Thread

I switched to Brave

125 points · 245 comments · mindracer

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

vincent-uden · 1790606667 · focus · HN ↗
I've tried helium as a chrome-based ad-blocking browser alternative and found it nice to not have to hide the crypto/AI-nonsense since it doesn't exist. Everything beyond the Crypto/AI stuff is indeed pretty damn good in Brave.
At the end of the day it's basically just a uBlock-Origin preset for chromium, but that's really all I'd want from Brave regardless.
1. vovavili · 1790608992 · focus · HN ↗
  You might like Brave Origin then. If hidable crypto integration is what keeps Brave free, I am personally content with it.
  1. LollipopYakuza · 1790609219 · focus · HN ↗
    I haven't heard of it before, and the crypto ads was the reason I lost interest for Brave. I will have a look, thanks!
    seaal · 1790612814 · focus · HN ↗
    It's $60 for other platforms but free for Linux
    <a href="https://brave.com/origin/linux/" rel="nofollow">https://brave.com/origin/linux/
    vincent-uden · 1790613762 · focus · HN ↗
    Huh, that does look nice. Its been a long time since I used Brave last. Does it do anything beyond ad-blocking over chrome? If not I don't think I can be be bothered to switch from one ad-blocking chrome to another, just to due inertia and my lazyness.
    vovavili · 1790625954 · focus · HN ↗
    Vertical tabs and peak new tab aesthetic is what got me in.
    alibert · 1790626501 · focus · HN ↗
    Still needing some work (part 2 coming) but Brave has Containers support.
    <a href="https://brave.com/blog/containers/" rel="nofollow">https://brave.com/blog/containers/
mjorgers · 1790609189 · focus · HN ↗
It may be better in the shorter term, but using yet another Chromium based browser doesn't really improve the current situation with Google's browser monopoly. I'm personally using Firefox Nightly, and so far it has served me well.
1. PorciiVorbesc · 1790609428 · focus · HN ↗
  >but using yet another Chromium based browser doesn't really improve the current situation with Google's browser monopoly.
  Not everyone wants to be a martyr/activist to change their habits and experience in order to support a political cause they don't really understand.
  Most people just want the best, frictionless and most familiar experience to the product they already know and love, which often means a slick and shiny product from a monopolistic anti-consumer company.
  1. bryanlarsen · 1790611105 · focus · HN ↗
    > support a political cause they don't really understand.
    I'll accept this as a reasonable excuse for the non-HN crowd.
    But the HN crowd should understand the cause. We've all experienced or heard stories of the IE6 monopoly days, and few of us trust Google.
    And it's not much of a sacrifice to use Firefox, it's a great browser. Maybe not the best for everybody, but it is the best for some and OK for many/all. Calling yourself a martyr just because you use Firefox for political reasons seems a stretch.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790611253 · focus · HN ↗
    >I'll accept this as a reasonable excuse for the non-HN crowd.
    That's who I was referring to. If you want Chrome to not be a monopoly anymore you'll need to convince gen-pop to switch not just part of HN.
    >And it's not much of a sacrifice to use Firefox,
    It can be. A few of my most visited websites have issues on FF, and Chrome does page translation far better than FF, which is a must-have for me as I live in a foreign country. Then Chrome's "Image lens" AI search is invaluable for my hobby work.
    >Calling yourself a martyr just because you use Firefox for political reasons seems a stretch.
    Majority of people will dump the new browser the second the find a website that doesn't work well on it. Using it despite that, IS a political statement, that not everyone will make. If you want FF to get more adoption, then you need to acknowledge its weaknesses so that it can fix them, and not bury our heads in the sand and attack its critics.
    drnick1 · 1790617304 · focus · HN ↗
    > A few of my most visited websites have issues on FF
    I use FF with FingerprintResist on, and many things such as WebGL outright disabled, on top of very restrictive DNS blacklist and uBlock Origin, and even despite all that I find Firefox very usable. I can make only payments and book flights and other such things normally.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790617625 · focus · HN ↗
    I never said FF is unusable, I said some websites I frequent have issues in FF. Why is it so difficult to understand what I said? Is my English bad or what?
    bryanlarsen · 1790690627 · focus · HN ↗
    The only website I'm aware of that has issues with FF is pornhub. So FF's difficulty on that website is a benefit, not a liability.
    I haven't had to do it in a while, but sometimes on mobile Firefox I had to switch to desktop mode to work around issues. But that's an option I have on Firefox I don't have on Chrome, so again I think that's a win.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790700273 · focus · HN ↗
    >So FF's difficulty on that website is a benefit, not a liability.
    But what if I want to crank hog?
    JohnFen · 1790623123 · focus · HN ↗
    > Using it despite that, IS a political statement, that not everyone will make.
    Not necessarily. Some of us just really don't like using Chromium-based browsers due to usability issues and want to use one that works better for them.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790625669 · focus · HN ↗
    Fair point indeed.
  2. 0x1ch · 1790612380 · focus · HN ↗
    Firefox works on 99% of websites I use. In fact, it's always some weird AI product or SaaS product when something complains about user agents, so low quality and not worth looking at.
  3. glenstein · 1790613057 · focus · HN ↗
    >Most people just want the best, frictionless and most familiar experience
    Every time there's a thread about browsers, at least one commenter presents themselves as a self-appointed representative of "the users" and declares what the users really want.
    And it's not that these self-appointed representatives are wrong, necessarily, but they tend to say one of two things: either The People want serious privacy and FOSS commitments and no AI, or they want everything smooth and don't care about privacy. And whichever one it is, it's the most obvious thing in the world, according to the person saying it.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790613202 · focus · HN ↗
    >and declares what the users really want
    Since you're pointing fingers like that, are you saying most people DON'T want "the best, frictionless and most familiar experience"?
    I never met anyone who said they wanted a slower jankier product than what they used before.
    glenstein · 1790615208 · focus · HN ↗
    One person's "rude" is another person's request to tether claims to objective reality in some tractable way, even if it's just a report of plausible enough anecdotal experience.
    >Because I never met anyone who said they wanted a slower jankier less intuitive product than what they used before.
    Well someone's having big feelings, but this is a straw man, speed and privacy don't have to be mutually exclusive and in practice they aren't for the most part. Users who are casual enough that ad tech telemetry and privacy are mysterious words to them are also not people who are going to note the 0.1% difference in performance that you claim they're prioritizing. Belligerently repeating a just so story based on a flawed framing of trade-offs faced by users doesn't make it more true.
    >Most people don't care about privacy and FOSS
    Again, this is a just so story, and I think it's just something weird about the vernacular of HN that people are comfortable making claims like this or thinking they can be leveraged to make authoritative judgments. But one person's trust me bro is as good as anothers, and I don't even think it's right that people really are trading privacy for performance and any sort of margin that significant enough to really be noticed. And frankly, if they do notice a performance difference, it's probably because they don't have ad block and if they don't have ad block it's probably because they're using Chrome.
    Google actually maintains their market share through a combination of strong user experience and an utterly dominant position as a distributor. Chrome is the default browser on over a billion devices and is advertised and deeply integrated into the ecosystem of the world's most used website. I've said it a million times but if it was just about the inherent quality of the product then Opera would have conquered the world back in 2012.
    This mechanism is well understood pretty much anytime software monopolies face legal scrutiny. Microsoft wanted people to believe that Internet explorer was just that much better than the competition, and Google probably wanted the world to believe its search was so much better, which is why it had to be the default option for Apple devices in Europe. But if that was an organic manifestation of consumer preference, it wouldn't have to be maintained with billion dollar arrangements, or hostile ecosystem lockout that came under legal scrutiny.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790617523 · focus · HN ↗
    >One person's "rude" is another person's request
    You can make requests without being a dick and calling people "self appointed X" just because their viewpoint doesn't match yours.
    cauch · 1790615369 · focus · HN ↗
    > Since you're making rude false accusations like that, let me ask you, are you saying most people DON'T want "the best, frictionless and most familiar experience"?
    People want frictionless and familiar experience. But they also want tools where they are not the product (either by having their data sold, or being fed ads, or being captured by enshittificating services because alternative services cannot compete due to artificial barriers, ...).
    Can you prove me that this other statement is incorrect? Are you saying that most people DON'T want to be abused by their tools?
    Of course not. The problem is not that your sentence is not true, it is that your sentence is loaded: you just provide one obvious sentence saying "most people love having the benefices of the product", but totally ignore that 1) the product also has disadvantages that people don't like, 2) alternative products provide other set of benefices and disadvantages.
    I personally agree with the previous comment: these "most people" arguments are usually very poor, and it does not reflect very well on people who make them. (the fact that "best, frictionless and familiar experiences" is an advantage can be a good point to bring to the conversation, but it can easily done in a better way than with the poor "most people want" argument)
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790616678 · focus · HN ↗
    >Can you prove me that this other statement is incorrect?
    I already did before: Google.
    >Are you saying that most people DON'T want to not be abused by their tools?
    Firsty, most people don't consider themselves as "being abused" when they use Google Chrome instead of FF, that's just a hill HN loves to die on.
    Secondly, most people either don't know even they are the product, or they don't care. See facebook, instagram, X, etc as proof.
    cauch · 1790621840 · focus · HN ↗
    People don't WANT to be abused. This is soooo stupid to pretend it is the case.
    Simply, people are just making choices and no choice is perfect. They use Google Chrome DESPITE the disadvantages of Google Chrome.
    And that is exactly why the argument "people use Google Chrome so Google Chrome cannot have negative consequence" is simplistic.
    But more importantly, some of the advantages of Google Chrome only exist because some people are not using Google Chrome. It is not a zero sum game: the best situation is when we have an healthy balance when people are using alternative. The initial comment you answer to did nothing else, just said "me, I use Firefox", it did not even said "everyone should use Firefox".
    And the fact that they are not aware of a bad consequence that is bad for them is really not a good argument. In fact, it demonstrates that your logic is flawed: the fact that the majority of people use something does not demonstrate that this product is a good idea. This is the usual race to the bottom: let's enshittify as much as the people can bare. That is just creating a shitty society. Civilisations would be so much better if this mentality did not exist.
    I had this conversation so many time before, and it is so simplistic and naive. Can you not just do better?
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790700499 · focus · HN ↗
    >People don't WANT to be abused. This is soooo stupid to pretend it is the case.
    I never said they do, you're just putting words in my mouth to farm drama and flame bait. Goodbye and good riddance, go flamebate with someone else.
    cauch · 1790761312 · focus · HN ↗
    My approach was to show how your approach felt apart.
    Do you really think that the initial comment has said: "People want the opposite of best, frictionless and most familiar experience"?
    That's exactly your logic: the initial comment was simply saying "personally I just prefer to use Firefox". To which you answer "well, people want the best, frictionless and most familiar experience, can you prove me that it is an incorrect sentence".
    So, I've simply shown you that this logic is stupid: I've applied the same approach with a slightly different target.
    And you ended up concluding that this is a pathetic approach. Well done, you just understood why people don't like your comment.
    And, to be perfectly clear, I never said you believe that you say that people want to be abused. I'm saying the opposite: we all agree that pretending that is crazy. The same way we all agree that pretending that people don't want the best, frictionless, most familiar experience is stupid.
2. carlosjobim · 1790618976 · focus · HN ↗
  Billions of people use non-Google web browsers every day. Monopoly does not mean "company or product I don't like".
  1. devilkin · 1790622096 · focus · HN ↗
    Like?
    Edge, chrome, chromium, brave, vivaldi, opera... its all just rebadged chromium.
    There's chrome, Firefox, safari.
    carlosjobim · 1790622828 · focus · HN ↗
    Look at how many iPhones have been sold. They use Safari as the default browser.
    bluefirebrand · 1790627381 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think phones should really count because people don't really make a choice about their browser on phones. Mostly they just use whatever came pre-installed
3. brightball · 1790625850 · focus · HN ↗
  Is there something in Firefox's license that prevents forking? Why does it seems like all of these browser are always Chromium forks and we never see Firefox forks go mainstream?
  1. lkbm · 1790629779 · focus · HN ↗
    There are Firefox forks out there. LibreWolf, Pale Moon, and WaterFox are the bet known. Unsure which, if any, are still active.
    horrorente · 1790631490 · focus · HN ↗
    There is also Zen which is quite active: <a href="https://zen-browser.app/" rel="nofollow">https://zen-browser.app/
    pamcake · 1790638176 · focus · HN ↗
    Those are all active.
    Also: Tor Browser, Konform Browser, Mullvad Browser
  2. okanat · 1790629811 · focus · HN ↗
    Not license, it is the codebase and tooling. Waterfox and LibreWolf exist. However FF code base is a bit a mess compared to Chromium. Chromium has a better build system using Starlark. Starlark is quite resilient against exploding complexity and easier to keep C++ codebases sane. Mozilla's build system is a soup of multiple tools. Firefox used to use Mercury and only lately switched to Git.
    The origins of Chromium come from KHTML which was designed to be embeddable and quite modular. Both Webkit and Blink forks retained that feature and improved it.
    Chromium has V8 which is the faster JS engine (so it accommodates crappy bloated webpages better). It achieved HW acceleration early on, it is quite important for video decode. Many webdevs only optimize for Chrome for viewing.
4. philipallstar · 1790626803 · focus · HN ↗
  > using yet another Chromium based browser doesn't really improve the current situation with Google's browser monopoly
  It's not a monopoly if you can build your own with it. This is like saying glibc is a monopoly.
  1. thm76 · 1790636053 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the issue is that Google has too much power to push features via Chromium. This would allow them to create new de-facto standards, which is what we had with IE back in the day.
    Sure, the forks could choose not to implement whatever Google might come up with, but that's unlikely, I think.
    philipallstar · 1790678434 · focus · HN ↗
    Understood, but that's entirely opted into by everyone else. I don't see what else Google could possibly do to encourage competition. They already fund Firefox, and allow anyone to build - and change - based on Chromium. At what point do we wonder why competition isn't arising given all of that? It's not as though Microsoft couldn't do the R&D themselves if they wanted to. They've chosen to build on Chromium because there's not much value in the "power" you're citing. Certainly not compared to the cost of building Chromium.
atraac · 1790609334 · focus · HN ↗
Also been using Brave for a while. All the crypto stuff needs to be turned off but besides that for me, it's just better Chrome. Firefox always felt slower to me, Safari is just a weird kid from the neighborhood I could never get to like. I LOVED Arc. I think its a near perfect browser, but lack of proper mobile browser and Browser Company dropping Arc in favor of the new rebranded Arc with AI just left me with distrust. Brave just works, I can use it on all my devices, OSes, I can have uBlock Origin on it and vertical tabs. I don't really need anything else at this point.
1. jamiesonbecker · 1790609811 · focus · HN ↗
  See also Brave Origin: <a href="https://brave.com/origin/" rel="nofollow">https://brave.com/origin/
2. RunSet · 1790613430 · focus · HN ↗
  > Firefox always felt slower to me
  Since Google has proven willing to stoop to bad behavior to lend Chromium the impression of superior performance[0] I don't consider subjective performance to be a meaningful comparison.
  As metrics go, I am more concerned with "demonstrable respect for user-agency", a competition in which a browser from the world's largest advertising conglomerate is forbidden entry.
  [0] <a href="https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/why-google-took-years-to-address-a-battery-draining-bug-in-chrome/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/why-google-took-year...
3. butlike · 1790614511 · focus · HN ↗
  Arc is still usable and gets chromium updates. It's still my daily driver since as you said, it's great.
4. EMM_386 · 1790626231 · focus · HN ↗
  Agreed. I went from 20+ years of Firefox (back to the earliest days with the .zip files and just dumping binaries into a folder) to Brave a couple years ago.
  I'm the same way. Turn off crypto by default (is it these days?) and that's pretty much it.
  I like how they host selected Manifest v2 extensions themselves so uBlock Origin latest continues to work and is actively maintained.
  Speed of Chromium with privacy focus. Works for me.
5. Vinnl · 1790629238 · focus · HN ↗
  > I LOVED Arc.
  I assume you've heard of it, but just in case you haven't: you should try Zen! It's basically Arc, but based on Firefox, but open source and, more importantly, actively maintained.
  <a href="https://zen-browser.app" rel="nofollow">https://zen-browser.app
  1. atombender · 1790629662 · focus · HN ↗
    Does Zen have multi-account container tabs?
    (I need them because of Google, as Google has a broken login system. I use GGP at work plus a bunch of work apps that use Google for SSO. But for some products like Maps and YouTube, I use my personal account. Doing that on e.g. Chrome is painful, because every URL opens with whatever is your default login, and whatever I set as the default, it's usually wrong.)
  2. sanex · 1790630975 · focus · HN ↗
    And for those of us unfortunate enough to use Windows it is much more reliable and complete than Arc.
  3. atraac · 1790673340 · focus · HN ↗
    I tried Zen in the past, I actually didn't like it. Had quite a bit of bugs, some settings even had typos, some missing things, literally crashed every now and then on MacOs. Might give it a go someday again, I'm trying out Helium for now out of curiosity and I'm liking it so far
    Vinnl · 1790687692 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't use it myself (wasn't an Arc user either), but apparently it's moving really fast, so definitely worth trying again.
    (See also this almost identical conversation: <a href="https://phanpy.social/#/fosstodon.org/s/117281195620828803" rel="nofollow">https://phanpy.social/#/fosstodon.org/s/117281195620828803)
montroser · 1790609371 · focus · HN ↗
> I had some messing around to do up front, like hiding all the crypto and AI nonsense...
Switching to Brave from Firefox due to AI and ethical concerns seems like a lateral move at best if being generous.
1. russdill · 1790611970 · focus · HN ↗
  I'd like to switch friends and family over to brave, but trying to avoid ads that might confuse them was kind of the point...so....
  1. iAMkenough · 1790625829 · focus · HN ↗
    If you're going to take on doing personal tech support for Brave for your friends and family, why not let them keep what they're familiar with and switch their DNS to an adblocking provider instead?
  2. cpburns2009 · 1790645323 · focus · HN ↗
    Brave blocks ads. What's the problem?
    russdill · 1790656074 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, my history with brave involves doing that several times as they add additional mechanisms
2. glenstein · 1790612632 · focus · HN ↗
  Right, I felt the same thing. Switching to Brave because Firefox "isn't ethical enough" is like switching to McDonald's because the farmer's market produce isn't organic enough.
  1. MeetingsBrowser · 1790625923 · focus · HN ↗
    I got fed up with ads in search results and invasive tracking from Google.
    I've switched fully to Meta's Muse for all of my research going forward.
    renjimen · 1790628385 · focus · HN ↗
    You got fed up with invasive tracking so you switched to a Meta product?
    the_gipsy · 1790628481 · focus · HN ↗
    A Facebook product.
    [deleted] · 1790629137 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    sedawkgrep · 1790632747 · focus · HN ↗
    I think they're joking.
    renjimen · 1790634780 · focus · HN ↗
    I hope so!
3. rpdillon · 1790627774 · focus · HN ↗
  Just as a counterpoint, I switched to Brave because Firefox no longer holds the technical or moral high ground. Brave is an open-source browser which makes it different from Chrome and Vivaldi. Brave is a privacy-focused browser. Brave is the only browser that is open source and also lets me pay for it so I can have a clean, uncluttered, fast experience. Brave is the only chromium-based browser that I'm aware of that continues to support Manifest V2 for UBlock Origin, which is critical for my use case.
  Mozilla has been distracted by a million shiny things around them. They've been mismanaged almost criminally and they have changed their terms of service to be much less privacy-oriented than they used to be.
  In my humble opinion, Brave gets far too much hate on this site and is actually the best browser made today in terms of open source availability, a focus on privacy and empowerment of the end user, while maximizing site compatibility.
  1. MeetingsBrowser · 1790632482 · focus · HN ↗
    > Brave is a privacy-focused browser.
    Isn't Brave's main source of revenue serving you ads based on information collected about you from while using their browser?
    paimapi · 1790633552 · focus · HN ↗
    > Mozilla has been distracted by a million shiny things around them
    also this - like Brave being inundated with crypto shit and now AI shit isn't them hopping on every last fad as fast as possible?
    it's also wild to me how many people default to citing FireFox when there are open-source, privacy-focused forks like LibreWolf, Tor Browser, and Mullvad Browser out there, all of which blow Brave out of the water for privacy by their own admission on that privacytests.org site (that one of their staff engs owns)
    rpdillon · 1790642176 · focus · HN ↗
    This isn't accurate. Mozilla stopped focusing on their core product, which was the browser. Brave has desperately been trying to monetize the creation of a privacy-focused browser for some time, much to the chagrin of folks on HN. I decided to pay for their open source offering, which doesn't have any of that.
    The hate for Brave is some combination of people dredging up issues from very early in their existence and mischaracterizing them as often as not, and folks that insist that it's jammed full of crypto shit when it's very straightforward to either disable or remove it entirely by just using Brave Origin.
    I have used all three of the browsers that you happen to mention aside from Firefox, and while I keep them in my back pocket, Brave is my daily driver. I don't tend to visit a huge variety of websites. I usually have JavaScript disabled when I do so, and I have other privacy preserving mechanisms in place besides just the browser I picked.
    I'm happy for folks to trudge on with the Firefox engine, but I no longer see Mozilla as a good custodian of it. I do think the privacy-focused forks of it are good, and worthy of significant attention. On Android, I would also recommend both IronFox and Cromite.
    MeetingsBrowser · 1790659195 · focus · HN ↗
    IMO a company built around selling personalized ads with information collected from search and browser activity is at odds with creating a privacy first experience.
    rpdillon · 1790690629 · focus · HN ↗
    They are built around creating a user-centric browser, and need to monetize. They are actively moving to business models that are more privacy-focused (charging for the browser!) but no one talks about that.
    Meanwhile, I'm not sure who you'd prefer. If we're pushing Firefox here, I'd strongly recommend folks compare and contrast Brave's policies with Firefox: <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#how-is-your-data-used" rel="nofollow">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#how-is-your-d...
    Take special care to read through the section called "To serve relevant content and advertising on Firefox New Tab".
    MeetingsBrowser · 1790694233 · focus · HN ↗
    > They are built around creating a user-centric browser, and need to monetize.
    I think this is exactly backwards, they are a business first and all other messaging is marketing to support that end. I recognize there is likely nothing that can be said to change your opinion if you have faith Brave is putting your interests above their own.
    If you do compare to the firefox privacy policy, the most notable difference is how specific Mozilla is about what data is collected and how it is used.
    In contrast, try to find any detail about the specific information collected by the brave browser and how it is used to serve ads.
    rpdillon · 1790731180 · focus · HN ↗
    It's about alignment of interests. They believe that there is a business that is valuable selling a user-centric browser. A user-centric browser does not exist today.
    Google Chrome is a frog-boiling exercise where they slowly take away freedoms to run, for example, ad-blocking in the browser and they do so under the name of security. They've already tried to push the web integrity initiative. They'll try again.
    Mozilla, as I've already pointed out, is criminally mismanaged in the sense of poor allocation of resources towards building a better browser. On top of this, they have brought in a number of executives from Meta that have made a number of changes that erode the privacy of Firefox users. They can't ship any features that are hostile to Google directly because Google is their primary source of funding.
    Safari is written by a company that has no vested interest in seeing the web be good enough to replace native apps because that company makes gobs of money being a middleman selling native apps.
    Vivaldi is closed source.
    LibreWolf, IronFox, WaterFox, Icecat, Cromite, Ungoogled Chromium are all similar in that they are drafting the work of the multinational corporations, but ultimately are volunteer efforts that are sustainable only as long as the volunteers continue to donate their time.
    Brave is essentially trying to create a business doing what those privacy-focused browsers are doing. The challenge is they somehow need to monetize without compromising privacy, which has been a continual challenge for every browser manufacturer.
    Again, I'm going to say it for the third time in this thread: the version of Brave that I use doesn't collect telemetry or serve ads because I paid for it. I can verify its behavior because it's also open source. Not a single person has responded to this very simple fact.
    MeetingsBrowser · 1790773923 · focus · HN ↗
    In summary:
    Chrome and Safari can’t be trusted because the profit model of the parent company is at odds with building a user first browser.
    Firefox cannot be trusted because they work on too many unrelated projects.
    Open source alternatives cannot be trusted because they don’t try to profit off of users.
    Brave is good though, despite having a profit model directly at odds with a privacy first browser and working on many unrelated projects (multiple browser versions, a search engine, and a VPN, a cryptocurrency) even though they are smaller than Mozilla.
    The fact that you can pay for a version that doesn’t sell your habits to advertisers goes against the point you are trying to make. Other than Google, every other browser does that by default for free, and even Google offers chromium for free.
    rpdillon · 1790784348 · focus · HN ↗
    > Other than Google, every other browser does that by default for free, and even Google offers chromium for free.
    We disagree about the facts on this, and it's a waste of time to argue facts, but I do appreciate the discussion!
    FrinkleFrankle · 1790702838 · focus · HN ↗
    FYI, you can use brave/chrome policies to disable most of the annoying stuff in brave. It is an incredibly sleek browser when you do so.
    <a href="https://support.brave.app/hc/en-us/articles/360039248271-Group-Policy" rel="nofollow">https://support.brave.app/hc/en-us/articles/360039248271-Gro...
    tky · 1790633731 · focus · HN ↗
    That and their foray into crypto, both easily and permanently disabled with clearly labeled toggles along with all telemetry.
    rpdillon · 1790641858 · focus · HN ↗
    Perhaps. I use the version you can pay for, and that doesn't have any of that.
  2. anotherevan · 1790642880 · focus · HN ↗
    > I switched to Brave because Firefox no longer holds the technical or moral high ground.
    Every time I see mention of "Brave" I'm reminded that Brendan left Mozilla because of his contributions to anti-gay rights causes, and then immediately founded a company called "Brave". In essence, to me, it felt like he was thumbing his nose and saying it was brave to be a homophobe.
    So yeah, nah, comparing the moral high ground between Mozilla and quote Brave un-quote is not a compelling argument to me.
    joquarky · 1790644706 · focus · HN ↗
    On a completely unrelated topic, I just remembered that as I get well into my 50s, I'm only beginning to see the pawns on the chessboard more clearly.
    Suffering is so often self-induced.
    rpdillon · 1790649527 · focus · HN ↗
    I've argued this at some length elsewhere, so I don't feel compelled to do so here. You can drag up his $1,000 donation 20 years ago and the backlash it inspired at Mozilla that made him no longer effectively able to lead, but I don't see that as an indictment of his current efforts at all.
karol · 1790609381 · focus · HN ↗
It still amazes me that in California if someone donates to anti-gay marriage initiative they can be openly called "absolute scumbag" and people just roll with it. It's called having political views.
1. 220hertz · 1790609546 · focus · HN ↗
  Maybe they meant to link to the element where it says the guy invented Javascript. That would have been more appropriate.
2. akimbostrawman · 1790609718 · focus · HN ↗
  for many here that's worse than murder. totally not a ideological cult btw.
3. kakuri · 1790610264 · focus · HN ↗
  "having political views" is not an escape hatch for denying the humanity of other people.
  1. bigstrat2003 · 1790612642 · focus · HN ↗
    Opposing gay marriage is not denying the humanity of gay people. I'm not even opposed to gay marriage, but hyperbolic language like yours only hurts discussions, it never ever helps.
    Capricorn2481 · 1790613435 · focus · HN ↗
    > Opposing gay marriage is not denying the humanity of gay people
    How so?
    skissane · 1790653781 · focus · HN ↗
    Is opposing polygamy denying the humanity of polygamists/polyamorists?
    Is opposing first cousin marriage denying the humanity of people in romantic relationships with their first cousins? (The first anniversary of Connecticut's first cousin marriage ban is next week.)
    Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
    Capricorn2481 · 1790713321 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean the distinction is pretty obvious. Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits, and nobody has the motivation to carve out a legal distinction for them.
    Gay spouses were not looking for preferential treatment or special consideration. They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
    > Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
    Yes? Potentially even more so? I think most people supporting same sex marriage would see a ban on interfaith marriage as abhorrent. That's overly militant religious persecution.
    skissane · 1790730381 · focus · HN ↗
    > I mean the distinction is pretty obvious
    I don't agree it is obvious
    > Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits,
    I don't see how that's so. Many nations worldwide have legal polygamy.
    Australia has legal de facto polygamy. To explain: under Australian law, unregistered cohabitation is classified as a "de facto relationship", it entails (in principle) the same legal rights as marriage does. While Australia only permits a person to be in a single de jure marriage at a time, a person can be in multiple de facto relationships simultaneously. If that isn't "overly complicated" for Australia, what makes it "overly complicated" for the US?
    > They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
    Did gay people who opposed same sex marriage do so purely because they saw themselves as "gross"?
    <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-oppose-same-sex-marriage/8871118" rel="nofollow">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-op...
    glenstein · 1790613652 · focus · HN ↗
    In a previous generation, the deserving target of eyerolls and groans was people who both-sidesed an issue. In part because it was shallow, and part because it was just a weaponized way of talking where you get to be political under superficial the guise of neutrality. Asking an audience to believe it is just not respecting the intelligence of your audience.
    I think the version of that for our generation is the person who says "Gosh let's not talk politics" about obviously political things when doing so is clearly just to shield preferred targets from criticism. Of course it's not always that, and you can never prove it in any particular instance, which is why it's such convenient phrasing. But it gets eye-rolls for a reason.
    butlike · 1790615057 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    qwerpy · 1790629379 · focus · HN ↗
    I wouldn’t find “let’s not talk about politics” eye-rolling and neither would my social circle (first generation Asian families). In fact if someone kept bringing up politics in an overly emotional or pushy way, they probably wouldn’t be invited back.
    glenstein · 1790691516 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree that not everyone is familiar with them if you're not very immersed in American political culture.
    swozey · 1790614779 · focus · HN ↗
    There was a famous court case where the gay widow had no legal rights over their dying partners medical care, that is a pronounced human right that a heterosexual couple has over a gay couple that has been defined and why the opposition actually hurts people in ways many have not considered.
    xienze · 1790630154 · focus · HN ↗
    Remember that the compromise was "let gay people have those same rights, just don't call it marriage" and that was rejected. The opportunity to have that "pronounced human right" was always there but no, they wanted the culture war W of redefining marriage instead.
    lern_too_spel · 1790641785 · focus · HN ↗
    And how do those rights carry to other states?
    xienze · 1790642285 · focus · HN ↗
    The same way they have today, through a court order. People didn't have a problem with extending whatever legal protections to gay people, they objected to redefining marriage to get there. There was always a compromise available but again, sticking it to the religious types was the goal.
    lern_too_spel · 1790642503 · focus · HN ↗
    How do you propose to get a court order in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions? The whole point of marriage protections is that they transfer across states.
    > There was always a compromise available but again, sticking it to the religious types was the goal.
    Once you understand the difference between a state recognized civil union and a marriage that transfers across states, I'm sure you'll realize that this was instead religious people sticking it to gay people.
    xienze · 1790642663 · focus · HN ↗
    > How do you propose to get a court order in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions?
    All 50 states recognize civil unions.
    lern_too_spel · 1790654518 · focus · HN ↗
    > All 50 states recognize civil unions or other relationship arrangements.
    Sorry, but your attempt to claim "separate but equal" fails to fit reality. The Full Faith and Credit Clause did not afford civil unions the same protections as marriages.
    <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/interstate-validation-marriages-civil-unions/" rel="nofollow">https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-righ...
    "But suppose that you and your same-sex partner drive from Maryland to Vermont to enter into a civil union because it is the only state that recognizes a significant legal relationship between same-sex couples. If an accident occurs on your drive home and one of you is hospitalized, most states and institutions will not acknowledge your legal relationship with your spouse."
    > seismic shift of redefining a centuries old definition of marriage.
    Just as before, you are free to get a religious "marriage" that is unrecognized by the state. Just as before, the state can issue a marriage license to people that a particular religion does not approve (e.g., Orthodox rabbis are forbidden from officiating or validating non-Jewish weddings and do not recognize the resulting marriages, and the LDS church taught that interracial marriage, aside from white men with native American women, was a sin until 2013). The only thing that changes is what marriages the state allows. There was no "seismic shift" outside the heads of bigots.
  2. etcetcetcetceta · 1790669512 · focus · HN ↗
    do you remember when we didn't have to know everything about everyone and didn't feel obliged to only use products created by those with the same opinions as us?
4. glitch13 · 1790610992 · focus · HN ↗
  Having the opinion that there should be restaurants, stores, and bathrooms only for white people was an acceptable, mainstream political view during my father's lifetime. Expressing that opinion now would make you a social pariah. If you donated money in support of that cause today you'd probably be fair game for being openly called an "absolute scumbag" almost universally.
  How that analogy compares to being against same-sex marriage is going to vary from person to person, but times change, as does what is considered just political views vs a civil rights issue.
  1. gdulli · 1790611982 · focus · HN ↗
    It always surprises me that people can't take a step back and understand that objecting to today's progress is like objecting to women voting, or interracial marriage. You're just signing up to be mad your whole life and to be seen as a historical curiosity.
    phainopepla2 · 1790631969 · focus · HN ↗
    Eugenics was also considered "today's progress" at some point, and the people who opposed it were mostly coming from a religious perspective.
    I am not opposed to any of the things your examples of progress, just felt the need to mention that your argument is begging the question.
  2. throw9383930 · 1790612040 · focus · HN ↗
    It is mainstream opinion today to ban transwomen from public bathrooms and sports.
    Some people even push mandatory castrations for transwomen! Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy, and freely decide about life changing surgeries!
    Donating to same campaign is very mild, compared to slurs I have to endure from "normal liberal" people!
  3. ImJamal · 1790612798 · focus · HN ↗
    The majority of the voters was on his side. 52.24% voted yes and there was a 79.42% voter turn out. A huge number of Californians agreed with him at the time. This is quite a bit different than segregation today since acceptance of gay marriage was quite a bit lower and it was a newer issue than segregation.
    glitch13 · 1790619117 · focus · HN ↗
    Racial integration was wildly unpopular in the south when it became a hot political issue of the day, yet that fact doesn't make the opposition to it any more palatable to modern sensibilities. The only point I was trying to make was that you can't hand-wave away something you don't want to pick a side on by saying it's just a political view when a large portion of the society you exist in see it as a civil rights issue.
    Well, I guess that too has its caveats. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama were both vocally against same-sex marriage during run up to the 2008 election, I believe roughly the same time that the Prop 8 fight was happening. They didn't switch sides until public opinion started swaying in favor of it and I've never seen anyone hold their feet to the fire or call them "absolute scumbags" over it. Well, no one that wasn't already calling them that at least.
  4. graemep · 1790629945 · focus · HN ↗
    > Having the opinion that there should be restaurants, stores, and bathrooms only for white people was an acceptable, mainstream political view during my father's lifetime.
    Only in the US, South Africa and Rhodesia.
    Same sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the world until very recently, and still does not exist in most of the world.
5. fckgw · 1790612738 · focus · HN ↗
  Someone who derides someone else who donates to causes they find disgusting is also a political view. You're just talking about two people with political views.
  1. undershirt · 1790614836 · focus · HN ↗
    disagreeing with someone is a political view, debasing them for it is ideological
    OkayPhysicist · 1790618530 · focus · HN ↗
    If you're not willing to stand behind a view, and take all the well-deserved flak for holding it, you should shut up. Brendan Eich said "I hate gay people a couple thousand dollars much". That's a fucked up belief to hold, and if he didn't want it held against him, it was completely free to not donate thousands of dollars.
    carlosjobim · 1790619717 · focus · HN ↗
    You sound like you are on the verge of going out and stabbing somebody, the way you are talking. Nobody has to accept abuse from you or people like you, and they don't have to "shut up" if they don't like it. Calling a named individual an "absolute scumbag" in this context is fine grounds as any for a lawsuit.
    OkayPhysicist · 1790621450 · focus · HN ↗
    > Calling a named individual an "absolute scumbag" in this context is fine grounds as any for a lawsuit.
    Based on your misunderstandings of US defamation laws, and the fact that you jumped to stabbing over shooting, it sounds like you've been steeping too much in eurotrash defamation rules. Here in America, truth and opinion are both perfect defenses against defamation lawsuits. My comment consisted only of true facts (the man donated to support prop 8), and the opinions that follow from those facts (the man is a scumbag). You can only sue someone for lying about you, and for public figures like a CEO, you need to prove they were lying on purpose.
6. Oarch · 1790613010 · focus · HN ↗
  Yeah — but JavaScript... :D
7. lirolero · 1790613491 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
8. hardbass · 1790617911 · focus · HN ↗
  I will help the creation of and donate to an anti-maga bill that bans magas from existing eg jailing them if they express maga views. Its called having political views. I hope you won't complaint.
  1. hardbass · 1790628073 · focus · HN ↗
    It would obviously amaze me if I am called a scumbag for simply having political views, the same way how unbelievable it is that people get called scumbags for simply wanting to ban gay marriage.
9. OkayPhysicist · 1790618224 · focus · HN ↗
  They are an absolute scumbag. It's really simple: in matters where doing the right thing is doing nothing, it means that you went out of your way to be evil. There's not even a self-interest vs. public benefit argument to be made in defense of prop 8: No one gained anything from banning gay marriage. No, the sole reason to vote for prop 8 was "I want to make people I find weird's lives worse". And that's scumbag behavior.
  If your political views are "lets abuse a minority because I find them weird", those aren't merely political views.
fragmede · 1790609512 · focus · HN ↗
Annoyingly, Cursor dumped a ton of tokens into creating FastRender, but won't answer my request for a license on their code, so we can't go anywhere with it.
Yapping7880 · 1790609598 · focus · HN ↗
I was eager to jump to Brave ~5 years ago, but was so turned off by the scammy crypto stuff that when I rebuilt my laptop I didn't bother. And then when all of the details came out of one of the founders -- support for banning same sex marriage, resignations from his previous boards when he was appointed, being a COVID denier / anti-vaxxer -- the reasons it came bundled with all of this weird crypto stuff made a lot more sense.
andrewla · 1790609643 · focus · HN ↗
This is a little off-topic, but the article calls it out specifically, accusing Brendan Eich of being an "absolute scumbag" Aren't we past performative displays of outrage over this?
He, like 52% of voting Californians, in 2008, opposed gay marriage. This was a different time: there were various arguments about "civil unions", concern from religious groups, worries about slippery slopes, etc., but we are passed that now -- he no longer holds this belief, and time has proven those concerns to be ill founded. Nobody should be held in indefinite contempt for political positions they once held. If we can forgive Barack Obama for opposing gay marriage, then we can forgive Brendan Eich. You can say that you like his work without having to have endless caveats about how you don't agree with a political position he took twenty years ago that even he no longer advocates.
1. cholantesh · 1790611108 · focus · HN ↗
  >You can say that you like his work without having to have endless caveats about how you don't agree with a political position he took twenty years ago that *even he no longer believes*.
  Not according to the public record.
  1. andrewla · 1790612851 · focus · HN ↗
    I updated the comment to say that "... he no longer advocates". In the public record, to be clear, his total contribution to the discourse was a financial disclosure of a donation. We have literally no idea if he has made further donations, either in favor of or against this or any other policy (because smaller donations are anonymous) and he has refused to speak publicly about anything related to this, except to offer general support for "inclusiveness".
    But this comment is of a type that I feel we have moved past. Ideological purity tests were always awful. If you want someone to set policy for how marriage should be considered in some context, then Eich is probably not the person to ask to do this.
    But on technical matters unrelated to this I fail to see how it has any bearing at all, because his positions (based on indirect evidence) were not outlandish or out of the mainstream at the time.
    cholantesh · 1790619904 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't disagree that it's a pretty sharp left turn for this (kind of muddled in general) blog post; I was pretty narrowly focused on the ahistorical notion that Eich had recanted in the intervening years.
    That being said, I find it odd that you think no one can sincerely hold the position that someone's bigotry was/is abhorrent, however mainstream it was when they were putting money behind it (which is about as direct a piece of evidence that you can get).
    andrewla · 1790622757 · focus · HN ↗
    If you truly find it abhorrent then I think it's fine to continue to call it out. Since this was a position also held by the majority of California voters, or, to reuse my example above, Barack Obama, I find it hard to give much credence to the idea of it being an example of "abhorrent bigotry".
    I was alive and an adult as of 2008, and I didn't live in California, but I remember this situation. At the time, I was a somewhat naive young libertarian and my thought was that this was a great time to get the government out of the marriage business completely; leave marriage to churches and have the government only involved in the civil union aspect, which more naturally generalizes to gay marriage as well as certain conservatorship relationships or even polyamory, without forcing any cultural or religious shifts. So had I been in California at the time, I might well have voted for this measure, but I do not feel that I was a bigot for this, much less an abhorrent bigot. Since Eich never made and has never made public statements in any direction, we have literally no idea what his actual views on the subject were.
    cholantesh · 1790766965 · focus · HN ↗
    >Since this was a position also held by the majority of California voters, or, to reuse my example above, Barack Obama, I find it hard to give much credence to the idea of it being an example of "abhorrent bigotry".
    Well neither qualifier requires a consensus view, so there's no correlation here.
2. delichon · 1790611428 · focus · HN ↗
  I once mildly defended Eich on HN, and he replied and asked me not to. I hope he won't mind if I just say that my view of him is more in line with those of his old Firefox coworkers who personally worked with him.
lenova · 1790610469 · focus · HN ↗
Ah, the author is Kev Quirk! I really enjoyed his SimpleCSS project: <a href="https://github.com/kevquirk/simple.css" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/kevquirk/simple.css
I also relate to this post: tried to make Firefox my default browser for years, but slowly Brave became my default browser over time due to its adblocking abilities and general speed.
That said, Brave is a bit of a UI mess out of the box, with too many of their unnecessary "features" like their wallet and crypto BAT stuff being shoved at the user.
I think they're slowly realizing that their user base just wants a straightforward adblocking privacy browser though. They released "Brave Origin" recently, which is a paid app on some platforms, but at least cuts out of all the unnecessary baggage.
jttnr · 1790610535 · focus · HN ↗
The author mentions that he tried Vivaldi. Vivaldi is the spiritual successor to the original Opera browser (not the Opera browser you get today, which is crap). Opera was for power users, and the same goes for Vivaldi today. I can see that there's a learning curve, and it takes some time to get used to. But overall, it's a no-nonsense, fully featured workhorse that I use as my main browser. It has built-in ad blocking, mouse gestures, sync between devices, pane tiling, and a myriad of other nice little features I miss when using any other browser. Bonus points: Vivaldi on Android recently added support for Chrome extensions. It's not for everyone, but I suggest giving it a try.
1. bsoqk · 1790612185 · focus · HN ↗
  I gave Vivaldi a few chances and its UI was always slow and clunky. It also had a sea of settings that were by default opinionated in a bad way.
2. MrDrMcCoy · 1790612981 · focus · HN ↗
  Adblocking is pretty poor in Vivaldi. I'm planning to migrate away as a result. Only thing that would keep me is if they adopted Brave's adblocker, which actually works.
3. swozey · 1790612997 · focus · HN ↗
  I absolutely love vivaldi and switched a few years ago, probably 2 years ago, so I've used it enough to really know it's for me today and not 2 months then gone back to chrome after problems. I had major annoyances with its default settings (omnibars mostly) and it throws opinionated stuff at you but its customizability is incredible and once I fixed the omnibars annoying default search settings I was good. It defaults to any typos or wrong domain names taking you to startpage searches and its frustrating for new users but you can turn it off.
  Drag and drop tiling into the same window instead of having to create a new window sold me a long time ago but I also have tons of other customizations. But then you have the vivaldism where I can't open a new window and drag a link into it because because the start page captures that as a page add. It has some hiccups but in general I love it.
  As an example instead of ctrl+n'ing 4 windows side by side and having to add all the additional window padding a new browser window vs tab has, you can sit on amazon or whatever retailer and price compare 4 tabs right next to each other in the same window and there is almost no padding taking up room, etc. It's very clean, you just drag a product tab into the same window and it pops into it as a tiled page that you control separately, and its marked with a highlight. You can tread the tiled page as a new tab, but its much smaller and you have to click it inside of the tab, so it's not something you're going to drive all day long. I'll put 4 products next to each other, read about them then close it or use that tab as my research tab.
  Built-in full page screenshotting/exporting way better than Chrome. I haven't used the mail. The sidebar takes getting used to, I use that as a favorite bookmarks bar and look at downloads in it and RSS feeds. Built in vertical tabs I never look at that. Its sync is much better than it was a year ago, I've had no problems, it's not google chrome sync but you just throw a code onto both ends, my android vivaldi doesn't have extensions unfortunately.
  It has an insane amount of settings that I spent a few days tweaking and sync between everything, and now I never touch that menu it's frightful. Sometimes I have to edit my right click context menu because Vivaldi decided to move a button under something (hello, close all tabs to the right). But you CAN do it vs other browsers that don't have full UX control and I'm now stuck with Googles (maybe) decision to hide my right-click close tab button under a 2nd dropdown.
  It's been basically a chrome experience in that I don't get errors and ever have to use chrome or safari/bingthing basically ever.
  I was always a heavy chromium extension user and customizer, never clicked with opera and firefox runs me off by some business decision every few years, burnt me migrating profiles, etc. I may have to hop off the chrome train completely though.
  Whatever I pick next will feel ancient without vivaldis drag and drop tab system.
  I haven't yet but eventually I'll happily donate $20 to the project. It's the first time I've felt in years like a browser was actually doing something new.
  <a href="https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/tabs/tab-tiling/" rel="nofollow">https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/tabs/tab-tiling/
4. nchmy · 1790629981 · focus · HN ↗
  i used edge on windows since it become chromium, but i moved to linux a year ago and edge barely works there. So, i looked around and eventually settled on Vivaldi. It has some annoying quirks, but overall it suits my needs quite nicely. And I like their general ethos more than the rest (that I'm aware of). I use it now exclusively on android and linux.
Arcuru · 1790611316 · focus · HN ↗
So did Brave stop that crypto thing that was clearly designed to steal money from content creators?
Yes I know, it's a tired complaint years after the fact, but if you launch a browser with that system as a core value prop then it should probably taint the leadership team for a good long while.
Cider9986 · 1790611540 · focus · HN ↗
Brave is the only Chromium browser recommended by Privacy Guides which is why I chose it. It has a good update schedule and I never have problems with ads.
Once I set it up, it's been just a clean, ad-free browser. Based on Little Snitch, which is free on Linux, like Brave Origin, Brave has a clean list of default connections.
<a href="https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/" rel="nofollow">https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/
[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47697870">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47697870
1. cf100clunk · 1790612892 · focus · HN ↗
  The LibreWolf browser, and if need be the IronFox browser for Android, should have been installed and analyzed in parallel with Brave by the OP, then I'd accept that a proper analysis was begun.
  1. Cider9986 · 1790621206 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
2. Capricorn2481 · 1790613186 · focus · HN ↗
  I am not trying to spread FUD, but at the edge of my consciousness, I remember privacyguides getting some flak for some reason. Looking it up now, there's a lot of posts on reddit accusing them of putting affiliates on the site instead of actual private software.
  Looking at it briefly, their software choices seem mostly sane to me. Not a lot of FOSS, but a lot of non-technical people don't know how to setup FOSS to begin with. Can't really get mad at a site recommending Signal and Syncthing and local LLMs.
  I haven't seen privacyguides mentioned since being on HN, and I trust this site more than others. What are people's opinions on it?
  1. Cider9986 · 1790618613 · focus · HN ↗
    Not FUD, just oudated. I wasn't around then but privacytools.io, now, is definitely not trustworthy.
    <a href="https://www.privacyguides.org/en/about/privacytools/" rel="nofollow">https://www.privacyguides.org/en/about/privacytools/
    <a href="https://www.privacyguides.org/en/about/#history" rel="nofollow">https://www.privacyguides.org/en/about/#history
behnamoh · 1790612115 · focus · HN ↗
I've been enjoying Brave for a long time, and recently I have been using their AI sidebar connected to my own local server, which is so pleasant to use. I can ask questions about a web page or other things. I also like that using Brave has reduced my dependence on ad blockers because Brave itself is really good at blocking ads. In fact, there are some that don't get blocked by uBlock, but then Brave catches them. Not to mention that YouTube is completely ad-free, and the software isn't as bloated as Google Chrome.
glenstein · 1790612207 · focus · HN ↗
I knew the "elephant in the room" section of the article was coming before I started reading... but then it wasn't even about the right thing! The other different, bigger, angrier, elephant in the room is about Brave being YACB (Yet Another Chromium Browser). A browser built on the Chromium project is riding on top of that elephant trying to tell it where to go.
I think Google created a "moat" in terms of hyperaccelerating browser development with disproportionate firepower that nobody else could keep up with. And one potential non-terrible use of AI might be diminishing that moat and with it Google's ability to steer the whole web into their ecosystem. So if you want to be an optimist maybe that's a silver lining that will grow with time.
1. The_Rob · 1790613424 · focus · HN ↗
  It may be YACB, but that is precisely why it works for the author. Chromium browsers have the best compatibility because that is what is tested for. If it were any other way, then this post wouldn't exist.
  1. devilkin · 1790621938 · focus · HN ↗
    Unfortunately, by switching to YACB, the user is effectively making Firefox less relevant.
    So if you want it to be relevant, you actually do have to use it. Otherwise you can just as well give up and not care at all about the browser monopoly.
    encom · 1790628449 · focus · HN ↗
    I was like you once. I still care - but Mozilla just insists on sabotaging themselves, and it's too far gone now. Honestly at this point I'm just waiting for Mozilla to implode, so something better can rise from its ashes.
    A Phoenix, if you will...
    ragequittah · 1790630577 · focus · HN ↗
    I always try to parse this "Mozilla is doing bad" as I've been using Firefox for years and other than features I want (vertical tabs, firefox relay, and a few other minor things) I couldn't tell you the difference of Firefox now vs 5 years ago vs 10 years ago. And the "shooting yourself in the foot" things talked about are always something that pretty much all other browser companies do but 10 times worse.
    I think the last major scandal was AI additions (cuz who is using AI these days? What an awful idea!) that you can now turn off with one click? Personally never saw the AI features presented to me once. Then the one before that I can remember was the Mr. Robot thing that was so long ago it's hard to remember what even happened. I think they installed a add-on that wasn't enabled and did absolutely nothing unless you went looking for it and specifically wanted it to do something? And then they removed it very soon after when nerds overreacted so hard that we're still talking about it 10+ years later?
    Chrome: inability to block ads, new "cookie free" (nope they didn't get rid of cookies) ad tracking, monitoring people in incognito mode, the list would goes on for a long while. Brave: Crypto nonsense, all kinds of advertising for their crap everywhere unless you go through many hoops to turn it off. Firefox is one of the few pieces of software I can say hasn't enshitified itself to the point of using something else.
    happymellon · 1790664002 · focus · HN ↗
    > I think the last major scandal was AI additions
    To add to this, how do I turn off all the AI nagging crap in Chrome?
    So it still seems like Firefox is the better option.
    AuthAuth · 1790639448 · focus · HN ↗
    and gripe you have against Mozilla should be outweighed by looking at the other browsers but for some reason its not. People act like Mozilla is doing these awful things then switch to a browser doing far worse and say nothing.
    throw0101a · 1790682880 · focus · HN ↗
    > A Phoenix, if you will...
    I started using Phoenix at version 0.3 (compiling the port on my FreeBSD then-daily-driver) and still use Firefox (and Tor Browser) today. I'm not sure what problem(s) people have with it, but it works for me.
    (I also use Safari on my Apple systems, to further diversify web browser usage.)
    joquarky · 1790644090 · focus · HN ↗
    How many things should I care about before I have reached an adequate quota as determined by some collective social authority?
    I am apparently getting too old for whatever that threshold is these days.
    antonvs · 1790654887 · focus · HN ↗
    Funnily enough, you’re a part of that collective.
    If you don’t care about browser diversity, and choose to use a Chrome-based browser, that’s part of the collective’s decision. There are literally billions of people just like you, which is why Chrome wins.
    You’re trying to act put-upon, but you’re actually supporting the dominant monopoly side. Your apathy is winning, why do you still feel the need to comment? A bit of guilt or cognitive dissonance, perhaps?
    joquarky · 1790816704 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry I'm too busy being concerned about survival at the moment. Half the people on this site reside in ivory towers.
  2. MrJohz · 1790626827 · focus · HN ↗
    If anyone is reading this and sees compatibility as their primary reason for staying with a Chromium browser: I have been using Firefox as my main browser for many years now, and I can count on one hand the number of times where I've been hit by compatibility issues.
    The big one is anything to do with video calling — things often work but not as well, or you can voice call but not use video, or something like that. Most of the time the call works well enough, or I use a native app anyway, in which case this isn't a problem, but I suspect this is the thing people are most likely to run into in practice.
    The other one is WebUSB, which is useful for certain tools that flash hardware (e.g. keyboards) from the browser. This is rarer, but I still have Chrome around so I can still use these tools. And mostly there's another option anyway, it's just that WebUSB makes things more convenient.
    I have heard people complain about Cloudflare, but I've never noticed this. I suspect this is less to do with Chrome/Firefox, and more to do with privacy settings that Firefox makes more accessible. But again, I've never had an issue with Cloudflare myself, so I can't say much about this.
    Other than that, I genuinely can't think of the last time I wanted to use a website but couldn't because of Firefox. And even in the above situations, it's rare that I actually run into issues, it's just something I'm aware of as a possible cause if something happens. Most of the time things work perfectly well.
    ok_dad · 1790627166 · focus · HN ↗
    Same but for Safari. I use it as my daily driver and rarely get issues related to unsupported APIs. Everything seems to work fine, the only issues I ever hit are related to the Apple VPN.
    christophilus · 1790633203 · focus · HN ↗
    Slack is what makes me use Brave every day because its stupid huddles feature doesn’t support Firefox. But other than that, yeah. Firefox is fine.
    joquarky · 1790643949 · focus · HN ↗
    > I can count on one hand the number of times where I've been hit by compatibility issues.
    That is an anecdote without a denominator nor a representative sampling.
2. CagedCoder · 1790615441 · focus · HN ↗
  I'd assume that isn't the elephant in the room since Vivaldi is also YACB
  1. glenstein · 1790615826 · focus · HN ↗
    It would be the elephant in the room for both Brave and Vivaldi (though the author is not wrong that Vivaldi doesn't seem to to have captured the old Opera magic). The article is at least partially juxtaposing Brave against Firefox.
    pogue · 1790619406 · focus · HN ↗
    It's really a shame Opera didn't open source the Presto engine.
3. mstaoru · 1790622214 · focus · HN ↗
  It's okay, soon everybody will switch to their own vibe-coded browsers, right?
  (<a href="https://github.com/wilsonzlin/fastrender" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/wilsonzlin/fastrender this looks so dead...)
  1. fragmede · 1790622841 · focus · HN ↗
    no license file :(
    mstaoru · 1790670148 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you need a license on something 100%-vibe-coded?
4. __MatrixMan__ · 1790625976 · focus · HN ↗
  I'm excited for ladybird to reach alpha
  1. atlimar · 1790626721 · focus · HN ↗
    likewise, as we all should be
  2. theodric · 1790630476 · focus · HN ↗
    I regret to inform you that Mr. Kling and his browser have been pre-canceled on Mastodon due to his politics (support for DHH, Charlie Kirk, anti-DEI stances, etc.)
    [deleted] · 1790637668 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. 1attice · 1790631857 · focus · HN ↗
    No thank you, I prefer supporting creators who respect human rights
    Defletter · 1790632150 · focus · HN ↗
    Fair enough. Which browser are you currently using?
    1attice · 1790632391 · focus · HN ↗
    Iceweasel
    Defletter · 1790632652 · focus · HN ↗
    And you are certain that its maintainers comply with your requirements?
    1attice · 1790633373 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    Defletter · 1790633971 · focus · HN ↗
    From what I can tell, Iceweasel is more or less a reskinned Firefox: there's some code changes to make it compatible with Debian's licensing guidelines, but it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to describe Iceweasel as 'Firefox for Debian'. And so are you also certain that the maintainers of Firefox comply with your requirements?
    EDIT: Seems like they edited their comment instead of replying (kinda weird?), answering "yes" to my question. Perhaps I am a pessimist but I am doubtful that every single maintainer involved in Iceweasel complies with their requirements. And presumably this applies to more than just the browser: what OS are they using? What apps do they use? What phone do they have? What bank do they use? What car do they own? Etc. When you take such a hard stance against something over a refused pronoun PR (which btw was definitely chuddy of him), you nonetheless invite scrutiny against yourself, particularly when you say things like "You might be amoral, some of us give a fsck."
    What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact. It's why JK Rowling is so hated but not Orson Scott Card: the latter is likely giving just as money money to objectionable causes but he's not being loud about it [anymore], whereas JK Rowling is being loud... very loud. And so buying Harry Potter merch becomes a litmus test for morality, but not buying Ender's Game merch. Alas.
    radlad · 1790654337 · focus · HN ↗
    Some people don't allow imperfection to stop them from achieving their goals to the best of their ability. Your takedown of Iceweasel completely misses the point.
    Defletter · 1790673564 · focus · HN ↗
    > Your takedown of Iceweasel completely misses the point.
    This is not a takedown of Iceweasel: it was merely the example that they provided. It could've been anything.
    > Some people don't allow imperfection to stop them from achieving their goals to the best of their ability.
    One could use this exact logic to explain why one continues to use, shill for, or even contribute to Ladybird, because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
    And let me be clear, the goal with these comments is not to convince 1attice to use Ladybird against their objections: the goal was to invite them to reflect on their boycott and question whether it was a proportionate response to indiscretion. But instead I got the usual moralistic type of response where I'm accused of being amoral for not [presumably] not engaging in the same boycott. Alas.
    glenstein · 1790692452 · focus · HN ↗
    >One could use this exact argument to explain one's continued use of, shills for, or even contributions to Ladybird, because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
    Or, to your point, these arguments could count in favor of Firefox in opposition to Chromium.
    Defletter · 1790701638 · focus · HN ↗
    Very true, though the suspicious mind seeking to evade Google's dominance will be naturally wary of then picking a browser that's kept afloat in-part by Google. I do correct my previous assertion though of a "Chromium/Firefox hegemony" since Firefox only seems to hold ~5% market share: <a href="https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide" rel="nofollow">https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl....
    radlad · 1790719935 · focus · HN ↗
    > because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
    Perhaps OP is more concerned with how humans interact with each other than Chromium/Firefox's hegemony.
    Defletter · 1790727296 · focus · HN ↗
    > Perhaps OP is more concerned with how humans interact with each other than Chromium/Firefox's hegemony.
    Fair enough.
    > Perhaps combating the hegemony is only worthwhile to OP if the incumbent treats its users with equal respect.
    The issue arose from a pronoun PR, which I regard as disrespectful towards contributors. One can speculate whether that'll trickle down to the users, but I'd imagine most users being unaware of this drama going on behind the scenes.
    > OP described that they researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it.
    Did they? Where?
    > When you point out that every person at Mozilla may not behave the same way, it misses OP's point. He's not interacting with the Mozilla community - he's interacting with Debian's Iceweasel community.
    Misses the point? It was the entire point: my question about which browser they use was me probing as to whether they impose the same standards universally. It only takes a rudely-dismissed pronoun PR for them to boycott the software entirely. Contrast this with PolyMC for example which was coup'd by its owner over pride-flag emojis in its Discord: the issue was not just his unsavoury opinions and statements, no, the issue was primarily that an auto-updating application was now in sole control of someone who'd just demonstrated themselves as someone who acts impulsively and irrationally.
    But if all it takes is a rudely-dismissed pronoun PR to enact a boycott, that implies an incredibly small tolerance for human failures and thus a correspondingly small selection of options for any kind of software, or hardware, etc. And they have an inalienable right to do that. But I feel I am also within my rights to scrutinise that.
    > I'm not sure it was an attack on your character. > then devolves into an attack
    You're unsure whether their ad hominem was an attack on my character, but you are certain that me questioning their boycott was an attack? Huh?
    > whether it's dependencies support OP's views
    Okay, let's say that I do the same thing: I fork Ladybird and give it a new name (Ladybug) and a new icon. Maybe I swap out the IO library for whatever reason. Does that free Ladybug from upstream's drama? Can 1attice now safely use Ladybug knowing that it respects human rights because Ladybird is a mere dependency?
    radlad · 1790832251 · focus · HN ↗
    > Okay, let's say that I do the same thing: I fork Ladybird and give it a new name (Ladybug) and a new icon. Maybe I swap out the IO library for whatever reason. Does that free Ladybug from upstream's drama? Can 1attice now safely use Ladybug knowing that it respects human rights because Ladybird is a mere dependency?
    Once again, you seem to be missing the point. It's not a mater of moral purity. OP is interested in projects where they feel welcome in the community: to submit bugs, to contribute, to use the tool. DHH's views on race - and pronouns - make that difficult for some people: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey...
    While I don't personally submit pull requests to change documentation which refers to users with male pronouns, I do always find it jarring and confusing when I come across gendered language in that context. I guess the best way to put it is that I find it "illogical" and so I double-take. In technical documentation, it seems sensible to reduce confusion through accurate terminology, politics aside. So, DHH's stance that using a non-gendered term for a userbase that consists of more than one gender is woke "politics", seems to me to be it's own form of virtue signaling - virtues which make me feel unwelcome contributing.
    > You're unsure whether their ad hominem was an attack on my character, but you are certain that me questioning their boycott was an attack? Huh?
    I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem, especially in the this context: in this thread you criticize "the usual moralistic response" in defense of "combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony" - a technical goal. You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
    > amoral: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
    You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions like this:
    > > What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact. It's why JK Rowling is so hated but not Orson Scott Card: the latter is likely giving just as money money to objectionable causes but he's not being loud about it [anymore], whereas JK Rowling is being loud... very loud. And so buying Harry Potter merch becomes a litmus test for morality, but not buying Ender's Game merch. Alas.
    When OP and others explained their views on how they evaluate projects, you haven't shown an intention to understand them, but rather to seemingly prove them illogical. It's OK to disagree - not everything is a competition.
    Defletter · 1790837833 · focus · HN ↗
    > I do always find it jarring and confusing when I come across gendered language in that context.
    While I genuinely do not object to gender neutral language, I often find the opposite to be true: it's extremely obvious when gendered pronouns have been lazily replaced. For example, "If the Minister consults the Commission before they issue a direction, they must notify the Board before they take any further action." Who is "they" in this scenario? And is each "they" referring to the same entity? What this made-up example demonstrates is that, very often, switching to gender neutral language often requires you to rewrite and restructure the text, rather than merely find-and-replacing he/him/his with they/them/theirs. Though wrt to the specific Ladybird PR in question, it really was that simple.
    Steel-manning the argument, I can understand a general aversion to updating language just for the sake of updating language: nothing is being added, clarified, or elaborated on. It's not like the section was rewritten to include a new feature and the rewrite used gender-neutral language. If anything, one could easily accuse the PR of being an attempt to pad a resume.
    That being said, I do want to reiterate that Kling was being an absolute chud for rejecting the PR the way he did.
    ====
    > I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem
    Ah, the "just asking questions" defence. Wonderful.
    ====
    > You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
    Fun fact, saying someone is without morals is also an ad hominem attack.
    ====
    > You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions
    Yes? Me stating an assumption based on demonstrated behaviour is part of questioning their boycott.
    ====
    > When OP and others explained how they evaluate projects
    Okay, this is the second time you've referenced conversations that have not taken place within this thread, so let me remind you of the flow of the conversation with 1attice thus far:
    > I'm excited for ladybird to reach alpha
    > [flagged comment that said something approximating "I don't use browsers that don't respect human rights"]
    > Fair enough. Which browser are you currently using?
    > Iceweasel
    > And you are certain that its maintainers comply with your requirements?
    > Yes. [later edited to repeat the "yes" and state that I might be amoral]
    > From what I can tell, Iceweasel is more or less a reskinned Firefox: there's some code changes to make it compatible with Debian's licensing guidelines, but it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to describe Iceweasel as 'Firefox for Debian'. And so are you also certain that the maintainers of Firefox comply with your requirements?
    At no point during this exchange did they explain that they "researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it" or "explained how they evaluate projects" (both quoting you). In fact, prior to their comment editing, both of their answers to my questions were single-word responses. So once again I must insist that you actually show me these comments where they supposably said these things, because I cannot find these comments from 1attice anywhere in the comments or on their profile, so I'm starting to doubt their existence.
    radlad · 1790956004 · focus · HN ↗
    > Ah, the "just asking questions" defence. Wonderful.
    I didn't ask a question, nor lean on it as a defense. That was your defense from the last reply.
    I don't think we're going to see eye to eye, but it was nice chatting with you.
    Defletter · 1790961297 · focus · HN ↗
    The "just asking questions" defence is most exemplified by this South Park clip: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKsfJHZ9vXE" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKsfJHZ9vXE. But the concept is not confined to questions: it describes how attackers hedge their disparaging statements. "You might be amoral, some of us give a fsck" is so obviously an example of this that it feels asinine discussing it at all: it feels like trying to convince someone that "and" is a conjunction. I even fed the exchange into ChatGPT and asked what it thought "the 'just asking questions' defence" meant and it understood it without issue. I can even paste the output if you want. And let me be clear, I understand the distinction between amoral and immoral: it's still a personal attack. And I'm assuming the HN mods agree because their comment is still flagged.
    brewdad · 1790649823 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have any proof they don't?
    oblio · 1790632401 · focus · HN ↗
    What's the story?
    bodge5000 · 1790633682 · focus · HN ↗
    Ladybird have a "no politics" stance by the looks of things, what that really means is kind of up to you. Here's an article about it further, I'm biased against it and so is this article so take that as you will:
    <a href="https://kvibber.com/reviews/software/ladybird-inclusivity/" rel="nofollow">https://kvibber.com/reviews/software/ladybird-inclusivity/
    Also I'm seeing comments suggesting that the lead behind it, Andreas Kling, is quite openly on the DHH side of things
    brewdad · 1790649949 · focus · HN ↗
    In 2026, no politics usually means "we don't want you digging too deep into ours". Ask Ed Sheeran how well "no politics" works out.
    veeti · 1790661284 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean the guy whose concerts went on as planned, and the online slacktivists screaming literal baby murderer at him have already moved on to the next $thing?
    glenstein · 1790692556 · focus · HN ↗
    Check again, his concerts did not go on after all.
    Defletter · 1790633843 · focus · HN ↗
    Seems like Kling is a wee bit of a chud. The claim about human rights likely stems from the "trans rights are human rights" mantra and is likely is reference to this (<a href="https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814) where Kling accused a contributor of bringing "personal politics" to the project for changing one instance of "he" to "they" in a markdown file. Since then he has, for example, apparently gone on to complain about anti-white discrimination in the workplace (<a href="https://x.com/awesomekling/status/1874518295350837401" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/awesomekling/status/1874518295350837401).
    For what it's worth, the perpetually-offended progressive has become an annoying stock character in our culture. At risk of falling for Poe's Law, the commentor on that PR who said "The denial of non-male users and/or developers is sufficient reason to not use SerenityOS" is a perfect example of this. Another more contemporary example would be the seething outrage over Last Ditch Bar's new mask-optional Saturdays.
    kbelder · 1790639514 · focus · HN ↗
    >Last Ditch Bar's new mask-optional Saturdays.
    Wow, hadn't heard of that dustup. People are crazy. I guess they always have been, but... wow.
    [deleted] · 1790632505 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    efilife · 1790632607 · focus · HN ↗
    This is vague. Care to elaborate on the accusation?
    Ok, I researched this. A PR that changed one word in a string - he to they was rejected 5 years ago (first and only PR of that person)
    <a href="https://kvibber.com/reviews/software/ladybird-inclusivity/" rel="nofollow">https://kvibber.com/reviews/software/ladybird-inclusivity/
    <a href="https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5823666/ladybird-web-browser-developer-attacked-by-unhinged-dishonest-activists" rel="nofollow">https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5823666/ladybird-web-browser...
    efilife · 1790744720 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    gamblor956 · 1790632948 · focus · HN ↗
    I originally had an comment about how the creators did support human rights but then I did more reading. While Kling is trying to be neutral with respect to this particular project, his (personal) politics outside of the project would have placed him in the extreme far right a decade ago (by U.S. standards, so ever further right by European standards).
    baggy_trough · 1790634091 · focus · HN ↗
    Can you give some examples of these "extreme far right" beliefs, by which I assume you must mean beliefs that are so extreme that something like only 1% of the most right wing parts of the population could believe them?
5. philipallstar · 1790626713 · focus · HN ↗
  > A browser built on the Chromium project is riding on top of that elephant trying to tell it where to go.
  You can give away all the insanely expensive base software to build a browser and you'll still get blamed for not encouraging enough competition.
  1. eukara · 1790627143 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks KHTML and the KDE Project!
  2. kibwen · 1790628344 · focus · HN ↗
    Chromium being open-source is a red herring here. The web is not an application, it is a protocol between clients and servers. Google has immense influence on both sides of that protocol, and regularly attempts to use that influence in an anticompetitive way. Chromium being open source just means you can fork the client, but that gives you essentially no influence over the web as a protocol; if Google wants to take the web in a direction that your fork doesn't agree with (e.g. adding new APIs that you don't want to support or getting rid of APIs that you do), then you're out of luck regardless of your ability to compile the code.
    philipallstar · 1790632998 · focus · HN ↗
    What are the two sides of the protocol?
    ahartmetz · 1790633286 · focus · HN ↗
    Browsers and websites / web servers.
    philipallstar · 1790678533 · focus · HN ↗
    How do they control the "web servers" side?
    throw0101a · 1790682687 · focus · HN ↗
    Youtube, Gmail, Google Docs, Google Drive.
    How many organizations and individuals use, and depend on, those services for their livelihood?
    bmacho · 1790666011 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    feelamee · 1790639322 · focus · HN ↗
    and? How does this all matter when you choose a web browser engine? You can write your own, but you still have this problem. So, this is not an argument against chromium at all.
    glenstein · 1790692124 · focus · HN ↗
    I think they already answered this but their explanation simply bounced off you. When your market position and control over development is dominant you can steer the web in self-interested ways that hurt users and hurt the independence of the web as an ecosystem. That's a perfectly legitimate answer to your Q and it's basically stuff they already said the first time around.
    You can't really replicate that unless you're a trillion dollar company that chooses software defaults on billions of devices and have the world's most visited website.
  3. glenstein · 1790691936 · focus · HN ↗
    Look up "embrace, extend, extinguish"
6. AbstractH24 · 1790628680 · focus · HN ↗
  Main reason I keep using Brave is its "good enfough."
  The CTO at my company recommended Brave in 2019; I figured why not and have found a compelling reason to change.
  The "elephant in the room" paragraph actually is making me consider Vivaldi. Its still Chromium, so it will support all my plugins, and I use NextDNS so most of ads will be blocked anyway. And its not like its amazing, but I've just never heard anyone rave of a browser that was particularly efficent either.
7. feelamee · 1790639457 · focus · HN ↗
  what problem with chromium?
8. billbrown · 1790644341 · focus · HN ↗
  WebKit-based is probably the next best alternative. I switched to Orion from Brave and have _mostly_ been pleased with it. (I do miss the Chrome DevTools but eventually I'll get used to these.)
  <a href="https://orionbrowser.com/" rel="nofollow">https://orionbrowser.com/
sehw · 1790612269 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
cpburns2009 · 1790612273 · focus · HN ↗
FFS people the "crypto" shit is all opt-in. It's not enabled by default. Don't mindlessly regurgitate disinformation. Yes, Brave does show ads in the new tab page by default just like Chrome and Firefox.
jcmontx · 1790612663 · focus · HN ↗
I use Arc, I tried moving to Zen and to Safari, but I always end up coming back for the goddamn Google Meet PIP feature
benjaminkiefl · 1790612740 · focus · HN ↗
"Yes yes yes. Brave was founded by an absolute scumbag."
The linked source cites: "...a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8, which called for the banning of same-sex marriage in California, and donations in the amount of $2,100 to Proposition 8 supporter Tom McClintock between 2008 and 2010."
I assume Brendan Eich was already relatively wealthy at the time and that these donations represented a modest fraction of his income. Whatever happened to some nuance in public discourse? How do people who condemn someone’s character so categorically over donations made roughly 18 years ago function in a workplace with diverse opinions,...
... or for that matter, navigate society?
1. Drupon · 1790612885 · focus · HN ↗
  Do moralities expire like tomatoes left on the counter?
2. assimpleaspossi · 1790613139 · focus · HN ↗
  In my case, I find it doesn't matter to me or, often, anyone I know. So the conclusion becomes I don't care and my only concern is if it is useful to me.
  It's also why I avoid almost all social platforms and, if I land on one accidentally, I look at headlines alone--rarely the comments.
  Oh! Damn it!
3. Capricorn2481 · 1790613308 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
4. TimTheTinker · 1790614946 · focus · HN ↗
  > a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8
  The woke/cancel culture crowd (none of whom knew him personally) went after him with a vengeance in 2014, but there were LGBT and LGBT-allied co-workers of his at the time who were aghast at the outrage. Here are three examples I could find online just now [0][1][2]
  [0] <a href="https://subfictional.com/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/" rel="nofollow">https://subfictional.com/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/
  [1] <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150202162458/http://words.tofumatt.com/2014/03/26/on-including-the-uninclusive/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20150202162458/http://words.tofu...
  [2] <a href="https://medium.com/@__davidflanagan/for-the-record-7645a4bf8a2" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@__davidflanagan/for-the-record-7645a4bf8...
  1. cholantesh · 1790618813 · focus · HN ↗
    None of the three authors you are citing here knew him personally, either, and none of them seem to be particularly 'aghast'.
    BrendanEich · 1791052696 · focus · HN ↗
    I knew Christie and David and worked with both while at Mozilla.
5. n4r9 · 1790615739 · focus · HN ↗
  Tbf opposing gay marriage is quite an extreme opinion in much of the developed world. I suspect Eich's position on the matter is tied to his Roman Catholic faith, so although he showed a certain level of remorse in 2014, he never actually came out in support of gay marriage. He then later spread misinformation about mask-wearing during COVID, including suggestions that people could die from wearing a mask.
  1. bluecalm · 1790616804 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think it's fair to call it "extreme". Small minority in some countries, minority in most and about half of the population in some is imo a fair assessment. Even in USA it looks more like 70-30 if I am reading the polls correctly.
    Capricorn2481 · 1790627883 · focus · HN ↗
    > I don't think it's fair to call it "extreme". Small minority in some countries
    What does that matter? I would expect us to not care about a small minority doing something everyone else does. Not to actively legislate against their right to do it. If anything, this makes it more extreme.
    pessimizer · 1790636866 · focus · HN ↗
    It matters because it was a reply to someone indicating that it was an extreme opinion. The truth shouldn't only matter when it's on your side.
    And when you convince somebody with a lie, and they later find out you were lying, you've probably lost them forever. Not smart.
    Capricorn2481 · 1790642594 · focus · HN ↗
    I asked why the size of the minority matters, not why you care what that person is saying.
    bluecalm · 1790663136 · focus · HN ↗
    The point is that it's not an extreme position when significant minority in most developed countries (small in some, about half in others) doesn't agree. This was also majority position 2-3 decades ago. The world didn't change enough since them for mainstream majority moral positions back then to be called extreme today.
    n4r9 · 1790670742 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  2. andrewla · 1790626136 · focus · HN ↗
    Prop 8, the anti-gay-marriage proposition that Eich donated money to support, passed with 52% of the vote.
    Eich never clarified his position (nor did he retract it nor apologize) so we have literally no idea what aspect of this he supported along with 52% of the population of California.
    xienze · 1790629990 · focus · HN ↗
    > Prop 8, the anti-gay-marriage proposition that Eich donated money to support, passed with 52% of the vote.
    I'm sure you'll eventually have someone chime in here that the proposition was "misleading" and there were "disinformation campaigns" that resulted in this 52% figure, AKA "doesn't count, we know what the vote 'should have been'." People forget that Obama famously stated "marriage is between a man and a woman" in 2008 (was he lying to appeal to more voters? Possibly, but the fact is he said it). It was a very mainstream opinion at the time.
    lern_too_spel · 1790641534 · focus · HN ↗
    > was he lying to appeal to more voters?
    He very clearly was. He directed DOJ not to defend DOMA Section 3, and it fell in the courts, just like all the civil rights promoters wanted. If he hadn't been elected, it would have taken longer. That's why we forgive him for lying. We aren't stupid.
    He also publicly identified as Christian, though he wrote that his parents and grandparents are nonbelievers.
    xienze · 1790641898 · focus · HN ↗
    So are we just going to ignore the reason why he felt like he had to lie about it? Because it was a very mainstream opinion at the time?
    lern_too_spel · 1790642240 · focus · HN ↗
    It is not a mainstream opinion anymore, but Eich still holds it, and unlike Obama, hasn't apologized for it. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49886276">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49886276
    xienze · 1790642583 · focus · HN ↗
    First, I think you're gonna find it's not exactly a sub-single digit opinion today either. Second, the left tends to be extremely selective about who they forgive. Chick-fil A has done their apologies, stopped their donations, the whole song and dance and there's still a burning hatred for them. What's he got to gain at this point? People have made up their mind on him and all the performative apologies in the world won't get him back in anyone's good graces.
    lern_too_spel · 1790654719 · focus · HN ↗
    > First, I think you're gonna find it's not exactly a sub-single digit opinion today either.
    I never claimed otherwise. For that matter, a double digit percentage of people still think that interracial marriage should be forbidden. I'm smarter than to be on the wrong side of that debate. Eich isn't. Are you?
    > Chick-fil A has done their apologies
    They never apologized, and they famously kept donating to anti-LGBT political charities after they said they stopped.
    > What's he got to gain at this point?
    Self respect. It's normal to apologize when you've wronged somebody.
6. bluecalm · 1790616569 · focus · HN ↗
  The now popular trend of "if you don't agree with my politics and/or are not loud enough supporting my positions then you are Nazi/scumbag/fascist".
  Hopefully AI help us find a cure for that mind virus one day.
  1. bigfishrunning · 1790626784 · focus · HN ↗
    AI is training on angry X/Reddit/Facebook posts, I'm sure it'll only make this problem worse.
7. TiredOfLife · 1790626202 · focus · HN ↗
  Same way Muslim or russian immigrants integrate. By forcing their opinion on everybody else.
  1. eukara · 1790675835 · focus · HN ↗
    expressing oneself != forcing ones opinion on another
8. eukara · 1790675771 · focus · HN ↗
  It's called having values
nazgulsenpai · 1790612921 · focus · HN ↗
I originally used Brave for mobile because I could watch YouTube with the display turned off or unfocused and it not interrupt playback and, of course, blocked adds. I quickly adopted it on desktop and everywhere else.
The sync works really well, and all of the added "features" can be easily disabled.
chaosharmonic · 1790612921 · focus · HN ↗
> It's worth stating that things not working isn't the fault of Firefox. It's developers not testing their web apps with Firefox, since it has such a small market share.
Um. As a developer who frequently switches between them, it's both. There are animation issues on some of my own stuff that are specific to FF and that I haven't been able to pin down yet. (It's low priority because I'm considering reworking the whole frontend in something other than React anyway and I haven't ruled out this being some state or ref related bug.)
The whole point of initiatives like Interop has been to make browsers' rendering and other functionality more consistent.
seaal · 1790612989 · focus · HN ↗
Brave has the best filter lists built into a blocker. Between Bypass Paywalls Clean Filters and Brave Experimental Adblock rules for blocking twitch.tv ads, it's just the best option for most people.
Giving away Brave Origin for free on Linux is just the cherry on top.
1. Cider9986 · 1790628404 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
drnick1 · 1790613510 · focus · HN ↗
I won't be using Brave until it is built and packaged by a mainstream Linux distribution, following a process I can trust. I absolutely do not trust Brave's binaries. The company has a history of deceiving users (it was caught injecting affiliate links) and is openly hostile to forks, very ironically. The fact that it comes bundled with crapware is concerning enough.
1. m4xp · 1790623448 · focus · HN ↗
  Is it just me that think injecting affiliate is fair game? I hate with a passion all the sponsor segments everyone has now, grifting for something they pretend to use. I find it better if that affiliate money goes to a product i actually use and makes my life better. Brave origin is that, it solved my issue i had with regular brave. And i tried firefoz based browser but they are not up to par, they work for basic browsing, but struggle with video playback of jellyfin, some dont even have option to use mt own serxng service as search engine
  1. drnick1 · 1790653886 · focus · HN ↗
    > but struggle with video playback of jellyfin, some dont even have option to use mt own serxng service as search engine
    I happen to use both Jellyfind and Searxng, both self-hosted, and Firefox does not struggle with either. The issue is probably elsewhere.
2. vovavili · 1790626169 · focus · HN ↗
  It's open-source so you can just compile it yourself.
3. OrderlyTiamat · 1790661810 · focus · HN ↗
  Brave took crypto donations in name of creators who didn't know about or signed up for their project. Not a lawyer, but this is straight up fraud.
  "the elephant in the room" is that this is a scam company.
  The idea that you'd ever trust someone with "privacy" when they do that crap is ludicrous.
popularonion · 1790613609 · focus · HN ↗
I’m a Brave user, but I really never really understood how do they make money? Does anyone actually use or care about BAT (the crypto token)?
I haven’t heard anyone mention it in years besides “the crypto thing in Brave that everyone turns off”
1. bsergean · 1790630669 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
Capricorn2481 · 1790613962 · focus · HN ↗
The author has a lot to say about firefox [1]. I use it and don't really have problems. Maybe 1/200 sites works not as well. I have had wayyy more issues on Safari.
It seems like most of their criticisms are a gut feeling of declining quality due to their intentions with AI. I don't love that, but the browser still works for me. What do other people think?
[1] <a href="https://kevquirk.com/is-firefox-firefucked" rel="nofollow">https://kevquirk.com/is-firefox-firefucked
Haven880 · 1790618099 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
yipinwong · 1790626371 · focus · HN ↗
nowadays, it's just one thing that catches one's interest that sticks.
I use edge sometimes, chrome once in awhile, FF etc.
Never do I use brave ever because one incident I forgot about (not about the founder), and it was good enough reason not to go back.
Trannosaur · 1790626603 · focus · HN ↗
Isn't the problem with Brave, even after his departure that they keep making suss decisions? Over and over and over? Like they can keep apologising but if they keep making suss anti-privacy decisions, well, they can't really be trusted can they?
philipallstar · 1790626606 · focus · HN ↗
> it raised my heckles even more
Hackles.
1. gib444 · 1790626691 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
jasonvorhe · 1790629734 · focus · HN ↗
> The elephant in the room
It's been 12 years and people are still making a fuss about a dude spending 8k(!) on politics some disagree with.
Incredible. I wish we'd hold other people in higher positions to such a standard.
1. fishgoesblub · 1790630348 · focus · HN ↗
  Not agreeing with Eich, but it's interesting that he is the one who gets so much hate for Prop 8, being kicked out of Mozilla for it, even though it passed in California with 7 million votes.
  1. grepex · 1790632652 · focus · HN ↗
    The true elephant in the room is that this guy gave us freaking JavaScript!
    silisili · 1790635676 · focus · HN ↗
    This may be the first cause cause for canceling someone I could get behind...
  2. lern_too_spel · 1790641097 · focus · HN ↗
    California then thought better of it. Eich hasn't.
    Brendan refused to apologize for the donation or even to acknowledge that it was wrong. Instead, he doubled down on it, saying in comments posted to this very forum that the gays kept asking for more and more rights, and he wasn't OK with that. It wasn't part of the "previous bargain." <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15966490">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15966490
    antonvs · 1790670885 · focus · HN ↗
    > California then thought better of it.
    The federal government forced California to change its law. A federal court struck down Prop 8 in 2010. California appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, and lost.
    lern_too_spel · 1790681041 · focus · HN ↗
    > California then thought better of it.
    California passed Proposition 3 to strike Proposition 8's changes from its constitution in 2024, by a convincing margin of over 25%. It passed the state legislature with no votes against.
    Contrast this with Proposition 8, which exit polls said had the support of 85% of McCain voters and 30% of Obama voters, passing with a margin of less than 5% in 2008.
    > California appealed that decision
    Proposition 8 proponents appealed that decision after California's AG and governor both said it should be struck down and refused to defend the California constitution for the first time in the state's history, backing the plaintiffs.
LeoPanthera · 1790630255 · focus · HN ↗
[delayed]
TECHBEAST2k · 1790630353 · focus · HN ↗
Normal Brave is so bloated with "features" I could never use it, but Brave Origin is the first browser in such a long time that actually stays out of my way and does its job well.
shmoobadge · 1790631830 · focus · HN ↗
I used Brave for a few years but stopped when they absolutely refused to even consider letting people turn off autoupdates. They got insulting about it after many requests in github. It got a big comedic/tragic.
rat_on_the_run · 1790635580 · focus · HN ↗
I tried to use Firefox. But it's just harder to use: (1) Cannot have multiple bookmarks open as tabs and stay in different location. (2) History is not actually history. The entries update instead of stay as a record. I honestly cannot understand the decision to make it like this. (3) A bug that lasted for years. I have thousands of bookmarks and I'm not sure if it's because of that, often when I add bookmarks in firefox, the dropdown menu would freeze. Tried Floorp, same issue. Don't know if they fixed it since I switched.
A few features of Brave that I find special and useful: (1) Built-in shortcut manager. One useful shortcut I use a lot is opening a new tab right below the current tab (I set it to Ctrl+E). (2) Containers, like in Firefox. I like to visit websites in temporary containers so that I can keep the history instead of not having it in private tabs. (3) Brave's Android app blocks YouTube ads very reliably. Sometimes the Morphy app gets blocked by YouTube temporarily and Brave comes in handy. No need to login. (4) Not a browser feature, but Brave search has improved a lot and often gives better results than google, especially in cases where google auto censors the results.
ivolimmen · 1790639458 · focus · HN ↗
I had the same issue and switched to Waterfox. I am very happy about it.
phantomathkg · 1790644390 · focus · HN ↗
> It's worth stating that things not working isn't the fault of Firefox. It's developers not testing their web apps with Firefox, since it has such a small market share.
Moving from Firefox to Brave does not help the vicious cycle either.
nirui · 1790645073 · focus · HN ↗
The "We won't sell you data, pinky promise..." argument from article <a href="https://kevquirk.com/is-firefox-firefucked" rel="nofollow">https://kevquirk.com/is-firefox-firefucked is reasonable, but if you're really hating AI ... well, Brave has their own AI called Leo, which is IMO even better implemented than Firefox's.
atlantabravessu · 1790653553 · focus · HN ↗
You couldn’t palantir me enough money to use brave. Ironic that the “privacy” focused browser has a peter thiel-sized backdoor.
shikck200 · 1790657084 · focus · HN ↗
> Criticise person X for being a "absolute scumbag"
> Yolo
> Switch to person X software anyway.
This is the most weak double standards i have seen in a while. IF you mock someone for what they did 10 years ago, have the balls to stand by it.
dexterlagan · 1790660688 · focus · HN ↗
When I found out Brave was just as sold as all the others (their track record is sad), I found Waterfox. What a breath of fresh air. Great adblocker, works on YT, no commercial BS. I hope they keep it that way.
Markoff · 1790671878 · focus · HN ↗
it makes no sense to switch from Vivaldi to Brave lacking any customization, with Vivaldi you can customize it as much you want, if you don't want, nobody forces you to, with Brave you don't have such option
I am still on Vivaldi and instead of switching from Vivaldi to Firefox I gave a try to uBlock Origin Lite and seems to work fine, the UI is much worse than uBO (I am especially missing easy switch to turn it off completely instead of disabling extension in browser settings), but can live with it, as much as I dislike Firefox (using it on mobile though) it's the only alternative I would move to from Vivaldi on desktop
Magicrafter13 · 1790789541 · focus · HN ↗
> It's developers not testing their web apps with Firefox, since it has such a small market share.
This is exactly why I still use Firefox. Brave is good, no doubt. I keep it installed for the blue moons where I want a Chromium browser for something.
But I refuse to contribute to the Chromium monopoly. Every time I use a Chromium browser, I'm telling web developers that its okay to discriminate against other browser engines (Firefox, Safari, Ladybird).
KetoManx64 · 1790795806 · focus · HN ↗
No mention of Brave Origin? They offer a one time payment paid option that removes the extra "bloat" that supports the company. Brave and Vivaldi are the only two browser companies I know of that let you directly donate to the browser itself. Mozilla does not allow you to direct your donation towards the browser.
<a href="https://brave.com/origin/" rel="nofollow">https://brave.com/origin/

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.