Brave Browser Discussion & Update Thread

Agreed

You pay if you want to support the sites, not for privacy.

I don't know if Vivaldi has IOS version, but Brave does. I still mostly use Chrome on my Iphone but I have used Brave on some occasions and it comes with some interesting features like

- Block Ads & Trackers
- HTTPS Everywhere
- Block Phishing
- Block Scripts
- Fingerprinting Protection

 

Reading the article I agree that the subject doesn't tell the truth. Brave Payments has nothing to do with paying for privacy. Blocking ads & trackers is an independent browser feature no way conditional by payments.

 

Interesting. It seems that rather than spreading misinformation about Brave, people might would want to encourage the "majority" to use Brave to protect their privacy. Unless they like the fact that the ignorance of the majority allows them to get their internet content for free, at least for now.

 

I already said that 99% of all posts on this forum is about personal opinions. It's a bit childish to call all of these opinions "attacks". I've checked out their desktop browser, and it's very bare bones, so that's why I call it a joke. The part about them needing to be thankful was a bit of a joke, but I do think that it was constructive criticism. I just don't see them becoming successful, unless they can somehow sell their tech to other browser makers.

I don't know about the details, but I believe they wanted to replace ads with their own non-tracking and non-intrusive ads. And to clarify, I do think it's cool that they are at least trying to come up with something new.

I totally forgot about the mobile market. Perhaps they have a chance here.

 

Misinformation is not an opinion, false accusations are attacks. You can call me childish and redefine terms all you want, but it doesn't change facts.

 

So what kind of flashy stuff does a browser require for you not to consider it a joke? All kinds of gee-whiz ad-ons? All the ad-ons I've used had to do with privacy (No-Script, uBlock Origin and such) that Brave does natively. I think a browser that does things natively may be a draw to people who aren't in to all kinds of ad-ons and junk.

Yes, that was really funny, and so helpful. It's a wonder Brave didn't see the writing on the wall and fold up and go away after you posted such detailed sage advice.

So, in other words, you really don't know how your comment applies to Brave?

 

Me calling Brave a joke is an opinion. The fact that you see this as an attack, seems childish to me, this is also called an opinion. About "false accusations", I never accused them of anything. I just said I don't see them becoming a success. The fact that they offer more than only the "pay for privacy" method doesn't change this, I already explained why.

 

Just take a look at Vivaldi, it's pretty good.

No, you're comments about "attacks and false accusations" in a thread about software, now that's funny!

No, don't flip the script, apparently YOU don't know. I already explained that other browsers can copy this method of delivering ads.

 

Can you ever elaborate? What does Vivaldi do that Brave doesn't that users just must have?

Okay, so all the comments, given as facts, of people here accusing Brave of some kind of extortion are opinions, but my comments on how their opinions are mistaken aren't? Kind of a double standard, isn't it?

You said that you don't know details of the "ad-injecting features", and haven't shown how what they do are comparable to what Brave is attempting to do by reimbursing content creators, and then you accuse (yes, I said "accuse") me of flipping the script, whatever that is supposed to mean. I would suggest that you try to get your facts straight before throwing out your "opinions".

 

I already said this:

Can you try to follow the conversation?

And even after being discredited, you still continue to accuse them of "pay for privacy" despite putting the phrase in quotes, I assume so that you can call it an opinion.

 

I'm sorry, but can we agree to disagree and move on to discussing the browser and not what each other said or didn't say?

 

This thread title is problematic as it may cause members to think the browser want you to pay for privacy.... which is not the case. This is simply a browser meant for a niche market - a browser that provides an option for those who wish to pay content creators they support...in an anonymous manner.

 

Right, discussing the browser - emmjay, I think the title of this thread is bang on and thank you for posting, because I truly believe it is another case of the camels nose in the door!

 

Can you explain in what way Brave browser is making you "pay for privacy" as the title of this thread says, and exactly what a "camels nose in the door" means in relation to what Brave is doing?

We've seen ads become more obnoxious and dangerous in order to get people's attention and to attempt to circumvent ad-blockers. I think it could only get worse as more and more people adopt ad-blockers and content providers become more desperate. I guess that's what I'd call the camel's nose in the door.

Brave is trying one option. The only other option I see is for website owners to start charging directly to access the sites or forcing people to accept ads and tracking, and that would cause a lot of people to rebel, and a lot of sites to simply go under.

As for the browser itself, I am finding it perfectly usable for my needs, and finding it at least as stable as Pale Moon, which I was using as primary before, even though Brave is in beta, I think, and being constantly updated. I've never tried Vivaldi, which has been brought up, but I've tried many other browsers including Opera, but haven't seen that they've added anything I need. I guess maybe I'm not a power user, I use a browser to browse, but I would guess I'm as sophisticated as most other users not on forums like this one, and I would recommend Brave to other less sophisticated users for its built-in privacy features.

I think it's a mistake to judge the browser without trying it out and looking at its intended goals for yourself.

 

What's the worse that could happen? Suppose Brave will lure people into using it, and then start forcing people to pay for privacy. I think people would simply go back to using other browsers. I don't expect that Brave will ever be able to force people to use their browser and to pay, even if their motives are as evil as people seem to make them out to be.

 

Well I have a couple of questions for you and/or someone else who uses it. At present they are offering a "complimentary ad-free mode" which appears to be an alternative to the "participate in advertising or pay sites" options. I take it the "ad-free mode" corresponds to the "Block ads" option in the user interface(?). A recent review I saw said that "Replace ads" is the default rather than "Block ads". Is that correct?

What is the phone home situation when "Block ads" is selected? What remote servers is the browser communicating with? What information do you see being exchanged?

I'm mostly interested in that mode of operation, but please feel free to share what you've seen while "Replace ads" is selected. I'm not sure what features/aspects/remote-systems are fully up and running at this point, but whatever you learned while looking into it would be appreciated.

 

This is of course the big question, how it will work behind the scenes. They will need to convince people that there really isn't any tracking going on. But we need to wait for details, and only Brave can give that info.

 

As I understand it Brave will always be free and offer the ad-free mode. There is no intent for people to pay for privacy.

I thought replace ads, or "Show Brave Ads" is the default, although I just checked and I have "Block Ads" selected, though I don't remember when I changed it. There is also an Allow Ads and Tracking mode. When it was showing "Brave ads" they were more like little placeholders with the Brave logo, not too intrusive. Looking now I'm not seeing any connections that looks suspicious, but I don't know that I would. I may try to keep more of an eye on it.

I don't know if you've read any of what they're claiming:
https://brave.com/about_ad_replacement.html
https://brave.com/about_ad_replacement.html

They claim the ad replacement will speed up browsing" and that "Brave Ads use anonymous protocols — not tracking pixels — to confirm impressions (details about anonymity coming soon)."

I'm not technical enough to verify or even fully understand how all their goals will be accomplished, but it is open source, and given all the negative reaction to them by people looking to condemn them before they even get started, I'm sure that if they do anything untoward it will be found out quickly.

 

This is what I meant with ad-injecting. Like I said before, it's an interesting idea, and I wonder if other browser makers will also adapt this model. ~ Removed Off Topic Remarks ~ This is also an interesting post:

https://dzone.com/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-brave-web-br

 

Thanks for the article. This part does go against what I understood and told TheWindBringeth:

Although if the article is correct, it's still misleading to claim that you're paying for your privacy, you would actually be paying to have ads blocked (was AdMuncher considered a pay for privacy scam?), and your privacy is supposed to be protected regardless. In fact, it seems to me, if you have to pay, your "privacy" would be just as compromised as if you chose the ad replacement, or to support websites directly.

So I might would be inclined to settle for the ad replacement, but not for ad blocking, but we'll see once they're fully up and running and the dust and misinformation settles.

 

Well if they were just placeholders rather than actual ads perhaps the functionality that retrieves ads wasn't fully up and running?

I've read some articles, reviewed material at their website, and perused some things in their Github repository. There is more I need to read, plus I need to go back over some things (especially areas that appeared incomplete).

Well, they are building an advertising system *and* a payment system *into* a web browser. In general, advertising and payment systems are major threats to privacy. As is associating client software with a (financial) account. Micropayment systems are of some extra concern because there is the potential for a great many revealing transactions. Bitcoin isn't an anonymous payment system, and governments/tax-authorities/LEAs are unlikely to tolerate any truly anonymous cryptocurrencies for long. The developers have communicated that their browser will leverage what it knows about user activity and perform intent signaling to ad servers to accomplish ad targeting. They've partnered with Sonobi for ad serving rather than use a new entity with a clean rep. IOW, there are multiple higher level aspects to this that *should* provoke a negative initial reaction and skepticism. Plus all the nitty gritty details which require genuine study to understand. Plus it is still in a development stage. Try to be tolerant of negative views at this point. Be cautious yourself too.

 

Points taken.

But so far as I've seen, I'm in no more, and I believe much less, danger using Brave with the ads blocked than is the average person browsing with the default Internet Explorer or MS Edge, or even Firefox without all kinds of privacy ad-ons. I will try to be cautious, as with anything, until it's fully up and running, and am especially not eager to jump in and start giving any kind of payments, as I admittedly understand little about mircopayments and bitcoins and I'm not too anxious to learn.

I'm glad there will be more knowledge people like you who will look into it, and I expect given the press it's already received, that it will be fully vetted once it's operational, and I'll reconsider everything then. (For some reason, your post reminds me of Blue Frog, which I believe was another very well intentioned program, but was also supposed to protect privacy, but ultimately was hacked. So I'll keep that in mind.)

It is good to be reminded of both sides of the argument, but what concerns me is when people automatically assume the worst about the intentions of all involved even before the facts are known. For instance, comparing it to the mafia demanding protection money. Even if Brave was intentionally trying to extort money, how exactly are they going to force everyone to use their browser to do so? And I wouldn't think they'd last long enough to recover a fraction of their investment before they were found out. So I think any outcries against it are premature, but advice such as yours is welcome.

Thanks for the input.

 

Hi folks,

I've not read completely thru the posts, but wanted to say I'm trying the Brave browser. I don't know what the answer is for future advertising, content & the need for content providers to get paid, but this micropayment idea is innovative & something I want to try. The current model is not working, and recent events, internet attacks, facebook crap, fake news, shows how much journalism, investigation, secure access to the net & accurate news, how very important it all is. I want to support with my wallet what works and is fair, so I'm trying this. I'll report back and hope others will as well.

Gobble gobble!

 

PS - I wanted to comment re the title of this thread "pay for privacy". There are very few any truly free services. When we use free services, WE are the commodity. I'm really tired of fighting for my privacy, malware laden advertising slowing my net use to a crawl. I like the idea having some input into what I support on the web.
Thanks Brave for trying something new.