If you are keen on personal privacy, you might have come across Brave Browser. Brave is a Chromium-based browser that promises to deliver privacy with built-in ad-blocking and content-blocking protection. It also offers several quality-of-life features and services, like a VPN and Tor access. I mean, it’s even listed on the reputable PrivacyTools website. Why am I telling you to steer clear of this browser, then?
Then why betray them? He has nothing to gain from funding such a campaign. There is no logical explanation and sure as hell no justification for it.
Oh, shut up. When this asshole funds a campaign that’s actively fighting against the rights of millions of people, it absolutely is our damn fucking business.
It’s bad enough that they even got the idea, let alone implement and actually ship it. Negative reactions shouldn’t be the first deciding factor for reversing such decisions.
Not just share, completely give up that revenue. Blocking ads is one thing, but to then also monetise other people’s content should not allow Brave to earn even a single cent.
Your proposed solution sounds fine, though.
Again, no. Maybe if there weren’t any alternatives, but there are plenty.
That’s probably true, however, Eich is a different story. Despite not gaining anything from it, neither for his companies nor for himself, he was willing to go out of his way to support a campaign in favour of discriminating millions of people, proactively. This doesn’t just make me not like him, it makes me despise him.
Other CEO’s typically at least keep quiet about politics, and make me dislike them mainly because of self-interest and their resulting business decisions, which can at least still be somewhat understandable.
And let me be clear that I’m not going to jump on people who use Brave for whatever reason. But under no circumstances will I defend those who downplay or justify Brave’s, and especially Eich’s, actions.
He obviously believes that same sex marriage shouldn’t be performed by the government. If you want to know why, ask him, not me.
That said, I don’t see this as “betrayal,” it was a private donation. The only reason we’re talking about it is because someone dug through his donation history (donations to such orgs are public record) and made a big deal about it. AFAIK, there were no accusations of him treating LGBT people unfairly, only opposition to his donation.
I’d like to see an explanation beyond, “yeah, we screwed up.” Who signed off on it, and what was their justification?
Thanks. The idea is that the browser has a vested interest in protecting the privacy of it’s users, so finding a workable solution for both the user and the website should provide some funding for the browser.
But yes, either the browser should block ads so nobody gets revenue or work something out where everyone wins. Profiting off someone else’s content without permission will always be wrong.
Do you have a better suggestion for a chromium-based browser that’s FOSS and has effective ad blocking and tracking protection?
I use Firefox (or fork) most of the time, but I need to test on a chromium browser and need a backup for the odd website that fails on Firefox.
Brave sticks out as the obvious solution here.
He tried to. He never advertised his political beliefs, donations, etc. Someone just found out and blasted him for it. For an org that supposedly cares about privacy, that’s pretty alarming!
Nor will I. But I will separate my criticism of them.
I’m 100% happy to jump on board an Eich’s political positions hate train, and I probably share the resentment. But I will not jump on a Brave hate train just because Eich is associated with it. I’m happy to blast Brave over technical mistakes it makes (I avoided it for a long time until BAT was deemphasized), but I won’t transfer that frustration into a personal attack on Eich. They can and should be treated separately.