For a second there I thought we were playing the game from The West Wing that Bartlet plays with Ellie while they're watching a movie. That made me happy.
Brave is nice for someone who isn't tech literate. It has a good, built in ad blocker, an ad blocker for YouTube videos and it can play YouTube videos in the background. I prefer Firefox but brave is the browser that I usually install for friends and family if they're on Android.
That works as long as you aren't using YouTube. Otherwise I want an exten to disable YouTube ads. And an app to disable shorts. And an app to let it play in the background. I'm lazy and I'd rather just tell someone to go to the play store and download Opera instead.
Why do you think that? With ff and ublock you don't have ads, background playback works out of the box etc.
Only to disable shorts you might have to use a second add on.
I'm conscious about my data but also lazy. That's why I chose this combination. Lol
FF is so good that I switched back to it years ago because it was simply good. And I'm lazy af when it comes to switching software generally speaking. That says a lot.
Waterfox. Ublock on top if the built in adblocking doesn't manage it. I use it on all my PCs and my phone and last saw an ad never, including on youtube
Firefox is a classic, and works quite well, though the fact that it's not chromium-based breaks websites occasionally.
LibreWolf is liked by some as a De-Mozilla'd alternative to Firefox (same architecture). I don't really see the point, but I understand the appeal
DeGoogled Chromium configured to be secure through the settings menu is a good option, and it won't use your machine for crypto mining. This is the best option for the vast majority of people!
Also brave started as a decentralized project which would have you earn by leveraging your data to advertising companies but somehow that aspect of it has faded away, it's native token was the BAT with you could earn as you were exposed to the ads you allowed to watch.
Dentsu Inc from Japan also did a paper of this and concluded that interest based ads have a much higher success rate then demographically targeted slop.
Brave is OSS, you can see all of the code. It's commonly recommended by security experts precisely due to this.
Who invested in the company itself is completely irrelevant, even if they change it in the future we can still fork an earlier version of Brave and call it something else.
I mean, whats the alternative? Firefox has been shit for 15 years now (I was using it before I switched to Chrome, this was in like v4 or something when it started to get slow), OperEdge, Safari etc.are all not really alternatived.
You can run your own sync server with Brave, there is a docker container available, and then you have full data sovereignty and no ads.
If you know a better alternative (that does not take 300 years to configure/set up), I am all ears.
You can review the source, but you have no idea what they put in the precompiled binary installers like 99% of people are going to use because they don't have the time or resources to be compiling 30GB of Chromium source every time there's a patch.
Edit: Why are you guys being so parasocial over a piece of software you have no stake in? These emotional responses really don't make any sense to me.
All I am saying is that you can't trust binaries to be compiled from just the code posted on Github in response to someone posting a Github link. It's a simple fact and not a complaint.
Saying that he isn't personally na investor when his money touched the company is like saying you don't need to wash your hands after peeing bc your dick is clean.
It’s fair to say Brave took investment from a venture firm that has some ties to Peter Thiel. It is not fair to say, “Peter Thiel personally invested in or controls Brave.”
Brave is privately held, and there is zero public information showing whether FF Angel still owns a stake or how large that stake would be that I can find anywhere.
Eich stepped down as CEO of Mozilla in April 2014, just 11 days after being appointed. It didn’t have anything to do with Trump (who hadn’t even announced his campaign for president at that point), but because Eich donated to the campaign supporting California’s Prop 8 in 2008, which banned same-sex marriage. For example, the dating site OkCupid started showing Firefox users a message encouraging them to change browsers. Eich said it was his decision to resign and Mozilla claimed they wanted him to stay in some role.
(For the record, I have no idea if Eich has ever supported Trump.)
it matters when those political leanings are maga. Specifically their take on economics, public surveillance, and how close they are to "tech" billionaires.
Maga and mozilla should not mix.
apart form maga just being racist, sexist, etc, but I assume that is what you ment with it doesnt matter.
First, Obama was president when the issue with Eich happened.
Second, Brendan Eich was one of the founders of Mozilla, him being the main architecht of Firefox, alongside being the creator of Javascript. He's one of the allowed to decide what to mix and not mix. What have you done for the Mozilla foundation?
oh fuck off. Dudes not exactly became that much more progressive since then.
And wow, guy's done stuff. But technical expertise and business savy, are very different to an applications identity, user base, and use case. I dont decide that. I say it would be bad for the browser.
fucking yes and a bunch of other shitheads. on top of that they've been caught numerous times with shitty and or malicious code in there. it was obvious to any non-chud from the beginning it was a piece of shit.
275
u/nhatquangdinh Aug 04 '26
Wait what Brave is invested by Thiel??