Comment on Why I recommend against Brave.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks agoHe didn’t push for any company policy change, didn’t advertise the donation, and didn’t use company funds (used personal funds), so it really shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
It’s everyone’s business that cares about those people.
How he votes or spends his personal money shouldn’t be relevant at all.
Using products from a company that benefits him is empowering him to do those things.
Brave should have worked with major websites to share revenue
That’s a monumental task. They would have had to create their own ad network similar to Google and then solicit every site on the web to participate.
they weren’t affiliated with the creator in any way.
Yes, that’s the problem.
Yeah, this is totally wrong, and they reversed course immediately.
Only because they got caught, and they didn’t refund any of the crypto they earned in the interim.
Mistakes happen.
When it comes to TOR, mistakes can be a matter of life and death. People only use TOR when they need complete anonymity.
they should have instead had a big warning when enabling this (e.g. many sites will break if you enable this).
They did indeed have exactly that. It said in the actual setting itself “Strict, may break sites”.
You probably wouldn’t like the CEO of any company whose products you like, so basing a decision of what product to use based on that is… dumb.
Not true. I like Our Lord Gaben. I like Meredith Whitaker. I like lots of CEOs.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
But is it though?
Believing that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be a government-supported institution isn’t the same as believing LGBT people are “invalid” or “wrong” or whatever.
For example, I personally oppose government-supported marriage entirely (despite being married myself) because I think marriage should be a religious/personal thing instead of an official government institution, and that we should replace it with a series of contracts that grant certain legal privileges (e.g. joint tax filing, power of attorney, etc) in an a la carte type setup (i.e. you may want to join finances w/ someone, but not give them hospital visitation rights). I think we should also allow more than two parties to enter into these agreements to cover a wide variety of unique living situations (e.g. you may want to joint file with a parent that you care for).
I don’t know Eich’s personal political views, and I honestly don’t care, as long as they don’t interfere with his role.
Not necessarily. For example, they could partner w/ someone like Axate, which basically does just this.
My understanding is that they can’t really do that, because the payments are anonymous. I could be mistaken though.
And if that applies to you, you should be very careful about the tools you use. Brave is a new thing and is relatively unproven. Use established, proven tools like Tor Browser.
Eh, I don’t really like Gabe Newell, but I certainly appreciate the investment into Linux. It just so happens our interests align more than they don’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if GabeN’s personal politics were quite conservative, because conservative policies generally benefit rich people like him (the closest I can see is maybe libertarian).
Meredith Whitaker is an absolute treasure, we don’t deserve her.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
How is it not?
I mean, legally, that’s what marriage is.
You don’t have to do either of those things just because you’re married. Marriage just gives you the option.
And what would they bring to this partnership?
You should be. But companies also should not be creating tools that propose to give you those protections when they’re not smart enough to. Just leave it to the professionals.
As long as he keeps his mouth shut about them and doesn’t financially support them, he’s doing worlds better than Mr. Eich.
Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Is it me or the people defending brave are homophobes too.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
Not just you, if they can ignore or defend Brave, they’re on the side of its CEO. No questions about it.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
It seems incredibly obvious to me. For example, here are some things I believe:
Personal beliefs about what government policy should be can be very different than personal beliefs about what is “good” and “bad.”
To be clear, I support same-sex marriage because it’s on the table and my preferred alternative has almost no shot of being considered. So I support it as a harm-reduction policy, not because I actually believe the government should actually regulate marriage.
Marriage is a basket of contracts (power of attorney, joint custody, financial obligations, etc), and it’s limited to two people, which is odd. The original intent seems to be to encourage procreation, but it’s hardly enforced at all, nor is that particularly important in most countries (except maybe Japan).
We should treat marriage similarly to corporations. If you want to call your civil partnership “marriage,” more power to you. If you want to call it being BF/GF, life partners, or whatever else, more power to you. The government should only care that you meet the requirements for whatever the benefit is.
In many (most?) states, it is enforced unless you specifically opt-out (e.g. a pre-nup). Laws certainly vary by state, but generally speaking, if you’re legally married, anything you earn in the marriage is considered joint assets, even if you keep them in separate accounts. In some areas, things you bring into the marriage are also jointly owned, unless they are never interacted with.
That’s why divorces are so messy, the couple could have agreed to keep things separate at the start, but without any evidence of that, it’s up to the courts to decide what’s fair. And pretty frequently, they’ll lean on the side of 50/50 for all assets, regardless of when it was acquired or what the understanding was.
Integration into the browser product, users, and marketing.
I’ve been wanting Firefox to do something like this so get more visibility w/ online services. I’d love to be able to load up an account balance and click “view article” and the website owner sucks a few pennies from that balance or whatever. But my only options are:
Axate provides more than that, but so few online services work w/ it. A browser could bring them a ton of visibility.
Agreed. But like I said, users request features, bugs happen, etc. At the end of the day, the responsibility is on the user to pick the right product for their needs. Brave isn’t that product for at-risk individuals until it has been vetted by actual security experts.
Eich did the first half of that, his only “sin” was that someone found out about his donation. That’s it. My understanding is that nobody was aware of it until someone dug into the donation records.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Got it, so being gay isn’t “wrong” or “invalid”, it’s just “bad”?
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. You might call it a “contract”.
They don’t need Brave for that. They need the website owners. If you’re talking about injecting Axate ads where Google and other ads already are, then we’re back to square 1 where you’re ripping off content creators from their revenue for their content.
The problem with doing that with fiat is that there are transfer fees. You’d essential be paying a $3 to transfer 5 cents. That’s why everyone uses crypto for this.
Users can request features all day, developers are the ones who have to implement them.
It’s a completely unnecessary bug from someone trying to replace a perfectly safe and secure tool with their own and build value for themselves. This isn’t just any bug. Like I said, people’s lives can hang in the balance in a very real way. They need to get it right or just stay the fuck away.
Bullshit. Both are responsible.
Then they shouldn’t have launched it.
Not good enough.
Spectrism@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
That’s great and all, but we don’t live in those times yet. Not granting people the right to marry whoever they want in current times based on the premise that we should change the marital law somewhere in the future is still nothing short of discrimination. And let’s not forget that Eich supported a campaign that was very explicitly against gay marriage, not the current concept of marriage altogether. Weak argument.
That’s what marriage already is for the most part in many parts of the world. And in those cases, the resulting financial disadvantage for example also makes it more apparent, why being against gay marriage is not just about names on a piece of paper.
How empathetic of you. Might as well support Josef Mengele with that attitude. A bit more personal responsibility couldn’t hurt.
Well, last I checked it’s just another ERC-20 Token and not a new Monero, so I have my doubts about that. I also assume that they must keep transaction logs somewhere to keep track of the amount of BAT donated to a creator. But I can’t be sure either.
It’s also kind of useless for Brave to have implemented Tor in the first place. Even if Brave matures further, there’s basically no reason not to use the Tor Browser for its intended purpose.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I never claimed it was. I merely gave an example of how opposition to something doesn’t necessarily indicate opposition to the people it’s intending to help.
For the record, I support same-sex marriage, on the grounds that my preferred policy (which would open up marriage to more than just same-sex couples) is unlikely to get traction anytime soon, so something is better than nothing. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.
However, I have friends who oppose same-sex marriage and don’t hate gay people (in fact, they’re good friends with LGBT people). The world isn’t black and white, so we shouldn’t assume someone is a Nazi just because they believe a couple of the same things Nazis do. That’s a logical fallacy, and it does way more harm than good.
Exactly, and I’m arguing that those benefits shouldn’t be bundled. I’ve known couples that want to share custody but not finances, or maybe visitation rights but not power of attorney. Relationships are complicated, and I think the institution of marriage is outdated. We spend tons of time and money on divorces and prenuptial agreements, and I think that could be dramatically simplified if we separated out the specific agreements and let people pick which they want.
Marriage should be a religious/personal thing, not a legal one. Whether you want to consider yourself married shouldn’t depend on a piece of paper in much the same way that your chosen gender shouldn’t.
That’s quite the logical leap.
I don’t know, and honestly it doesn’t matter.
My preferred form of record keeping is GNU Taler. You’d load a wallet to pay for articles or whatever and the browser vendor would use a very cheap form of accounting to keep track of purchases, and lump payments to websites together with payments from other users. Taler is nice in that it protects the privacy of the purchaser, has cryptographic protections without the complexity of P2P verification (and none of the ecological impact), and is pretty easy to understand. The vendor could even audit transactions if they want without violating the privacy of the user.
But honestly, I don’t care what mechanism they use, whether crypto or some form of centralized wallet. I just want to be able to pay to remove ads without needing a million accounts.
I disagree. There’s value in having a second rendering engine in case a website doesn’t work on Tor Browser. It’s unlikely to have similar protections (e.g. finger printing resistance), but it could work in a pinch for a site you need to access that doesn’t work on Gecko for whatever reason.
That said, you could probably achieve that by pointing the browser at a running Tor service (e.g. Orbot on Android). You’d need to be extra careful about things like DNS (which Brave got wrong), but it’s an option. Having it bundled is nice though.