I used Brave for a few years but recently switched to LibreFox. I really enjoyed Brave as a browser but couldn't handle all the sketchy shit that seems to keep coming up
The only reason I haven't switched to Firefox from Chrome fully is because for some reason Firefox for Android still doesn't have tabs for large screen devices. Mozilla says it's not a priority. 🤷
If you think the things brave has done are bad, go read through the list of things microsoft has done. You really don't want them to ever have a browser again, and certainly don't want to personally use it.
It was because of 'security', which was never explained. And it doesn't make much sense when other browsers can and do alow it. I'll see if I can dig up some historical links if I remember tomorrow.
Last time I checked,there was still no acknowledgement of it and appeared to be no intention of ever addressing it. The fact that they're now telling people to run a webserver suggests that nothing has changed ☹️
White list firewall. Because this is the real reason everyone has a right to ad block. Ads are hidden links to other websites. It's like walking through a gauntlet of pick pockets bribing the credit card company just to make it to the checkout at your local grocery store, or some asshole you invite into your home that goes to the bathroom, opens a window, and lets a dozen random people in your home if they pay a dollar for the access. The entire system is based on stalking people. It is criminal.
It changes many default Firefox preferences in about:config to be as private as possible. The main selling point is resist fingerprinting (RFP). I highly suggest reading the wiki. It can break some websites, but you can configure it to fit your needs.
Why was appointing Eich as CEO so controversial? It's because he donated $1,000 in support of California's Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California's state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
I want to try a thought experiment. Imagine that you observe this comment in reaction to the above:
I just don’t get why the author is so pissed about their political contributions. Guess what, people who are involved in big business are usually right-wing and support right-wing organizations. Shocking. Who could have known. I don’t even want to imagine how the author comes to the conclusion that this is some big conspiracy but I think we all know what political spectrum that guy belongs to.
What I just wrote is a mirror-image version of the top rated comment on that article from a few days ago about the Mozilla foundation funding left-wing organizations. Do you agree with one of those statements and not the other? If so, why?
It is one-sided to say that someone involved in Brave should only be "allowed" to do so if he doesn't support anything conservative. Just as would be one-sided and wrong to say that Mozilla shouldn't be "allowed" to support left-wing organizations. Flipping it around, and looking at the reaction when it's the other way around, is an easy way to analyze your own internal reactions on it.
(Generally, I'm in agreement with the idea that you shouldn't use Brave because of all these other shady things; just this one part jumped out at me as one thing that's not like the others.)
Very good observation. The issue being, the way I see it,
he supported a generally accepted hateful conservative rhetoric. Most left wing organizations do not promote hateful rhetorics.
Yeah, it's one-sided. Prop 8 was stupid and CA rightfully rejected that shit later.
It's good to be one-sided against stupid shit that is a crime against humanity. Gay marriage is now legal federally. Same as interracial marriage. Nazis got beat the fuck up in WW2. Slavery is over. Deal with it.
You're not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. "But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it's different") is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn't go to prison and it's okay when they cheat in elections.
I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn't mean someone who's on the other side suddenly shouldn't be an executive of anything.
Supporting politicians you like and supporting basic human rights being taken away on the basis of completely arbitrary factors outside one's control are two very different things.
You're not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. "But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it's different") is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn't go to prison and it's okay when they cheat in elections.
I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn't mean someone who's on the other side suddenly shouldn't be an executive of anything.
It's not even about sides. There is no left wing party in the USA - the Democrats are a right wing party. The problem with the GOP is not that they are right wing, it's that they are extremists. A lot of their "policies" are not policies, they are crimes against humanity. 'People who are demographic X shouldn't have the basic human right of Y" is not an opinion, a policy or justifiable in any way.
And boycotting people as Eich is first and foremost an act of self-preservation.
Eich is, evidently, a hateful cunt who invests into destroying the human rights of random people. By exposing your e-mail, bank accounts, your communications and your identity to him (by using his browser), you are inviting him to violate your rights as well.
By using Brave's shit, you giwe Eich money. Thot same money he later uses to fund the atrocities he and his peers commit. Thus, by using Brave's shit, you are not only complacent in these crimes, but actively participating.
Less relevant, but still, by using a Chromium-based browser, you help inflate Google's oppressive market share in the browser space, letting them push shit like Mv3 or WEI. If Brave actually cared about making a private and secure browser and fighting Google's monopoly, they'd base off Gecko or, better yet, build their own engine.
The fact that you would consider your counterfactual a mirror image is itself problematic.
In the case of the Foundation, it supports exactly what it purports to support. They’re like the EFF and other civil rights organizations. If you consider the EFF left wing, I think that says a bit more about where you stand.
The original article was outrage-bate blog spam, with random Capitalized Words and the prolific use of “scare quotes.” It doesn’t even say anything. No charges of misinformation. No citation of law. Just “They have a Billion Dollars!!” kinds of sentences.
On the other hand, the CEO of a company - particularly a small company - lends his personality to the company. It often makes sense to co-identify them, given that the CEO has an incredible amount of influence.
So if you are saying that libertarian software project : libertarian institutions :: conservative ideas : homophobic legislation, I guess you’re just really endorsing the position of judging the company by the politicians and politics it supports. If you see prop 8 as being as fundamental to the conservative position as internet freedom is to an organization specifically dedicated to preserving internet freedom, all I can say is that I hope more people start to see it that way.
The two sides are not morally equal. Prop 8 was an awful, bigoted stain on California's history and he was unrepentant. I am glad he no longer is at Firefox. And Brave is a sketchy company that makes clear it was a good decision to give him the boot. I can support companies with moral stances I agree with and not support companies that do bad things.
The ceo is a bigoted asshole, Brave is chromium, it was initially funded by Peter Thiel and they're literally just trying to make their own adsense network.
The self-proclaimed privacy focused browser is tracking your browsing and want to serve you personalized ads, and I think they want to use that tracking data for AI training as well, meaning other people can potentially access it.
And lets not forget about their crypto currency that you can earn by turning on special ads. Which they seemingly unironically called it "Basic Attent Tokens"..
TL;DR: The company is basically a sham company trying to usher in a dystopia. Where you'll get paid for staring at ads, while having all your data stolen and sold back to you.
Brave is a marching band of red flags. It claims privacy while injecting ads, affiliate codes and crypto into the browser. It's kind of sad to see someone like Brendan Eich who should know better turn to the dark side and pretend this is all fine. It isn't.
Best advice I could give for anyone who wants privacy is use Firefox or a branch of it. Firefox is out of the box the most privacy conscious mainstream browser and add-ons make it more so. If you want absolute privacy you could even use a derivative like Tor Browser.
He made a thousand dollar donation in support of proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California that strips gay people of the right to marry. He then proceeded to argue that such a donation does not make him a bigot or an enemy of LGBTQ+ people, because he's a delusional piece of filth.
This effectively prevented gay people from marrying in California from 2008 to 2013 until the fascists that supported it were finally done trying to argue how this doesn't violate the US constitution.
So yeah, may he, his browser, and any pathethic excuse that pretends to be human being who supported this abomination rot in the deepest depths forever.
I have absolutely no idea how Brave got the reputation it has. It's business model is disgusting and extortionate, it's like paying for warez. Been clear as day since day one.
I thought it was nice that maybe a private browser would be mainstream but then on second thought.... Something icky must be going on if it's mainstream, i mean the whole crypto part was an instant warning for me. Proud Librewolf user over here!!!
ITT: People who just read the headlines and not the article, and then going off on their own Windows rant/Linux evangelism instead of discussing the article.
I read the article! It suggests in a hundred different ways that Windows 11 sucks and that sticking it out with Windows 10 is a bad idea for a dozen different reasons.
The people here suggesting Linux nailed it. If you're not using Linux at this point you're just being lazy, IMHO. If you have any issues you can always just troubleshoot and fix it but based on the anecdotes posted so far it's obvious no one claiming to have tried Linux has done much of that.
Get off your ass and learn something new for real or stop bitching and bend over for Microsoft with your wallet ready to pay them afterwards for the privilege.
People bitching about Windows on their personal PCs is like people who don't vote bitching about politics.
If you’re not using Linux at this point you’re just being lazy
I used Linux for over twenty years and stopped about two years ago due to Linux invariably moving to lazy, poor development and design all the way from the kernel up. Rapid kernel development with tons of random new patches and ideas instead of the old way of maintaining a stable kernel and doing random patches and ideas on a separate branch (the odd minor versions vs. the stable even ones, and even the modern "stable" kernels are just the same branch of constantly rapid updated kernels where they just choose one at random and say "this is 'stable' now and we'll keep patching it instead of telling people to install new ones"), systemd being more of a problem than a solution, the push for everything to move to Wayland forcing every single thing that has to do with lower level desktop interfaces, including all of the lightweight window managers, to completely rewrite themselves with tons of bloat that replaces everything X.org did by default as well as Wayland's devs taking a "it works on my computer" approach to bugs and dismissing tons of major issues people have found, pipewire still not being a stable, reliable audio system (Linux has never had one, but using ALSA with the right hardware back in the day where everything would mix via hardware was a decent solution), distros becoming more and more unreliable and buggy (even "stable" and "long term support" ones), distros and developers giving up on native and running bare metal applications and substituting things like flatpak to run things natively with any sort of cross-platform reliability and fucking wine -- essentially a new version of Windows running in Linux, which is an admission of failure to make a successful game platform if I've ever heard one -- to run games, and on and on.
I've been able to use Linux very well until a few years back. I used to be one of its biggest advocates and wouldn't dare run Windows.
No more. People bitch, moan, and complain about Windows 11 so much but for me, it just works. Simply, easily, no problem. Do I wish I still used Linux? Hell, yes. But am I given how bad it's become? Nope. I've even tried going back here and there and quickly ran into the same huge list of problems and aches that were never there before and back to Windows I go.
Sorry, Linux is a pain and it's not about being lazy, it's about wanting to use a decent OS that just works as well as Linux used to.
I’ve been using Linux since 2008, and yours and my experience is basically opposite. I stayed on X until about a year ago, and haven’t had any problems with Wayland. PipeWire was basically immediately better as soon as Fedora switched to it. I could use Jack plugins and patch bays with my pulse apps, including all the electron apps, like Discord. Systemd has always been better than sys5 init. Maybe you don’t remember how bad the old init daemon was.
I remember the old initd. It was fast, efficient, didn't hang up for 10+ minutes when it got confused about what needed to shut down when, and just worked until a bunch of impatient new Linux users wanted to get to the desktop in 0.00007 seconds and couldn't patiently wait for a proper init boot order so they created this bloated monstrosity. But those aren't even the worst part of NuLinux: to this day Wayland is absolute unstable garbage not worth using. Visual glitches, UI glitches, instability, slowdowns, and outright crashes that even REISUB can't recover from. Meanwhile, Xorg still Just Works.
Modern Linux is garbage and needs to be either fixed or thrown away.
As someone who's been using apple devices for a long time, this pretty much summarizes one of my biggest concerns with the APV. The other being expensive, proprietary, and software-locked lens inserts. (Basically creating a proprietary tax for people with poor vision who want to be involved with spacial computing, antithetical to Apple's accessibility efforts.)
I haven’t seen anything about the lenses being software locked. Who has reported that?
That said - they are $100 to $150, which isn’t terrible as far as glasses go. There are a lot of weird things with the Vision Pro, but as a glasses wearer, that price range actually feels reasonable to me. That’s Warby Parker pricing.
I could wear contacts if I wanted to, but glasses look good on me and hide a scar that I have on my nose and eye. I keep thinking that I should probably just do a Drew Carey. Get contacts and put non prescription lenses in my frames.
Glasses can be an inconvenience with vr glasses, ski goggle, helmets, face masks, night driving, etc.
spacebar.news
Oldest