I don't blame them - a man's gotta eat, and they're not doing anything illegal or dangerous - but I've always found very curious that some people actually believe using Brave might be an "ethical" choice. It just isn't, it's simply a better mousetrap.
The words "dishonest" and "rent-seeking" come to mind. Also, it seems that using affiliate links without disclosure might actually be illegal.
Brave can’t compete with that and Eich is not somebody anyone should rally behind in respect to ethical choices, or moral example. His personal choices to support legislation that will deny basic human rights from the LGBTQ community is a BIG clue.
Personal views legitimately expressed in totally distinct political matters should absolutely not be factored in.
> His personal choices to support legislation that will deny basic human rights from the LGBTQ community is a BIG clue.
Marriage is not a human right.
Even if it wasn't (the UDHR says it is, and the US Supreme Court has for quite some time held it to be a fundamental right), equal protection of the laws is also widely held to be.
> equal protection of the laws is also widely held to be
I am not against equal opportunity for both homosexual and heterosexual couples, rather, I am just anti-marriage. I think that it would be better to just remove any government support or acknowledgement of heterosexual marriage rather than make homosexual marriage official.
Not sure what the UDPR is, but the UDHR, which I referenced, certainly does not.
> Elementary education shall be compulsory
In addition it contains a lot of other crap that is not relevant to human rights such as "Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality ..." or "Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the ..."
That doesn't sound like it has any connection to detainment camps to me.
Where did you get that from?
I've tried Firefox many times over the years, and only recently has it gotten to a point where it's fast and nice enough on macOS. There are still corners of the app I dislike (it doesn't always feel like a native app, for example), but this may be a reason to finally switch.
I used to have Chrome installed for theses situations, but so many factors made me want to use Chrome less and less to the point that I simply didn't want to use it at all, even for rare occasions. For the curious, here are my reasons:
1. Deprecation of APIs that are essential for uBo
2. Phone-home features
3. Non-standard APIs (remember FIDO U2F, anyone?)
4. Constant bashing and name-calling of other browsers that doesn't implement their favored APIs (names like "the new IE")
5. Websites constantly badgering me to use Chrome
Using Brave on rare occasions is a good compromise for me. It has some weird crypto stuff, but it allows me to use an degoogled version of Chromium. I also don't have to worry about it being a vastly insecure fork like some browser forks out in the wild.
1) Install extensions from the Chrome web store
2) Update them
So, if you want a Google-free Chromium with that...Edge?
Firefox was getting much better for a while right after the Quantum release, but recently it has fallen way behind.
Brave is not an alternative to ads. They are just an ad network that replaces the ads on the page with their own, and then splits some of the money with you instead of sending it all to the publisher.
If I like the product, I may not have a problem supporting them with affiliate link rewrites, if it funds technical development and engineering.
Initial loading of webpages on Android Firefox is very slow compared to Chromium browsers.
if you use apps, it might also make sense to get a VPN based adblocker.
I've had a few content blocking apps on iOS and they've all been abandoned (or worse sold to ad companies).
1Blocker so far has stuck around and stayed high quality.
Even Firefox has one.
Personally I use 1Blocker across iOS and macOS.
IOS does have native content-blocking, which is reasonably effective but nowhere near uBlock Origin. It's similar to the manifest v3 stuff where Google is castrating Chrome. And yeah there are tons of them available for free, which makes sense because they're all just using pretty much just using Easylist.
I was previously using Adaway on mobile. I think NextDNS produces the same result.
“If you buy into the idea I’m super important, lift me up unreasonably, I’ll pay you back pennies on the dollar!”
Aggregated across all of humanity it's worth it to spending millions of dollars to pick up a few more fractions of a penny per person, but if you try to "share the wealth" it just isn't nearly enough.
I am thinking of creating a website with two lists of comment threads - the first to collate all the times users say "why are people surprised" at something which is surprising but which has some people already in the know and the second to collate comments about downvoting "why the downvotes", "not sure why you are being downvoted" etc
What other phrases do we use that we can add? I was thinking of also "free speech doesnt apply to private companies"
I’m tempted to add some browser sniffing to my site just so I can block this scammy thing. I don’t even have ads on my comics any more, just a Patreon. And I fully expect at this point that anyone clicking my Patreon link on Brave would get redirected to some weird site they built that skims my Patreon posts, makes you pay in crypto, and only pays me 5¢ out of every dollar you think you’re paying me.
That Brave uses cryptocurrency is not a reason to dismiss it. There is a lot of hand waving but the hand wavers have no idea how Brave works. At least be familiar with the object of your criticism. Even the author of the blog post doesn't know the difference between a link and auto complete. How is that helpful?
A legitimate criticism of Brave is that competitors like Scroll have amassed quite a few publishers for their micropayments platform. Can Brave catch up?
Especially since (sans this most recent incident) most/all the most disliked features are opt in.
I have seen a lot of commenters speculating about how Brave works. It is possible to look these things up before posting.
Users running Brave and buying their crypto will assume they are supporting me, even if all Brave has done to tell me they’re holding crypto for me was to send email to an address at my domain that doesn’t actually exist.
No surprise there.
> There is no good reason to use Brave. Use Chromium — the open-source core of Chrome — with the uBlock Origin ad blocker [...] or use Firefox with uBlock Origin — ‘cos it blocks more ads than the Chromium framework will let anything block.
Is this true? I assumed the functionality would be the same.
> The blocking ability of the webRequest API is still deprecated, and Google Chrome's limited matching algorithm will be the only one possible, and with limits dictated by Google employees.
Firefox + uBO + uMatrix will block everything you can reasonably block without making your internet life miserable in the other extreme (although uMatrix can be a pain sometimes).
If I could force every webdev to browse their site with a fresh uMatrix install I would.
I am aware only of Yandex & Kiwi as Chromium browsers that support extensions that allow you to install an adblocker. So perhaps Brave is trying to integrate itself there somehow by having it built in.
Anybody know a better breakdown than this for mobile browser market share? https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/world... It says Chromium is 61% and Yandex is 0.1% but it would be nice to see if Brave was included or not.
brave promises extensions by the end of June, they already shown working prototype in Twitter
so next to outdated kiwi, shady yandex and experimental ungoogled i have my biggest hopes for brave as current kiwi user who needs ublock
if you want to stay updated follow kiwi discord channel
Brave goes out of its way to make money by ripping off publishers.
As a publisher myself, I respect ad blockers. If they block ads, they aren't gonna click the ads in the first place, so it's their choice. I even respect DNT header and not put my pixel tracking for the users.
Brave, on the other hand, is doing these sneaky stuff to earn from my efforts. A site that has Alexa rank hovering 10,000 accumulated about $10 worth of BAT currency (their own shitcoin) in exchange of showing ads.
Thats not how it works. The user receives BAT for opting into OS notification tray ads. Then the user is tipping your blog with their earnings. It may be somewhat of a moot argument, but there is a distinction. The user is accumulating BAT from having the browser open, not necessarily when they are on your site.
Whether Google is intentionally degrading their performance in Firefox or simply doesn't care is an interesting technical detail, but from a practical standpoint I need to use these sites for my job, so I also need to keep a chromium-based browser around.
So even if you use Firefox as your main driver, you'll still want to have a Chromium-based browser as a backup.
Now the problem for Android users is that, in light of this news, there's now one less (seemingly) viable option if you're using Google Play services.
If you're using F-droid, however, you have Bromite and ungoogled-Chromium as prime candidates.
Nope. When something doesnt work in my FF then good bye. I cant be bothered to do extra work like switching browsers for to support their incompetence. It'been rare though.
TBH the only sites where I have noticed this are Google sites like Hangouts and YouTube. But even those work fine, they just seem to use quite a lot more CPU than I think they should. I do have Chrome as a backup in case something doesn't work, but I can't remember the last time I had to use that.
The only cases that I couldn't trace back to an extension were:
1. a major news site thinking Firefox was in incognito mode, and refusing to display any contents.
2. Google Stadia
I can't seem to find bromite on fdroid. Why it not there anymore?
I find it odd that one of Firefox's only features, over Chrome, is privacy, but they're funded by Google who is the anti-hero right now in the privacy space.
If Firefox's mission is successful they would lose all their funding.
According to the links, the "Get Add-ons" view in Firefox uses Google Analytics to collect aggregate visitor statistics. Furthermore they note that they negotiated a special contract with Google to only collect a subset of data.
There's nothing indirect about Google cutting checks directly to Mozilla.
However, I've been using Firefox as my primary browser for about five years and have been very happy with it -- especially post Quantum. I can't even remember the last time I've had to switch to Chromium because something wasn't working.
The pocket thing isn't that bad, it's legitimately just a free cloud sync bookmarking service that you can use, or not. It's basically an extension of FF Sync, and no one has problems with that.
The Mr Robot plugin catastrophe was abhorrent, I certainly won't deny that.
Chrome takes 102-200ms to render the page, Firefox takes 150-400ms. 1.5 to 2x slower -- and that's after all the performance upgrades they've done with Rust and Quantum.
Network inspector says Firefox is spending 150-270ms "blocked" before it even initiates the connection. On Chrome the block is 3-18ms (15-50x (!!) faster).
There's also UI lag. When I press Ctrl+N, I expect a new window to open immediately. Chrome and Chromium based browsers do that. I cannot even perceive the delay between pressing Ctrl+N and a new window appearing. With Firefox it takes about 0.5-1 seconds before anything happens at all. This seems to be another 10-20x difference (though I'd have to record my screen and measure the difference).
Curiously, Re: UI lag, I think the actual time until the navbar is usable is about the same. But Firefox waits until the whole window is built before it displays it, while Chrome opens the window immediately and fills it in. From a user experience (I do command, I expect feedback) this makes a huge difference.
I switch back to Firefox roughly once a year after reading how fast it's gotten. But I have been disappointed on this front every single time. I want Firefox to succeed, I really do. I am donating to Mozilla every month. But as it is right now, I can't tolerate such lag, for a trivial action I perform thousands of times a day.
How did you actually measure this? I wonder whether these small timing differences may just be differences in how the respective dev tools report the timing info.
FWIW I also don't think the relative difference will be this large for bigger sites - I'd be very surprised if a site that takes 1s to load in Chrome would take 1.5-2s in Firefox.
So once the page is loaded, JS performance seems to be about on par, but page loads are faster in Chrome.
To measure I just used dev tools. But there is quite a lot of randomness involved -- sometimes the engine scheduling planets align, and sometimes they are way out of alignment. You'd need thousands of samples or more to get an accurate reading. I just refreshed a few times to get ballpark numbers.
From pressing enter to the browser initiating a fetch was around 16ms.
1. Chromium based browsers give me control over extensions that require access to everything. https://imgur.com/a/ENZkQyc
2. Firefox doesn't support media keys.
Edit: Turns out it does if you enable them in about:config. See bad_user's comment:
3. There are still some areas in which Firefox's performance isn't competitive. Try using it with something like Rainway and it will completely fall over.
#3 isn't that big of a deal to me. #2 I could probably adapt to. #1 makes Firefox a non starter for me.
#1 seems nice. Note however that Firefox was safer even before they introduced their permissions system simply by having a review system that works.
The review system of Chrome Web Store is broken, there's a lot of malware on it, extensions bought and turned malware and then you've got completely legitimate extensions being banned due to some automatic process flagging them. And then it's really hard to get in touch with humans. All the while reported malware take months to be taken down.
Of course, it's also true that Chrome is simply the bigger target. And what Mozilla is doing now probably doesn't scale. But for now Firefox's ecosystem of add-ons is much, much safer (and arguably more useful). Has been that way for some time.
I used to complain that it doesn't have a permissions system, I then complained that you can't disable add-ons in private mode. But it keeps evolving and I'm sure it will implement your favorite too, if useful.
Nice! Thank you. :)
Second, Google actually were caught on making their resources work worse on firefox and other competitors with some hacks.
Assuming that literally everyone use gmail, youtube, etc - it had looked that mozilla doesn't work reliably for end users.
There were also a ton of innovations that caused real quality of life improvements that it took firefox an incredibly long time to catch up to, like process isolation preventing a single misbehaving tab from crashing your entire session.
I have always liked Mozilla though so kept trying builds over time, eventually leading up to Quantum the nightlies became better and better and it was easy to switch back at that point.
What a shame it happened in the first place though.
You could still have a million tabs open, something chrome struggled with, so it kept some users.
But it took quantum to get users back.
For the average person it was so much faster than ie 6,7,8,9 and google pushed it everywhere.
It comes default on android helps.
I just wrote another comment here about its performance, about how I want it to succeed, how I donate to Mozilla, and yet still use a Chromium-based browser due to the performance issues.
At this point (I mean, they've literally invented a new programming language to make it faster, and it's still slow) I think the only thing left to do is to learn C++ and Rust and fix it myself...
It's bugzilla is quite unfriendly, and pretty much everything users wish for is already there, in a ticket that is several years old with no action taken.
An then, the next Firefox version comes with some crappy UX decision made, and it is not configurable. /r/Firefox comes up with _yet another_ userChrome.css tweak to revert it.
And the cycle continues as the user base grows thin. I wonder why.
Personalization is super important (in any software), it's a shame that in general, it's not being the focus of most of them.
I prefer fast stable bugfree chromium
The experience was incredibly sub par on Android. I tried browsing a video heavy subreddit, and FF just hung (well, all videos stopped playing, which is what I was there for).
I want to use it, but if it can't manage my base use case, I can't warrant it.
I will try again one day, I'm sure.
But, from my perspective, just having uBlock Origin installed in the extensions is a huge differentiator, that gives most pages a lot of speedup. Stylus can also be helpful to fix some suboptimal mobile designs.
Then there's absolutely infuriating stuff like the address bar and tabs disappearing when scrolling, which is fine, but it can be really fucking annoying trying to get it to show up again. It doesn't respond properly, sometimes I'll have to scroll back up a whole page before it does anything and all I wanted to do was switch tabs, so I have to scroll back down when I come back. Makes me want to punch an FF developer.
You could always make it not to hide when scrolling. I btw use gestures to switch tabs via an extension, works great.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it.
At home? FF all the way, plus the usual bevy of ad blockers and PiHole.
Pull to reload, tab accessibility, and other performance and rendering oddities need to be fixed before I switch back.
I'm happy with Firefox on Linux though.
Personally, Chromium crashes too often to rely on it.
Its miserable, you can't quite see how badly optimized it is on a high end phone because the page load time is 1/4 second instead of 1/10 of a second. On a low end phone that becomes 2-3 seconds rather than 1/2 a second.
In 2018, Mozilla surreptitiously installed a mysterious plugin named Looking Glass to every installed browser as part of a marketing deal with the Mr. Robot TV show. Thus plugin altered websites for an alternate reality game promoting the show.
Back in 2017 Firefox Focus, one of their iOS efforts marketed as being about user privacy, collected telemetry and sent it to Adjust GMBH, a tracking/analytics company based in Germany.
Also in 2017 Firefox integrated a Cliqz plugin to recommend content in the searchbar based on your browsing history, which was sent to the Cliqz servers and theoretically anonymized. Cliqz GMBH is another German company involved in analytics/tracking, and a notoriously scummy one to boot.
I mean, I could go on. Mozilla's hands ain't clean, they make mistakes, but at least their _manifesto_ is worthy.
A lot of the web doesn't officially support Firefox anymore (Groupon, Airbnb, my organization).
pretty much nobody use brave on desktop
It's a perfect storm of drama, centered around a browser that has a very small market share from what I can tell (otherwise I'd probably find it all less amusing.)
Chromium was never intentionally limiting any APIs to prevent ad-blockers. I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion, although I get some of the frustration, especially when their main stream of revenue is advertising.
I personally don't use Firefox because it doesn't work as well on modern Linux. Chromium supports Wayland much better. I get weird artifacts on Firefox when running in Sway on Wayland, especially when switching between full-screen and split. Additionally, I still don't believe Firefox properly handles video hardware acceleration and Chromium does on my distro using the native package manager.
Both browsers could benefit from separating their solutions into open source protocols, for example bookmarks, password, and other sync services. This way syncing is done at file-system level like gopass-bridge and Browserpass. GPGme already has an app called gpgme-json for app integration. That way people can use Syncthing, Nextcloud, or whatever preferred cloud-sync solution. I know Firefox has tried building it's own password manager into Firefox, and Chromium has half-assed this as well, but the tools are already there they could just adopt and would provide a much safer and better overall experience.
The browser isn't doing anything to drive traffic. It's just taking credit for traffic that was coming already.
Eg. User types "B" and whilst "bbc.co.uk" might be very popular, Brave could instead surface the less popular "binance.com" ahead of BBC, and potentially give it a different visual treatment, too.
I don't use Brave, so I'm not sure whether they do either of these things, though.
They claim they want to fix everything wrong with today's web (annoying and privacy-invasive ads, etc) by replacing them their own ads backed by a shitty cryptocurrency. While this might work in the short term while the browser is niche, they will have no choice but to deploy the same techniques once it goes mainstream and ad fraud goes up, removing their only selling point.
The only real solution here is to just admit that view-based or click-based advertising on the web is flawed (and will always be vulnerable to fraud) and get rid of it, replacing it with time-based advertising where you pay for an ad to stay up for a certain period of time regardless of how many clicks or views it gets, making it immune to fraud and reducing the need for privacy-violating analytics because the only analytic that matters is "do we make more money?". Of course, this real solution wouldn't allow opportunistic middlemen to make money out of thin air, so that's why we have Brave instead.
This is not true at all, and it has been talked enough here but I figured I'd explain it again. The Brave ads are opt-in, for people who would like to earn "shitty" cryptocurrency by clicking on them.
They are fixing the ad issue by blocking the ads and letting you "pay" the sites with BAT tokens. This can be done by a one-time donation or automatically each month (based on your attention). Reason for the Basic Attention Token name.
As a privacy and transparency advocate, it disappoints me to see Brave fail to pass the test, especially considering that privacy and transparency are supposed to be the browser's MO.
Everything I've seen about brave sounds like something that can be done better with extensions within firefox, just with some added crypto/privacy hype BS added on top.
Presumably it's not built-in to Firefox because if it was, Google might pull the lucrative default search engine deal that they have.
* HTTPS Everywhere: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/https-everywh...
* DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/duckduckgo-fo...
* uBlock Origin Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
The revenue model for browsers is fucked up.
That’s probably why it’s the only mainstream browser, outside of obscure open source browsers like Falkon and Gnome Web, that doesn’t have any built-in ties to third party services.
Apples privacy efforts and signaling are motivated by differentiation to Android/Google and are mostly just marketing targeted at increasingly privacy-aware consumers. Not some value judgement. (in my opinion)
Could be wrong but I thought I remember details about Google paying Apple for this. But it was years ago I last seen it
Edit: quick search for “safari google search revenue” got me a few links from prior years about Google paying to be the default search engine. Last mention was 2019 so who knows how long that contract is or whatever
Also consider Edge, its Microsoft counterpart.
(i jinxed it, didn't i)