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?

  • Ulrich@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    gambling is bad - yet I support legalization

    Got it, so being gay isn’t “wrong” or “invalid”, it’s just “bad”?

    it is enforced unless you specifically opt-out (e.g. a pre-nup)

    Yes, that’s what I was referring to. You might call it a “contract”.

    Integration into the browser product, users, and marketing.

    They don’t need Brave for that. They need the website owners. If you’re talking about injecting Axate ads where Google and other ads already are, then we’re back to square 1 where you’re ripping off content creators from their revenue for their content.

    I’d love to be able to load up an account balance and click “view article” and the website owner sucks a few pennies from that balance or whatever.

    The problem with doing that with fiat is that there are transfer fees. You’d essential be paying a $3 to transfer 5 cents. That’s why everyone uses crypto for this.

    But like I said, users request features

    Users can request features all day, developers are the ones who have to implement them.

    bugs happen

    It’s a completely unnecessary bug from someone trying to replace a perfectly safe and secure tool with their own and build value for themselves. This isn’t just any bug. Like I said, people’s lives can hang in the balance in a very real way. They need to get it right or just stay the fuck away.

    the responsibility is on the user to pick the right product for their needs

    Bullshit. Both are responsible.

    Brave isn’t that product for at-risk individuals until it has been vetted by actual security experts.

    Then they shouldn’t have launched it.

    Eich did the first half of that

    Not good enough.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      5 days ago

      Got it, so being gay isn’t “wrong” or “invalid”, it’s just “bad”?

      I didn’t say that.

      My point here is that personal views can differ from political policy views.

      Yes, that’s what I was referring to. You might call it a “contract”.

      The issue is that it’s opt-out. Instead of that, people should opt-in only to the parts they want.

      If you’re talking about injecting Axate ads where Google and other ads already are

      No, I’m talking about creating a protocol where browser clients can inform website owners that the customer is using this separate method of payment. It could happen separate from the browser (e.g. as an extension), but the browser gives it a lot more visibility.

      The UX here would be pretty simple: if the user has enabled this feature, websites would prompt users for payment or to show ads.

      Browsers win because they get a revenue stream, Axate wins by having more customers, and websites win because they’re getting paid instead of customers blocking ads.

      The problem with doing that with fiat is that there are transfer fees. You’d essential be paying a $3 to transfer 5 cents. That’s why everyone uses crypto for this.

      That’s why you batch up transfers. General flow:

      1. users load up a balance (say, $20)
      2. service (e.g. Axate) tracks which payments have been made and bulk pays website owners monthly or whatever

      Boom, total number of transfers are pretty low, no need for cryptocurrencies.

      Both are responsible.

      Sure, but the browser vendor has very little at stake, whereas the user has everything at stake. At the end of the day, it’s on the user.

      Not good enough.

      You’re welcome to your opinion. I personally don’t have an issue with how people spend their money, I only have an issue with how they treat their employees and choices they make about their product.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        My point here is that personal views can differ from political policy views.

        That makes absolutely no sense. You would advocate for and even donate to political reform for something you don’t personally believe in?

        At the end of the day, it’s on the user.

        No, it isn’t.

        I personally don’t have an issue with how people spend their money

        Nothing says more about who a person is than their political donations.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          5 days ago

          You would advocate for and even donate to political reform for something you don’t personally believe in?

          Yes. I believe in personal freedom, so I’ll support the freedom to do things that I believe are harmful like drug use, gambling, or prostitution. You doing those things doesn’t impact me or anyone else so it should 100% be your right to do it. In short, I believe principles should carry the day.

          I may not agree with you doing something I believe to be bad, but I’ll defend your right to do it.

          In the same vein, I believe governments should be as small as possible, and no smaller. The role of government is to protect me from you, and vice versa. It’s not to ensure I’m making good choices, in fact it shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what’s “good” or “bad,” it should merely enforce laws that protect people from eachother.

          Does the government deciding which marriages are valid protect me from you? Not really, all it does is determine who can take advantage of certain benefits. That sounds exclusionary with no particular purpose, so the government shouldn’t decide that.

          So I really can’t speak to why Eich donated to the prop 8 fund (or whatever it was). Was it because he hates gay people? Or because he thinks same sex marriage goes counter to the reason marriage exists as a government institution? Or something else? I don’t know, nor do I really care, provided it doesn’t get in the way of doing his job.