Your friendly reminder that the Brave CEO is Mozillas old CEO, who was fired from Mozilla for being unapologetically homophobic.
Privacy
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
Since everyone else is piling on negatively, I appreciated your friendly reminder.
Worse than merely being homophobic, as he financially supported politicians and causes that worked to prevent equal rights.
The scam company brave? The one that scams people? With their scam based crypto rewards that don't pay out? THAT brave?
There's no reason to hate Brave unless you have a political bias against their CEO.
Besides in 2016, when Brave promised to remove banner ads from websites and replace them with their own, basically trying to extract money directly from websites without the consent of their owners
And when the CEO unilaterally added a fringe, pay-to-win Wikipedia clone into the default search engine list.
And in 2018, Tom Scott and other creators noticed Brave was soliciting donations in their names without their knowledge or consent.
And in 2020, when Brave got caught injecting URLs with affiliate codes when users tried browsing to various websites.
Also in 2020, when they silently started injecting ads into their home page backgrounds, pocketing the revenue. There was a lot of pushback: "the sponsored backgrounds give a bad first impression." Further requests were ignored (immediately closed)
And in 2022, when Brave floated the idea of further discouraging users from disabling sponsored messages.
And in 2023, when Brave got caught installing a paid VPN service on users' computers without their consent.
But other than that, there's no reason!
You're right, no reason at all :)
I had a small mountain of BAT they locked me out of due to shoddy linking with their banking affiliates and out of date DRM practices locking me out of my account due to too many devices being logged in (each OS update counted as its own device).
I noticed you didn't have that linked, that's because not every shitty move a company makes gets news coverage. Sorry I don't fit into your narrow view on what constitutes a valid reason.
If there's something interesting to add to the list, I'm curious. Brave did partner with a criminal organization currently under a $1.1 billion lawsuit, but I don't have enough information about your particular case.
Did the software lock you out or did their servers? Was this reported on anywhere?
This made me wonder - is there any active Best Of community on any instance? This would be a perfect candidate.
Whenever people tell me to use Brave, I know they fall for marketing very easily
Brave to end 'Strict' fingerprinting protection as it breaks owns ad revenue.
Another issue is that Strict mode is used by roughly 0.5% of Brave's users, with the rest using the default setting, which is the Standard mode.
How are they getting this data? If it's with telemetry this data doesn't seem reliable, I doubt that people who change the fingerprint setting don't disable telemetry.
Alternatively, lol
I used brave for a while, but left as I felt there was something fishy about them. Seems I was right
I'd rather have the sites break to be honest
I'd ask why they don't make it optional (I'm not a Brave user) but it seems it was.
Another issue is that Strict mode is used by roughly 0.5% of Brave's users, with the rest using the default setting, which is the Standard mode.
This low percentage actually makes these users more vulnerable to fingerprinting despite them using the more aggressive blocker, because they constitute a discernible subset of users standing out from the rest.
Given that, I'm inclined to agree with the decision to remove it. Pick your battles and live to fight another day.
So rather than fixing the issue they just removed it entirely.
That's kind of a joke from a "privacy" based browser.
I don't like brave browser from first use. Something seemed off.