Article, brought to you by Google.
Technology
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I don't use Brave, won't use Brave, and have my reasons for it.
- Brave is Chromium based; a project which is slave to the whim of Google.
- Brave integrates an unnecessary cryptocurrency.
I hate shitcoins
I don't trust small crypto projects, and I doubly do not want this to be integrated into my browser. It's a good way to lose your stable crypto-holdings if you have them. (I don't; but I've seen lots of anecdotes about catching malware that subsequently stole their crypto wallets, including any BAT tokens they owned) - Brave does not block ads! It does not 'enhance' your privacy. It just absorbs some ads, replaces some, and blatantly lets first-party advertisements through the filter. That's not ad-blocking
- Brave does not protect your privacy. As per my previous point; it does not block ads, it injects it's own right into browser chrome! That's worse than plain Chrome! Your privacy is automatically violated when you watch/view even a single ad.
- Brave does not have many benefits above "Ungoogled Chromium" or other competing projects. It just doesn't. Unless you like marketing fluff.
- Brave is NOT BETTER THAN Firefox. It's worse; because it's Chromium; which is enslaved to Google whims. Don't believe me? Try to contribute something to Chromium that goes contrary to Google's stated goals and watch how fast you get shot down.
But sometimes...
Yes, Sometimes a programmer does succeed. But only sometimes; and this is usually because they have the clout, coding skills, chops and public reach to embarrass the fuck out of the Google PMs. This will never be you, unless you put an extraordinary amount of effort into becoming a very well known and respected contributor in the OSS space. If you already are a respected contributor in the OSS space, Congrats! You're still likely to be forced to fight a long and protracted battle against the Google nerds to get "Google-Hostile" code changes approved.
Your last point is laughable.
Yes Brave cannot make commits to Chromium, but it makes changes to their own repos (well, obviously) and can also accept/reject changes Google makes to Chromium.
In my opinion, Firefox is more of a slave to Google than Brave will ever be because they rely entirely on Google giving them money for the default search engine.
Is Brave's revenue model scammy? Maybe. But at least they aren't Google little bitch.
I don't know how you can follow web development and say Mozilla is a slave to Google. They go against nearly everything Google proposes. I get it that Mozilla makes money off of Google but in practice they are anything but slaves.
this whole thing is terribly written... lol
how about you just use which ever shitty browser you like?
and i'll use firefox
Some counterpoints:
-
I like the idea of a system where users get a share of the revenue from the ad networks, which then can be used to support other content creators or businesses online. I think that if most of the web worked like this, we wouldn't have people being treated as eyeballs and we would still have the power to vote with our wallets to choose who is actually worth of our attention. Is there any other browser or company doing anything like that?
-
People keep talking about Firefox as if it's a paragon of virtue, but casually forget that they are only alive because they are completely dependent on Google to survive and are nothing more than "controlled opposition" nowadays. They also have done a ton user-hostile shit like sponsored links in the frontpage and completely crippled pocket, and let's not forget that current Mozilla execs are raking in millions while laying off people and disbanding key projects.
-
The crypto part keeps called a scam, but their system has been working perfectly fine and it has always been liquid enough for me at the exchanges. Is their BAT token needed? Certainly not, and I would be fine if the 3-8 euros worth of BAT I receive every month (depending on my mobile usage and on their success as an network) were sent to me directly via SEPA. But can anyone realistically say that there is any efficient worldwide way to distribute payouts? For every dollar you sent to someone via Patreon (or Ko-Fi, or any alternative), how much do they get to keep? With the Brave creators program, all of the $15/month that I send to the different people get to them.
All in all, I will stop using Brave in a heartbeat if there is anyone else providing any alternative with a slight chance to fight Surveillance Capitalism. None of the Chromium or Mozilla forks are doing that.
Brave's objective is to create a system that looks altruistic but they control it and take a ever increasing cut. Google started off the same way. I like the idea, but it's one that needs to be controlled by a not for profit or by the people. Giving that control to a for profit company is just repeating history.
Firefox isn't perfect, but my argument for choosing them or a fork of FF is to combat the market share of chromium based browsers. With google pushing for Web Environment Integrity (aka web DRM) using a different browser is one of the few good ways to protest.
I would also like to point out that popular open source projects often get contributions (both code and financial) from large corporations. Sometimes it's their main source of revenue. This isn't just a Mozilla problem. I wouldn't even say it is a problem. A problem would be if those contributions affect the project in a negative way.
Just like in most things these days our choices are limited to the shitty and the less shitty. Obviously where Brave and Firefox lands on that shitty spectrum will depend on your priorities, but for me at least Firefox is less shitty and far from perfect, but decent.
Edit: grammer
I don't care what his political affiliations are, if the product works I'll use it. What an absolute set of incompetent garbage.
I don't care what rights they want to curtail, if they say they'll lower my taxes by a nickel I'll vote for them!
I have stopped using Brave. Fuck those guys.
I just wish Firefox would update less frequently. It's way too often.
You could switch to the ESR branch, which gets feature updates much less frequently.
There is nothing wrong with Brave. It's a great browser. I like the cryptocurrency aspect of it.
I use Brave as a secondary browser for PWAs on the desktop. I wish Firefox would support it again.
Im just waiting for Firefox mobile to add back support for all add-ons.
Here’s my current problem: I use Firefox mainly, but I need a chromium browser for work occasionally. I feel like brave is better than chrome proper right? But the CEO is also terrible. Is there something I can use that’s chromium based (occasional usage) that is at least “the least bad” option?
If you need chromium, your best option is probably ungoogled-chromium which is basically just bare bones chrome with as much telemetry and tracking taken out as possible.
Use one of the "clean" versions of Chromium (not Chrome) from Woolyss.com
If you want updates to be handled automatically, you can use ChrLauncher
EDIT: I guess you can't use the latter on OSX.
STOP USING JAVACRIPT