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.
Brave’s objective is to create a system that looks altruistic but they control it and take a ever increasing cut.
I don’t see how? All they control is the ad network. Viewing the ads is opt-in. The ads they displayed are stored in device, and the code that selects which ads to show you is open source. The system for verifying ad views can be audited by any party. The token is on the blockchain so they can’t manipulate and the contract does not have any special rules.
Assuming a world where Brave gets significant market share, the “worst” they could do would be to change the promised revenue share, but if they went to do that then users would lose the incentive to opt-in into the ads, and they would more likely lose revenue and open themselves for competition. (That’s a risk that could run even if they did everything right, by the way)
using a different browser is the only good way to protest.
A problem would be if those contributions affect the project in a negative way.
And I could make the argument this is in the case with Mozilla and Firefox. Mozilla being so dependent of Google’s revenue means that they will never take any measure that could be seen by Google as a credible threat to their business. Ask yourself why Firefox never included an ad-blocker by default or has kept its mobile browser crippled for so long, or got rid of FirefoxOS…
Firefox never included an ad-blocker by default because an Ad-blocker kinda does the opposite of what the web-browser is supposed to do.
A web browser shall render the web page according to specification. Blocking content hinders this behavior and will even break some websites.
I think most people have forgotten that 15 years ago web browsers had barely started becoming standards compliant, with Opera being the first(?) to pass the Acid2 rendering test in 2006.
A user installing an ad-blocker is perfectly fine, and hopefully the user makes an informed decision of advantages and the possible disadvantages that said ad-blocker might have.
And it’s also fine for fringe browsers like Brave to have a default ad-blocker, but there’s a big difference from that to just putting one in a product that’s used by millions, even though most users would likely be happy with the change.
Because it would be one very interesting marketing point? For a browser that promotes itself as “focused on protecting users” and “not selling you out”, having a built-in (even if not enabled by default) ad-blocker would make a lot more sense than adding integration with Pocket.
rational arguments and logic based debate.
There is nothing logical about claiming “Firefox is a browser and browser need to render the page as is”. First, even that were true it does not require them to enable the ad-block by default. Second, this definition is contrived and seems picked up just to give a rationalization that gives them some moral ground about their omission. We could just as easily say something like “a web browser is the user agent to access the www and as such it can always modify the web page in favor of the user”. Why is that you choose to go for a definition that just happens to favor the business of their biggest source of revenue?
I dislike that you used quotes to misrepresent what they said by making them sound like a cartoon caveman. Poor form.
Also I remember why I and, presumably, a lot of others moved to chrome in the first place. Firefox started getting really bloated and adding a bunch of default features that people either didn’t want or already used an extension for, the main selling point of firefox back then was extensions and customising your own browsing experience. Adding a first party ad blocker just seems like a waste of time when third party ones likely do a better job.
I get your point, though, I can definitely see why a default one might be a nice marketing note, but no need to be rude about someone disagreeing with your speculation.
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
I despise argumentation-by-gotcha. if you need to be so pedantic, here is another qualifier to my choices: “these alternatives must not violate my basic freedoms, so anything closed source is out.”
Dude it’s not argumentation by gotcha, whatever the fuck that is. All I have to go on is what you said. I don’t know anything else about you, your one comment is all the context I get. What you said and what you clearly meant seem to be two different things.
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.
Your first item in the list literally says “I like the idea” not “this is a requirement”. Then later on you literally say “all in all”, indicating that the only thing that matters to you is what you are about to say next. Maybe you speak English as a second language, but I literally only have what you wrote to go on. And what you wrote was clear that all that mattered was the final sentence
I know what I wrote, and I wrote a list of counterpoints that work as reasons that I have to use Brave. I thought it was clear that one of the things that are important about is that it can give a way to pay to users and that no one else (that I know of) does it.
"“All in all” was meant as way to summarize what I wrote above, not overrule it. I can’t force you to interpret it in the way that I meant it, but in case you are in doubt: Safari or anything else from/for Apple is automatically disqualified.
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 see how? All they control is the ad network. Viewing the ads is opt-in. The ads they displayed are stored in device, and the code that selects which ads to show you is open source. The system for verifying ad views can be audited by any party. The token is on the blockchain so they can’t manipulate and the contract does not have any special rules.
Assuming a world where Brave gets significant market share, the “worst” they could do would be to change the promised revenue share, but if they went to do that then users would lose the incentive to opt-in into the ads, and they would more likely lose revenue and open themselves for competition. (That’s a risk that could run even if they did everything right, by the way)
That is not true. “Though Brave uses Chromium, Brave browsers do not (and will not) include WEI”.
And I could make the argument this is in the case with Mozilla and Firefox. Mozilla being so dependent of Google’s revenue means that they will never take any measure that could be seen by Google as a credible threat to their business. Ask yourself why Firefox never included an ad-blocker by default or has kept its mobile browser crippled for so long, or got rid of FirefoxOS…
Firefox never included an ad-blocker by default because an Ad-blocker kinda does the opposite of what the web-browser is supposed to do.
A web browser shall render the web page according to specification. Blocking content hinders this behavior and will even break some websites.
I think most people have forgotten that 15 years ago web browsers had barely started becoming standards compliant, with Opera being the first(?) to pass the Acid2 rendering test in 2006.
For reference: https://hyperborea.org/journal/2006/03/opera-passes-acid2/
A user installing an ad-blocker is perfectly fine, and hopefully the user makes an informed decision of advantages and the possible disadvantages that said ad-blocker might have.
And it’s also fine for fringe browsers like Brave to have a default ad-blocker, but there’s a big difference from that to just putting one in a product that’s used by millions, even though most users would likely be happy with the change.
Sorry, this is a terrible and senseless pontification. They could have always bundled an ad-blocker without having it enabled out-of-the-box.
Sure they could have.
But why would they?
Just because you, clearly, disagree with my opinion doesn’t make it terrible or senseless.
The strength of your conviction, or in which you convey it, isn’t a stand-in for rational arguments and logic based debate.
Because it would be one very interesting marketing point? For a browser that promotes itself as “focused on protecting users” and “not selling you out”, having a built-in (even if not enabled by default) ad-blocker would make a lot more sense than adding integration with Pocket.
There is nothing logical about claiming “Firefox is a browser and browser need to render the page as is”. First, even that were true it does not require them to enable the ad-block by default. Second, this definition is contrived and seems picked up just to give a rationalization that gives them some moral ground about their omission. We could just as easily say something like “a web browser is the user agent to access the www and as such it can always modify the web page in favor of the user”. Why is that you choose to go for a definition that just happens to favor the business of their biggest source of revenue?
I dislike that you used quotes to misrepresent what they said by making them sound like a cartoon caveman. Poor form.
Also I remember why I and, presumably, a lot of others moved to chrome in the first place. Firefox started getting really bloated and adding a bunch of default features that people either didn’t want or already used an extension for, the main selling point of firefox back then was extensions and customising your own browsing experience. Adding a first party ad blocker just seems like a waste of time when third party ones likely do a better job.
I get your point, though, I can definitely see why a default one might be a nice marketing note, but no need to be rude about someone disagreeing with your speculation.
Orion does everything you’re asking for and has none of the baggage. Also, Safari? I mean it sucks, but it literally does what you say you want.
Both are for MacOS (I’m on Linux) and neither are open source, which is also something important to me.
Also, where do any of these provide “a system where users get a share of the revenue from the ad networks”?
You didn’t say that was a requirement. You said
Both of those browsers accomplish that.
I despise argumentation-by-gotcha. if you need to be so pedantic, here is another qualifier to my choices: “these alternatives must not violate my basic freedoms, so anything closed source is out.”
Dude it’s not argumentation by gotcha, whatever the fuck that is. All I have to go on is what you said. I don’t know anything else about you, your one comment is all the context I get. What you said and what you clearly meant seem to be two different things.
Look at the very first item in the list of counterpoints in “my one comment”. Do Safari or Orion provide anything like that?
Your first item in the list literally says “I like the idea” not “this is a requirement”. Then later on you literally say “all in all”, indicating that the only thing that matters to you is what you are about to say next. Maybe you speak English as a second language, but I literally only have what you wrote to go on. And what you wrote was clear that all that mattered was the final sentence
I know what I wrote, and I wrote a list of counterpoints that work as reasons that I have to use Brave. I thought it was clear that one of the things that are important about is that it can give a way to pay to users and that no one else (that I know of) does it.
"“All in all” was meant as way to summarize what I wrote above, not overrule it. I can’t force you to interpret it in the way that I meant it, but in case you are in doubt: Safari or anything else from/for Apple is automatically disqualified.
Anyway it’s clear you want crypto in your browser. You’ve made that very clear. Good luck finding a browser that has the features you want.