• iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t usually judge by looks, but you can just tell that Brendan Eich is an insecure fragile person with many mental problems.

      I don’t know what’s worse: The whole anti same-sex marriage deal or inventing Javascript.

      Probably Javascript…

      • GreenMario@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh he’s THAT guy?!

        Fuck that guy. He basically is the reason popups was so damn widespread.

        • TopRamenBinLaden
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          JavaScript is also the whole reason that the web is interactive. Without JavaScript the web would be mostly just static pages without any client side dynamic behavior.

          Brendan Eich is a tool, but JavaScript is a useful tool, at least.

          • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think I’d prefer a mostly static web. Guess I should finally check out ublock origins medium mode or whatever its called.

          • library_napper@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Forms are interactive and dont require me to run your shitty code and execute it on my computer.

            Keep that shit running on your server. I dont need another vector for malicious code to run on my machine

          • sheogorath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If there’s no JavaScript, there will be another language developed to fill that void. We don’t know whether it’ll be better or not. But with TypeScript, working with JavaScript has been quite painless for me.

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Errr… you could’ve used any scripting language to make the web interactive.

            Javascript wasn’t necessary and it’s a shitty language.

      • roflo1@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know what’s worse: The whole anti same-sex marriage deal or inventing Javascript.

        Probably Javascript…

        Heh. Made me smile.

        Here, have an upvote! ;)

    • whou@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      oh sorry! forgot about it adding a description. will do next time.

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Brave Software, the company behind the browser of the same name, was founded by Brendan Eich. He’s best known as the creator of JavaScript from his days at Netscape Communications

    Say no more fam.

  • Daniel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    TL;DR: The article claims that the Brave web browser is bad and should not be used.

    The author points out that Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript, co-founder (and ex-CEO) of Mozilla, and founder of Brave, donated 1,000 USD in support of a proposition to ban same-sex marriage. Along with making the claim that Brave’s goal is not to act as an ad-blocker, but instead to build and grow their own advertisement network, and he also believes that the network has several flaws:

    • Brave Ads paysout in a form of cryptocurrency, called BAT (🦇).
    • As BAT is a cryptocurrency there is high volatility.
    • BAT can not be redeemed for fiat (“actual”) money directly from within the Brave Wallet.
    • The author also believes that “it [the network] has largely failed” but that it “has generated a lot of revenue for Brave,” via the ICO (Initial Coin Offering; IPO for crypto).

    In addition to these key points the author also:

    • Claims that Brave prompted FTX, before the scandal.
    • Cites the The Brave Marketer Podcast where ex-CMO of Crypto.com Steven Kalifowitz shares an ambitious goal of being a “‘brand like Coke and Netflix.’” The author then mentions that:
      • In 2023 there was a report from The Financial Times that Crypto.com traded against their customers.
      • In 2022 the company try to hide the severity of its layoffs.
    • Mentions Brave’s integration with Gemini, and how the crypto exchange is under investigation for lying about FDIC insurance.
    • Mentions a partnership with the the 3XP Web3 Gaming Expo where they sponsored the Esports Arena and rewarded contestants with the BAT token.
    • Claims that Brave added affiliate/referral codes to URLs, such as “binance.us.”

    Finally, the author lists Firefox and Vivaldi as alternatives to Brave, and ends the article with “Brave Browser is irredeemable, and you should not use it under any circumstances.”

    I am human, please let me know if I’ve made a mistake.

    Edit: Fixed bat emoji and typo.

    • doublepepperoni [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      The author points out that Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript, co-founder (and ex-CEO) of Mozilla, and founder of Brave, donated 1,000 USD in support of a proposition to ban same-sex marriage.

      My impression was Brave got started after he got hoofed out of Mozilla or left on his own accord after the backlash for showing his ass to be a homophobe. Redditor types were of course very angry about this blatant disregard for frozen peaches and jumped onto his new venture in droves

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      As BAT is a cryptocurrency there is high volatilability (I don’t know if I spelled that right :/ ).

      Volatility :-)

    • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      These guys tried to get a previous employer of mine to advertise with them. It works great if your entire audience is tech bros. Ours was not.

    • PopcornTin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If he’s bad, shouldn’t everything he touches be bad? Why web site that uses JavaScript should be just as bad. Any browser based on Mozilla should be bad. Why is it just Brave that’s bad for what he did in 2008?

      • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As I understand it, the argument isn’t so much “if you use a thing made by a bad person, you are a bad person by association” but rather that using a commercial product made by a bad person, who spends his money on bad causes, is directly helping him spend more money on said bad causes. Since he has never apologized or shown any indication that he has become a better person, not wanting to monetarily support him is a valid reason to not use his product.

      • escapesamsara@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s really hard for the creator of Javascript to make money off of javascript, and it’s unlikely he has any financial interest in the Mozilla corporation anymore since they’re a nonprofit and thus don’t have share holders. However, he directly profits off of Brave.

      • Rooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Brave is still bad. With their “incidents” they had. Brave is chromium = Google controlled in a way. Brave is a coorperation, yes a PROFIT seeking company. Mozilla does nit promote google, it uses duckduckgo as its default search engine. There are forks from Firefox too that hardens the browser and the develop/ceo is not a complete *ss. The referal link “scam” was real, they injected it in Amazon links…

        Screw Brave go search for a real alternative to google.

        • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Firefox does default to Google. If you see DDG, it’s likely an edit by your distribution.

          Also, Brave Search is a real alternative. It’s one of the few engines aside from Google, Bing and Yandex that has its own crawler.

          • Rooki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh yeah i forgot i used librewolf too much XD. Brave Search creeps on you. Privacy Policy is unreadable and unreachable. Tbh. if you want a privacy protecting search engine. Use Searx(ng).

        • zahel@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          These people are basically a cult. Do not bother trying to enlighten the Brave browser community cult. If you use brave, you are a certifiable idiot.

            • VonReposti@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hopefully the Digital Markets Act in EU will put an end to iOS’s browser monopoly. When that happens Firefox might be looking to port their Android browser to iOS which supports addons like uBlock but nothing is for certain right now.

              I know it isn’t hope you’re looking for, but it’s the best I can do with my current knowledge.

              • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I appreciate that but my response was more intended to chastise the guy blanket labeling people cultists and idiots for no good reason because they hate a browser someone else uses.

                The system-wide AdGuard app handles most things well enough, and Brave does its thing on YouTube ads without issue.

                Firefox Focus will also take care of YouTube ads (if anyone else stumbles down this rabbit hole), but it’s too heavy-handed for me because I actually stay logged into my account and use my history.

                My Pi-hole install also handles all but YouTube if I’m at home, so there’s that.

            • Thetimefarm@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Doesn’t iOS only use webkit based browsers? I would imagine the reason you can get ad blocking through brave is some kind of deal they have with google. Which probably means they’re just giving them all the data google would collect normally.

              Firefox on iOS doesn’t have ad blocking because apple took support away in webkit. The only way brave could be doing it is by being white listed by the company serving the ad to you somehow.

              Both Mac and iOS have issues with VPN usage too but that’s unrelated to webkit.

              • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes Apple forces everyone through webkit and won’t allow third-party blockers. Brave on iOS was forked from Firefox anyway, and iirc uses the same API to block ads as Firefox Focus. Google is most definitely not involved, particularly because both block YouTube ads (and is my primary reason for using Brave anyway).

                I’m not sure what you’re referencing in regard to VPN usage; I have had zero problems with mine.

          • Rooki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Brave is way worse using Chromium. That is the point. Its dependent on google 100%. I dont know Fitefox? What is it? Is it a rare fox? Brave injects ads (targeted ads) into your websites. Injects referal urls into their results. The CEO is a corrupt bad person. They implemented in their earlier stages a hidden crypto miner. Recommending Extensions? Are you sure that chrome doesnt do it too?

      • Caravaggio@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mozilla deals with Google

        With how much revenue comes from those deals, we might say it’s practically financed by Google. FF is more Google than Chromium-based Brave if you follow the money.

  • Lafuma300@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    145
    arrow-down
    54
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. Couldn’t care less what the founder did or didn’t do. We need as many non-Google browsers as possible. The problem with Brave is that it is a chromium browser.

      • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, does that mean Edge is a Google browser, too?

        Chromium is open-source. Even if Google adds something malicious to the source code (such as that Web Environment Integrity stuff), it can be removed by someone else creating their own browser based on Chromium. That’s the very definition of open-source.

        Related side-note: Lemmy itself is open-source, too. If the creator of Lemmy added something to the software that someone running an instance didn’t agree with, they could simply fork the original software and remove the unwanted addition. Some people do disagree with that person’s views, and yet they’re still here. Many of them joined .world and other instances instead of .ml because they disagreed with the creator’s views.

        While Google, the creator of Chromium, isn’t a good company for the consumer, I personally think Chromium itself isn’t a bad idea. It’s just that Google and some other companies modify it for their own means, and those means aren’t always consumer-friendly.

        All that to say: while the company that originally created Chromium is bad, the software isn’t. And while some of the companies and people using that software are bad (including Brave, IMO), some of them are looking out for their users’ interests, and those forks of Chromium are generally ok. (You should still actually do research and not pick a fork because the company developing it said it’s okay, though. Take a look at what others are saying and verify it.)

        • escapesamsara@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, does that mean Edge is a Google browser, too?

          Yes.

          All that to say: while the company that originally created Chromium is bad, the software isn’t.

          Only to the extent that websites are built for chromium compatibility, due to its monopoly on the internet. It’s great software because it’s the most popular software so all other smaller providers that serve that software have to focus their resources into ensuring compatibility. Chromium(Blink) itself is pretty mid, and definitely equal to WebKit or Gecko, not better or significantly worse.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Brave works for what I need it to do. I don’t like lending credence to bigots(secret or otherwise) but if someone is gonna say “don’t use this browser” they need to list a replacement that has the same functionality. And it can’t be “just use duckduckgo” because we all fucking have that on our phones and none of us can use it as our primary browser and we all know exactly why. 😒

        • KroninJ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          As far as I’m aware, the ddg browser collects data and they sell it to Microsoft. The search by itself is fine though.

          • RIP_Apollo@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you have a source for the claim that DuckDuckGo browser is selling user data to Microsoft?

            You might be referring to the time when the DuckDuckGo browser was blocking all known trackers except Microsoft trackers. After that information was made public and users complained, DuckDuckGo was able to renegotiate its agreement with Microsoft so that it can block their trackers.

            Furthermore, DuckDuckGo now publish their blocklist on GitHub.

            Source: https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/05/duckduckgo-microsoft-tracking-scripts

            So this privacy issue has been rectified now. But even if it hadn’t, failing to block Microsoft trackers isn’t the same as collecting data and selling it to Microsoft.

            But if you are aware of DDG browser selling data to Microsoft, please share a source.

          • Biorix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Really? I thought that used Bing search as backend but not that they sell your data

            • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, you have it right. That person is just conflating the controversy over their agreement with Microsoft as “ThEY’re sELLiNg yOuR DaTa”. 🙄

    • Neutron Star@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In fact. Mozilla rely more in Google. If i wasn’t mistaken 90% of their money came from Google and they rely Google safebrowsing wherein it exposes your IP to Google

    • JoYo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      54
      ·
      1 year ago

      no one wants to secure their web render so they’ll always use whatever is native to the platform.

      on windows that’s chromium. on macos that’s webkit.

      • Espi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What does this even mean. Chromium or Webkit are not “native” to an OS. OSs don’t magically include browser engines, its not a critical component of an OS either.

        Most OSs do come with browsers preinstalled, but they are programs just like any other. You can remove Safari from macOS (albeit its pretty hard because root is read only and signed), you can remove Edge from Windows. In my desktop with Windows 10 the only browser I have is Firefox (not even Edge), does that make Gecko the “native” browser engine?

        If anything, the native browser engine for Windows would be MSHTML from Internet Explorer.

          • crazycaveman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Chromium isn’t native to Windows. iOS is the only OS (I’m aware of) where browsers are forced to use a specific engine, but even that will be changing

              • crazycaveman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, I’m not. Chromium doesn’t exist in Windows unless you install a program that includes it. Chromium web engine is “native” to the chromium web browser, not to any OS (except maybe ChromeOS). As espi mentioned, Internet explorer’s mshtml is the only engine “native” to Windows. Just look at the Opera browser, they changed web engines from Presto to chromium; that’s not using “what’s native to the platform” (Opera works across all OS’s with chromium, except for iOS for the restriction I mentioned before), it’s using what the developers/company want to use to render their pages. Nothing in Windows itself provides any of the chromium engine “pieces”

                • zysarus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This was true until Edge transitioned to Chromium. Now the natively installed browser in Windows is Chromium based.

                • JoYo@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  13
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Edge is using EMET for memory protections.

                  Chrome has EMET disabled because it’s own memory protections conflict and it just won’t execute.

                  When you’re make a web view for Windows you’re either bringing a long your own rendering or using Edge because it’s included.

                  No one wants to secure their own rendering which is why they all use whatever is already there which is EMET which is a pita to test so they just go with Edge.

                  native is just jargon for “what is already there.”

  • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The fact is i don’t care about these things. All it matters is that Brave uses Chromium, therefore I’ll never touch it.

  • jabberati@social.anoxinon.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    @whou Don’t forget the time they made it possible to ‘donate’ to creators, but when creators weren’t signed up with their program #Brave would just keep the donation. So users would think they have donated for example to Tom Scott, but in reality he never received anything. Overall just a scummy company.

    • fruitycoder
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He could receive it, if he signed up though, right?

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    [Eich] donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California’s state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

    Even though I do not agree at all with the donation and support - out of the things that influence me into choosing a browser, 15 year-old private donations of appointed CEOs is pretty low on that list.

    And the whole BAT thing is opt-in and they’re very transparent about it. I don’t get why people get so triggered when the C word - crypto - is involved.

    • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the only relevant criticism I see is adding affiliate codes to urls (until they were caught).

      The author also forgot the polemic of adding twitter and facebook trackers to the whitelist, and impersonating people in their ads. There are some interesting criticisms against brave, I don’t understand why their detractors are obsessed with the CEO and crypto.

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. They do a lot of things I don’t like, which is why I don’t use them. However, I do recommend them over Chrome if someone isn’t willing to use Firefox (or Safari on iOS with an ad blocking extension).

        That said, the ad replacement thing was an interesting idea, and if it got better click-through rate while preventing sites from stealing PII, they probably could’ve cut a profit sharing deal and users would’ve been better off vs the status quo. They could also have a “premium” option where they pay a certain amount for no ads, and that amount gets split with websites who would normally serve ads.

        There are some good ideas there, but unfortunately the good ideas don’t seem to have really worked out as intended. I still think they’re better than Chrome, but things can change.

        • notfromhere@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          BAT can be distributed to publishers of content you go to based on percentage of visiting those sites. You can purchase BAT or subscribe to the ad program. Nobody in this thread knows even the basics of BAT, smh.

          • sugar_in_your_tea
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, it’s possible, but that’s not how it works in reality.

            I think it’s a good idea, but with some missteps by Brave. They need to get sites on board before I can truly recommend them.

            • notfromhere@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well nobody is perfect, this thread is making that abundantly clear. If they were still doing all that shit years later everyone might have a point. Make mistakes and learn from it and move on is the only thing I can really ask of anyone. Brave is doing the right thing IMO. As to your comment about BAT, it’s the classic problem of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Not recommending it because it’s not being used so nobody’s recommending it lol.

              • sugar_in_your_tea
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t recommend it because there are better options. Firefox is privacy respecting, and since it still has an independent rendering and JavaScript engine, it’s better for open web standards. On iOS, all browsers have the same rendering engine as per Apple’s rules, so I recommend Safari with an ad blocker.

                If Brave actually offered something tangibly better for the open web, I would recommend it. But it doesn’t, so I recommend something that does.

                However, if you need a chromium-based browser, I think Brave and Chromium are about on par, so I recommend both.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the data collection sounds like it’s counter to its supposed goals. Multiple campaigns have been discussed that just make it believe they don’t actually care about privacy considering all the ways they keep trying to do stuff is counter to that. Why stay? Tor Browser is available. Hell, Firefox itself is already able to take you pretty far and extensions can do the rest.

      Why make the sacrifice of your personal data? Like, how many attempts at collecting personal data do you need to have occur before you realize it’s always been their goal?

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of appointed CEOs who quit after 11 days to boot. But he was CTO prior.

      But looks like he was largely ousted very fast with all the negative PR Mozilla was getting.

    • Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would also imagine there are a lot of people that did not support same sex marriage back in 2008 that do now. I do not know the Eich personally, but it doesn’t make sense to hold this stuff against people until we find out if they have or haven’t changed their views.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        15 years ago isn’t that long ago - and there is a huge difference between “not supporting same sex marriage” and “donating against same sex marriage”.

        • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          15 years is a long time. I know someone who did a complete 180 on their beliefs within a few years: from a conservative, homophobic, and religious pov to the exact opposite. I myself changed some political views I had 5 years ago.

          I have no idea about Eich, but if I let this affect my choices of anything, frankly I won’t do anything else in my life facing the millions of variables before me.

        • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, he donated $1000.

          California voters approved prop 8 by a sizable majority. It was thrown out by the courts. That kind of dilutes my “oh no” over one persons donation. We’d need to boycott a good portion of Californians.

          Today I think it’s relevant to point out he was an outspoken against masks, shutdowns, and was calling Fauci a liar. Basically everyone’s conservative family member in 2020.

  • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean… I’ve been using Firefox since Google silo’d all log-ins together.

    On the other hand, search.brave.com is freaking incredible. It’s so much better than Google, Bing or DDG at this point, it’s shocking. I switched a couple weeks ago and it’s surreal to see so many usable, useful results on the first page again.

    • McBain@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tried it for a couple of weeks and went back to DDG. It’s way better for programming and other geekie stuff imo.

      • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You mean DDG is better for programming or Brave Search is? I’m finding a lot more useful stuff via Brave for whatever reason currently.

        (I guess results may vary though if that’s not the case for you!)

      • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cool! I didn’t think of that, but it would do the trick, you’re right.

        (I was hoping for it to be in the popup list of search engines, I guess.)

  • drathvedro@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please stop reposting this crap every fucking day. What’s up with you and this exact article in particular anyway? Are you getting paid or something?

  • YTG123@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fine, but, like, don’t recommend Vivaldi. Also, if you disable the Brave ads, you’re not really supporting them, while still getting the benefits.

    — Sent from Librewolf

  • 🦥󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠󠀠@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You shouldn’t use Brave simply because it’s heavily infected with crypto shit and tries to monitorize your web browsing time by default. Not everything you do has to be a side hustle.

    Sure you can “switch it off” but then why not use something else in the first place that’s focus isn’t trying to make money out of you. If Brave ever gained any decent market share the web would be an even shitter place than what Google is suggesting at the moment.

    • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      and tries to monitorize your web browsing time by default.

      As does Firefox

    • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Brave is used for anonymity that nothing else offers, so what other option is there? I like and use firefox but it’s no Brave.

      • Rooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        you seek the crypto miner in the brackground running and want ads injected even you have adblocker on? Use librewolf its a more privacy focused firefox

  • FIST_FILLET@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    did not know about the founder’s past, cheers for this. whenever i’m forced to open a chromium browser for something from now on, i’ll be using vivaldi.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To be honest the best chromium based browser I’ve used (when I’m forced to use a chromium based browser) is the Samsung internet one. It has a dark mode that actually works and protects my vampire eyes lol.

    Never used brave because I heard all of the scammy ad network and crypto stuff years ago, immediately put me off it. Now learning that the creator probably hates me, it’s just another reason not to touch it.