Makes your monitor more colorful and realistic, closer to what you see in real life. Bright scenes are brighter, colors are more vibrant and accurate (for example, you can actually see teal properly with an HDR monitor, which normal monitors can’t display accurately). Requires a compatible monitor. You would know if you had one cause most people don’t spend extra money on a display unless they know/care about this feature.
RTX Video Super Resolution uses AI to sharpen and upscale lower resolution video. It’s useful for watching 1080p videos on a 4K monitor. Or for watching 720p videos at 1080-quality because your internet sucks and can’t handle 1080p. Requires an Nvidia RTX graphics card (again, you would know if you had one cause they’re expensive and meant for PC gamers).
Basically I’m complaining about features that only enthusiasts care about, but Chrome supports them so why not Firefox too?
If only someone would put the Firefox over the earth like the logo, that would be epic.
When Google chrome was released in 2008, I read about it in a tech magazine and it described how much it’s going to be spying on you. I was immediately put off by it, and decided not to install it. At the time I wondered why would anyone ever install this junk. Oh boy, was I in for a surprise! Pretty much everyone installed it, and within the next 10 years chrome had become the most popular browser.
Obviously, I never switched from FF.
Hello fellow Firefox lifer. It’s been awesome!
Imagine if everyone started using a browser made by an advertising company, such that they pretty much had complete control of the way we use and view the web.
Better yet, imagine a social gathering place where people are encouraged to share everything about themselves, but the place is actually tun by an advertising company. Oh what, that actually happened.
Don’t care, still won’t use out of principle.
What principle are you referring to? (Serious question)
There are 3 possibilities:
- brave has crypto stuff
- brave is based on chromium
- brave is selling data breaking the licenses
crypto is the future
chromium is more secure
licenses shouldn’t exist
Also, I’ve seen accusations of blatant homophobia been thrown around against the founder, haven’t looked into that though so no idea how accurate that is
What people are referring to in that regard is how, in 2011, Brendan Eich (who later founded Brave Software) stepped down as CEO of Mozilla, 11 days after his appointment to said position, after it came out he had donated $1000 dollars to the campaign for California Proposition 8 in 2008, a proposed state constitutional amendment seeking to ban same-sex marriage. Prop 8 wound up passing, although it was overturned a few years after the fact in court.
Here’s an article from when Eich stepped down about the whole ordeal.
