Brave acquires Tailcat search engine; will offer search results without profiling users
Brave Software has acquired the Tailcat search engine, to step up the competition with Google Search. Tailcat will be integrated in to Brave Browser, as Brave Search.
Brave Search is intended to be an alternative for Google Search, while being a privacy-focused service that does not collect IP addresses or personal information, and won't track users.
So, this sounds similar to DuckDuckGo. But there are quite a few differences.
What is Brave Search?
Brave says that Search will serve the user first, in other words it is not devoid of ads. Instead of tracking users with personalized ads, Brave Search will employ non-targeted ads. If you're familiar with the Brave Browser, you may have noticed how the user ads work. The browser displays random sponsored ads (non-personalized, ad campaigns) which when viewed earns you some BATs (Basic Attention Tokens. Brave says it is working on private ads which will be delivered via search. There are plans to offer Brave Rewards with Search, so this could be another way to earn more BATs.
There will be two tiers in Brave Search; an ad-free premium search, while the other will be an ad-supported search as described above. Brave claims that it will provide unbiased search results without forced censorship or biased algorithms, unlike other services which have been criticized and have often been hit by lawsuits, for promoting specific results.
Tailcat is a search engine that was developed by Cliqz. You may have heard of the Cliqz browser, it was a fork of Mozilla Firefox, and was focused on privacy and included a custom search engine. Mozilla invested in Cliqz back in 2016, but a year later Cliqz (the company behind it) acquired the popular privacy-focused extension, Ghostery. Four years later, in 2020, Cliqz was shut down. The browser's built-in search engine was the first to display search suggestions and top search results as the search query was being typed in the address bar. The important part here is that the search engine delivered results, while protecting the privacy of the user.
You may know this already, but DuckDuckGo's search suggestions (Autosuggest) are powered by Microsoft's Bing, Yahoo, etc. In fact, it has hundreds of sources. Tailcat on the other hand is an independent search engine, i.e., it doesn't rely on Bing, Google, etc, it has its own index. This is just an educated guess, but these are likely the features that made Brave Software want to acquire Tailcat.
Brave Search isn't available for users yet, you can join the waitlist by visiting https://brave.com/search/.
You will have the option to choose the search engine of your choice in Brave Browser, that's not surprising as anti-trust laws practically guarantee that users have multiple options. But more interestingly, the announcement says Brave Search will be available on other browsers as well. So, we could use it in Firefox, Vivaldi, Chrome, Edge, etc.
I'm not a fan of Ghostery or Brave for that matter (though I'm intrigued by its recent developments), is it a browser that also happens to have a cryptocurrency associated with it? Or is it the other way around? Regardless of that, having an unbiased, independent, open ranking alternative to a dominant Big Tech based service does sound good on paper, but only time will tell how Brave Search turns out to be.
Will this section surpass 200 comments in the first day? 0_0
Depends on the amount of FUD and misinformation spread, I guess. One comment already started with it.
> Will this section surpass 200 comments in the first day? 0_0
It could be even more when the “Hate Mob” and the defenders of the one true browser really start posting. :))))))
Ahh yes, the mythical “internet mob” … their manifesto clearly outlines hate for potatoes such as Iron Heart
> potatoes such as Iron Heart
…are still informed enough to refute your nonsense with ease.
“And as the frequent persuasive bullshitters were also more over-confident in their intellectual abilities, they could be seen as experiencing their own Dunning-Kruger type effect, and suffer from a â€œbullshit blindspotâ€, the researchers add.”
Still playing the victim
> There will be two tiers in Brave Search; an ad-free premium search
Advertising platform Brave acquires search engine, to offer ad-free version for MONEY. For those who do not pay (the majority), adverts will be shown which nets Brave Search more MONEY. And those who use BATSHITS, create even more MONEY for Brave by allowing them to hijack the ads and extort even more.
Brave is an advertising platform first and foremost, not a browser. It’s just chromium with gimmicks – an adblocker so they can detect ads to hijack for extortion, allows large amounts of whitelisting in trackers of the biggest players, adds a useless Tor mode that defeats anonymity as it is highly fingerprintable, sticks adverts in your start page, steals your telemetry including Tor usage (WTF), took money on behalf of content creators who knew nothing about it, promotes it’s own BATSHIT in web content via injection (WTF!), comes with a sickening gradient orange-pink color scheme that puts amateurs to shame, and any gullible person wanting their BATSHITS has to give up their privacy.
And never forget just how low they will go: deliberately planned and engineered for scaling, to hijack typed urls in the urlbar which no other browser has even done.
There is more, but for fucks sake, this is an advertising company. It is funded by venture capitalists. The users are the product.
Brave does not care about privacy: it is being hijacked, like everything else they do, as a marketing gimmick to suck in non-technical users (like Iron Heart).
>> Brave is an advertising platform first and foremost, not a browser.
Pretty much sums it up.
Brave is an advertising company. Their sole purpose is to hold content creators hostage by hijacking their ads to extort money as a ticket-clipping useless middleman. They must be salivating at the mouth at google’s FLoC as yet another means to monetize their users
“Brave is an advertising company”
Brendan Eich, the founder and CEO of Brave, assures us that putting his referrer links into URLs that users typed in, to try to get people to click through accidentally, is all completely upright and above-board
– source: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269289242905042944
No other browser has ever HIJACKED TYPED URLS
Then Eich is very sorry that Brave got caught again… says it is a now a mistake
Mistake? Bull shit: scaled for even more monetizing and hijacking or typed urls
Also, Brave was caught in December 2018 asking for donations on behalf of other people without telling them
Anything for money because they are a for-profit advertising platform
I debunked this in my reply to the main hate comment directed at Brave, no need to repeat the lies and misinformation spread here.
> No other browser has ever HIJACKED TYPED URLS
Other browsers add their own referrals to search queries:
“The Mozilla Corporation’s relationship with Google has been noted in the popular press, especially with regard to their paid referral agreement.”
There’s no fundamental difference here, search websites are the same as any other website. And “hijacked”… Brave and Binance are officially partners for all to see, you frame this like this was totally unknown, which it was not. It was never a privacy issue for users, contrary to this shit, when Firefox got hijacked with spyware crap by Mozilla:
When proven hypocrites here talk about “hijacking”, I rarely see this very real issue being brought up, why is that? Hm… I wonder.
> Other browsers add their own referrals to search queries:
search queries are NOT typed urls. Stop being a dick and man up to the fact that Brave does shitty things.
WTF does cliqz have to do with Brave HIJACKING urls and acting like a tax collector, sorry i mean thief imposter, for unsuspecting content creators
> search queries are NOT typed urls.
Ah, so? Did you know that any search query generates a related URL after you press enter? Ever looked at the URL bar at the search results page?
> Stop being a dick and man up to the fact that Brave does shitty things.
I think you should man up to the fact that there is zero technical difference here and that you are thus a hypocrite.
> WTF does cliqz have to do with Brave HIJACKING urls
Firefox got hijacked with spyware that exfiltrated visited websites and website interaction data from users, while Brave was using a referral on Binance just like Firefox does with Google, the referral being totally unrelated to user privacy in both cases. You ignore the former and ride the latter to death = hypocrisy.
> sorry i mean thief imposter, for unsuspecting content creators
Nothing was “stolen”, it was a simple bug (that has long been resolved, btw) and all monetary matters were cleared up to everyone’s satisfaction. Again, grow up.
> Did you know that any search query…
search queries are NOT typed urls. No other browser has ever HIJACKED typed urls… only Brave, because users do not matter, only money matters
> just like Firefox does with Google
BULLSHIT. type google.com into the urlbar in Firefox and hit enter. Firefox has never fucked with typed urls, unlike Brave
> Firefox got hijacked with spyware that exfiltrated visited websites
BULLSHIT. You are deluded beyond help.
How much does Eich pay you for this crap? You own Brave dude who worked at Cliqz says “Mozilla never did such a thing. The browsing history was never sent in any shape or form”.
> search queries are NOT typed urls
URLs are URLs, there are no “typed URLs” as a different class of URLs, a trumped up difference of input is no technical difference at all.
> because users do not matter, only money matters
The damage for users was… what exactly? It’s not privacy for sure.
You help Mozilla get money from their overlords by using Google (count per search), Brave users help Brave get money from Binance (count per visit), no fundamental difference here. Only in your mind.
> BULLSHIT. You are deluded beyond help.
I am referring to this incident:
It rather seems like you are deluded, or what is more likely, a huge hypocrite.
> I am referring to this incident
That’s the same bullshit. Just pointing at different links you quickly google up, doesn’t make any of it change. How many days between mentions of Cliqz can you go? Have you ever managed more than a week? Three years of spreading crap. Time to let it go. Talk to someone.
Your own Brave dude who worked at Cliqz says â€œMozilla never did such a thing. The browsing history was never sent in any shape or formâ€.
What you write is the very definition of coping, in my book. Accept the realities and move on.
> zero technical difference here
Still being a * [Editor: removed]. There is a very real technical difference. One is an url, the other is not an url. One is sent to an search engine, one isn’t. Just because the end result is an url, because surprise it’s a web browser, doesn’t mean you get to swallow the utter bull shit that Eichtard says when he compared it to searches and claimed everyone was doing it. Eichy McEichFace is blaming the victim, and trying to point the blame elsewhere. The fact that you, as a non-technical brave devotee, swallow this shit excuse, just makes you even sadder
Why do you think so many people got upset? Because it is different to searches. Because it was a dick shitty planned money-incentivized greedy move that no other browser ever dared to pull on it’s users, not even brave’s masters at google. And that’s because brave is an advertising company – that’s their whole business model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL – Uniform Resource Locator
> Firefox got hijacked with spyware that exfiltrated visited websites
Still drinking the kool aid. You need help. Already proven here that it did no such thing. You have an unhealthy fixation on a minor, non-privacy invading, experiment from four years ago. Even your own Brave employee who worked at Cliqz has said no such thing happened
Welcome to the Iron Delusional World of Up Is Down
> Nothing was â€œstolenâ€
So just because they got caught, it makes it alright? Pure cynical money grab by greedy venture capitalists. Brave has a habit of doing this.
> Because it is different to searches.
Jeez… You are still riding that dead horse. No, it’s not. Search URLs have a referral attached to it, and so it was for the Binance URL in Brave. There is zero fundamental difference here on a technical level, there are no “typed URLs” as a separate class of URLs. You also type the search term and hit enter, alright? Browsers don’t *need* to attach their own referral to that search URL, but they *do* to earn money. Brave didn’t *need* to attach their own referral to the Binance URL, but they *did* to earn money. Is it an issue of user privacy? No, it’s an question of how browsers make money.
So on a more fundamental level, you are criticizing the way Brave makes money. OK then, my hero, what would be the alternative? Selling user data? Because that’s what you people apparently want to happen.
> Why do you think so many people got upset?
Some thought that it was a privacy issue (which it was not), some were just Firefox users trolling Brave as per usual, some failed to realize that this business model is the case with all browsers (which Eich tried to explain, but which got ignored in the shitstorm).
> dick shitty planned money-incentivized greedy move
So is Mozilla’s search deal with Google, your point being? Also, developers need to eat.
> braveâ€™s masters at google
Are you mistaking Brave for Mozilla here?
> brave is an advertising company â€“ thatâ€™s their whole business model
They develop a browser while pioneering a new model of advertising, that is kinda the whole point.
> Still drinking the kool aid.
It collected URLs and website interaction data:
> Even your own Brave employee who worked at Cliqz has said no such thing happened
Do you think I care one bit? Whomever you mean, that doesn’t change what happened. Euphemisms are misplaced here. Funnily enough, you accept such excuses as long as they justify Mozilla (although badly, using euphemisms), but when Eich says anything, and when I accept that because it’s logical, you are attacking me. Hypocrite.
> You have an unhealthy fixation on a minor, non-privacy invading, experiment from four years ago.
And you have an unhealthy fixation with a minor, non-privacy invading, referral from 9 months ago. See the hypocrisy?
Dear hypocrite, I am citing this issue again and again to remind FF users and trolls like you of the fact that FF actually got hijacked with literal spyware by Mozilla at one point, which means that you guys have forfeited any right to complain about something as ordinary and unrelated to privacy as a referral (which your own browser also uses @Google, lol) and call it “hijacking” while maintaining a straight face. In other words, I demonstrate conclusively that you are full of shit in that regard.
> Welcome to the Iron Delusional World of Up Is Down
…coming from the proven hypocrite.
> So just because they got caught
“They” didn’t get caught, “they” caught the unintentional bug you are subconsciously referring to, and fixed it. All monetary matters were subsequently cleared up. Ãt’s no longer possible to accidentally donate to websites that are not registered content creators.
LOL at the fact that you are complaining about me citing one historical incident of FF (Don’t worry, I have more in reserve), while you have brought up your second one already. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
> Brave has a habit of doing this.
Hey, I am happy as long as they don’t mislead people into donating “for the browser” while actually handing over the money to far left activist groups, I am happy as long as they don’t call for the annihilation of the basic human right of free speech by calling for more deplatforming, I am happy as long as they don’t suck Google’s diddler by advocating that people should stay away from decentralized structures, calling them “the decentralized web of hate” etc. I think you can already guess which browser developer I am referring to…
Jeez… just quit it Iron Heart. You are destroying the comment section at ghacks. You don’t need to reply to ever single post and spam the same shit. And quit with quoting every single line. Just walk away. We can all do without your trolling and shilling. Seek some help.
@A concerned reader
The problem is you. Write less misinformation and bullshit, and I’ll have to write fewer refutations for said misinformation and bullshit. It’s your decision, not mine.
I also never saw “A concerned reader” contributing anything of value here.
“The problem is you”
Wow. So pointing out that you are being pedantic, obsessive, and cannot stop is my problem. Sorry, but the problem is all yours. Get some help.
“I also never saw â€œA concerned readerâ€ contributing anything of value here”
Is that meant to be some sort of requirement in order to complain about your abhorrent behavior? No, of course not. That’s just you instantly making personal attacks, deflecting and playing the blame game. I pity you. Seek help
@A concerned reader
> Wow. So pointing out that you are being pedantic, obsessive, and cannot stop is my problem.
It’s definitely your problem at its very core. What you describe as “pedantic” and “obsessive” is just me trying to deal with your bullshit (and that of others). A reduction of bullshit means a reduction of BS debunking I have to do.
There is a road to peace here, you know: Stop spreading bullshit, and I’ll have to write fewer replies. You think by making the pile of bullcrap even greater than before, I’ll be forced to quit eventually, but that certainly won’t happen. Your only real option is to stop writing BS.
> Is that meant to be some sort of requirement in order to complain about your abhorrent behavior?
No, I only meant to show what kind of non-contributing, thoroughly irrelevant, yet somehow highly self-assured people are complaining about me. I don’t even accept complaints from people who literally only come here to complain and for not much else.
Brave is indeed an advertising company, but regardless of whether the rest of what you said is true, Brave plans to disable FLoC:
“3. Best guess the web compat risk of disabling each (e.g., basically zero risk for FLoC, something more for Native File System API)”
Never forget just how low Brave will go to make money out of its users
Brave will always violate users first, apologize if caught, claim it was a mistake, point elsewhere
Both articles claim that the referral was a privacy issue, which is objectively nonsense misinformation. A static referral used by all users cannot(!) be a privacy issue because tracking of specific users based on that is impossible. The referral was not dynamically generated for specific users.
> Brave will always violate users first
In what way? Contrary to the sensationalist articles filled with misinformation that you just posted here, it is clearly not a privacy issue, so user privacy was left intact. Neither were users paying Brave, Brave’s partners are paying Brave based on visit count. The same happens when you do a Google Search in FF, Firefox gets money from Google based on the number of searches it generates, and for this purpose Firefox attaches a referral to all search URLs in the same manner like Brave attached a referral to the Binance URL. Do you feel “violated” by Firefox as well?
I mean, I understand that some people here are out to damage the Brave project at all costs, but the lows you sink to in the process are rather sad. Misinformation has no place here.
> In what way
– hijacking typed urls
– collecting users gifted shitcoins meant for content creators who are not registered to get it
– extortion of ad networks so content creators get less
– injecting brave spam into web content
– shoving adverts in the start page
– sponsored start page background
– telemetry on by default including spying on tor usage
– blinding users with orange pink gradient crap
– shitty defaults that give a false sense of privacy
– useless fingerprinting protection
– whitelisting tracking by the internet’s biggest trackers
– gimmicks like a seven day js cookie max life, but ignores prolongation attacks and 60-day http cookies
– more gimmicks like a tor window that defeats the purpose of tor: anonymity
– spying on users
– pretending to be a browser company when they are an advertising platform
– mass misleading of non-techincal users such as yourself
and that’s just for starters
Since all you have to offer are snarky one liners, I see no reason to reply with more than snarky one liners:
– hijacking typed urls… irrelevant to user privacy, 100% comparable to what other browsers do with search URLs, also lol at the word “hijacking” coming from an FF user
– collecting users gifted shitcoins meant for content creators who are not registered to get it… Was a short-livedbug, has been resolved, all monetary matters were cleared up, also *yawn* at historical incidents being mentioned
– extortion of ad networks so content creators get less… What every other adblocker also achieves, you seem to mistake Brave for AdBlock Plus.
– injecting brave spam into web content… Brave ads are system notifications.
– shoving adverts in the start page… Brave ads are system notifications, there is nothing on the start page.
– sponsored start page background… Turn it off with literally the setting on the New Tab Page, not a privacy issue, provides nice background images on a regular basis.
– telemetry on by default including spying on tor usage… They don’t collect what you do in Tor windows, just that you use this feature, one can opt out of telemetry in an easy way (contrary to FF)
– blinding users with orange pink gradient crap… :D :D :D
– shitty defaults that give a false sense of privacy… Better than the defaults of any other browser except for the Tor Browser.
– useless fingerprinting protection… Objectively false, be more precise in your lying.
– whitelisting tracking by the internetâ€™s biggest trackers… Fake news, see my main comment.
– gimmicks like a seven day js cookie max life, but ignores prolongation attacks and 60-day http cookies… Still better than any other browser in that regard.
– more gimmicks like a tor window that defeats the purpose of tor: anonymity… They are not meant to replace the Tor Browser Bundle, it’s a gimmick feature of an everyday browser meant to hide one’s IP address.
– spying on users… Objectively false, Brave is the most private browser by default. You are worse off with any other browser except for Tor.
– pretending to be a browser company when they are an advertising platform… Need I comment on that? Ridiculous. It’s not even opt-out, it’s literally opt-in.
– lying… Can it get even more blurry? Useless throwaway one liner.
– mass misleading of non-techincal users such as yourself… I don’t feel misled, I get great performance, a very decent level of privacy, and I get payed for browsing. Everything that you don’t have currently.
0/17 – great score so far
Brave is a ponzi crypto scheme. You’re better off investing in Dogecoin
> Brave is a ponzi crypto scheme
Shady as fuck
Wow, this comment is filled wit hate for Brave, I doubt that there is much of a point in reacting to you, but anyways, doing it to clarify some things for others:
> Brave is an advertising platform first and foremost, not a browser.
It’s literally a browser with a purely opt-in advertising system.
> Itâ€™s just chromium with gimmicks â€“ an adblocker so they can detect ads to hijack for extortion,
It is one of the first Chromium browsers trying to seriously tackle the issue of fingerprinting, it has a very performant adblocker which will survive Manifest V3 as it’s natively implemented, it’s the only Chromium-based browser that can defend against CNAME uncloaking, it is thoroughly ungoogled (which in itself is a worth), has the most privacy-respecting sync out of all browsers etc.
But hey, let’s reduce it to just “Chromium + adblocker”, the world can be so simple at times. Also, “extortion”… You deprive websites of their income by using ANY adblocker, be it uBlock origin, be it AdBlock Plus, or be it the internal Brave adblocker. The income is gone no matter what you opt for here.
Now, what Brave does is to introduce a different kind of ad system in which user privacy is respected and in which users can earn a share of the revenue, which is a plus for users (who are left out of the equation in the current system). Users may choose to distribute BAT to their favorite content creators, and these content creators can claim the BAT completely FOR FREE. Brave users also can’t donate to people who aren’t registered content creators, so there is no amount of BAT “lingering” somewhere unclaimed here.
When you refuse to become part of this much fairer system for whatever reason, users using Brave on your website are no different than those using uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus etc., which you should equally shun if you were intellectually honest. At least, Brave gives you the option to still get your share while NOT leaving users out in the cold monetarily.
> allows large amounts of whitelisting in trackers of the biggest players
Fake news. Here is a factual explanation:
They had to whitelist select Twitter and Facebook libraries because otherwise those websites were BROKEN BY DEFAULT for users, which, as you might agree, is not fantastic for a new browser project meaning to grow. This was purely for unbreaking websites, and if you insist on breaking them (perhaps because you don’t use them – just be aware that this is not the case for everyone), you can break them via the settings under brave://settings/socialBlocking …
Brave is blocking as many social media trackers as possible, whitelisting select libraries to reduce breakage(!) does not mean that they whitelisted Facebook and Twitter trackers globally! This is nonsense! Oh and by the way, the internal tracking protection of Firefox, or uBlock Origin, or AdBlock Plus, DON’T BLOCK THESE EITHER for much the same reason – to avoid said breakage. Criticizing Brave for not blocking something that isn’t blocked by anyone else (for good reason) is idiotic.
> adds a useless Tor mode that defeats anonymity as it is highly fingerprintable
Brave cannot have Tor’s exact fingerprint because it is frankly impossible without being based on Firefox (which is what Tor uses currently). They can’t change that, and they explicitly say that you should use the Tor Browser if you need Tor’s anonymity in some high risk situation. Brave’s Tor windows are a gimmick feature meant to hide your IP address, in a browser that is otherwise much of an everyday browsing tool.
> sticks adverts in your start page
Do you mean Sponsored New Tab Page? It’s not a privacy issue, the New Tab Page is being cached locally. If one doesn’t like it, one can turn it off very easily right on that New Tab Page.
> steals your telemetry including Tor usage (WTF)
To be clear, they do not collect WHAT you do in Tor windows, just THAT you use them. This says nothing about your actions in them. Compared to other browsers, Brave’s telemetry is rather mild and can be turned off under brave://settings/privacy … And that actually turns it off, there is no hidden telemetry that is being kept enabled (*cough* Firefox *cough*).
> took money on behalf of content creators who knew nothing about it
There was a bug that allowed donating to websites that were not registered content creators. The bug has long been resolved, and the matter was cleared up. When you implement a system as Brave Rewards, bugs happen, just accept that. There was no harm induced here.
> promotes itâ€™s own BATSHIT in web content via injection (WTF!)
Brave Ads are system notifications.
> comes with a sickening gradient orange-pink color scheme that puts amateurs to shame
Matter of taste and only in the settings AFAIK. Good god, your post is overflowing with hatred. The colors in the settings? Seriously?
> and any gullible person wanting their BATSHITS has to give up their privacy
Brave has to comply with legal requirements – Uphold (their partner) offers bank accounts, and you need to identify yourself when you want to create one. Sorry to say. Nothing that can be done about that unless laws change, you blame them for something here that is outside of their responsibility to decide.
> deliberately planned and engineered for scaling, to hijack typed urls in the urlbar which no other browser has even done.
Uh, you are very creative, that literally never came up before:
I guess you also screech in pain when literally every browser adds its own referral whenever you perform a web search, or is that kind of criticism hypocritically only limited to Brave?
Anyways, whatever one may think of it and the associated practice taking place in all browsers, it was never a privacy issue for users, but rather a question of how a small browser vendor is supposed to fund itself without selling user data. Moving on…
> There is more
* [Editor: removed]
> It is funded by venture capitalists.
Do you know who funds other major browsers?
> The users are the product.
Can’t say this in all seriousness considering that:
– Brave Rewards are 100% opt-in, disabled by default.
– Brave Rewards are privacy-respecting.
– Brave Rewards are the first advertising system where users can earn their fair share IF they opt-in.
It’s pretty embarrassing how you get all worked up over something that’s disabled by default, and that you think it is a good idea to verbally bring down a new advertising system that no longer violates user privacy and no longer deprives them of their fair share.
> it is being hijacked
The only browser companies that ever “hijacked” their users, causing actual harm, were Mozilla (Cliqz and Mr. Robot incidents) and Google (proprietary binary blob download incident).
> non-technical users (like Iron Heart).
You say this after having published unsubstantiated * [Editor: removed] which I had to debunk (Thank you for a wasted morning, by the way), but evidently you know much better than me.
Well said Iron Heart.
You are such a * [Editor: removed, please stay polite]. I mean it’s smart marketing since you know most here are the guys that people come to to ask about tech and if you convince us bRaVe is good we would’ve told others. No thanks.
I don’t want to convince anyone of anything here. I am just fighting deliberately touted misinformation.
> I am just fighting deliberately touted misinformation
Says the potato denialist living in a alternate reality who is the biggest spreader of misinformation on ghacks (85%). Also the most censored (92%: over 500 censors so far) and rude person on ghacks
Still salty that yet another misinformation thread spectacularly failed due to my intervention?
> yet another misinformation thread spectacularly failed due to my intervention
This has to be one of the most deluded comments I have ever seen. Iron Heart thinking he is some sort of caped crusader, saving the ghacks comments sections from a raging evil mob and factions
Intervention? You need an intervention all right. How many people have said and hinted that your obsessive behavior is destructive and not normal. At this point you nothing more than a spam bot
Reduction of misinformation and reduction of bullshit written. –> Reduction of the amount of debunking I have to do here.
It’s very easy. You’ll get it eventually.
Jesus Christ mate, does Eichtard Eich personally pay you 0.00376 shitecoin per paragraph or something?
The length of my reply is determined by the amount of misinformation spread. And there was a lot of it in that post, so a simple one liner is not enough to refute it, you see.
This coming from a guy who has hundreds of hateful comments about Firefox.You come across as a very angry spiteful person.Your obsession with defending Brave is not normal.Anyway it’s good to have more search engines who don’t watch you like a hawk.
My reply here was neither angry nor spiteful, although both would be warranted by the amount of misinformation laid out here, which I admit makes me angry.
> hateful comments about Firefox
The Firefox community here is no better, wait and see how much hatred Brave will be receiving in this comment section going forward.
And honestly, considering how they treat their users, claiming to provide privacy while hijacking the browser and offering anything but privacy by default, considering how they want to make the browser the arbiter of what I can see or not se on the Internet, and considering that they call decentralized structures aimed at freeing users from corporate surveillance “the decentralized web of hate” (just because some idiots misuse them, it automatically makes it a bad idea to get away from big brother… oh wait), I think they are not getting *enough* criticism (otherwise called “hate” by some people around here).
@ Iron Heart You brainwashed yourself so much you don’t know what’s left or right any longer.You defend a Browser with ads like a crazy man,and try to tell everyone it’s more private than browsers like Firefox.And no it doesn’t matter if you can turn the ads off.A browser who has ads is never a privacy first browser.And that’s only one of the reasons one shouldn’t use Brave.
> You defend a Browser with ads like a crazy man,and try to tell everyone itâ€™s more private than browsers like Firefox.
Brave (default) is more private than Firefox (default), that’s an established fact.
> And no it doesnâ€™t matter if you can turn the ads off.
They are turned off by default, so you would first have to turn them on before you can turn them off yourself.
> A browser who has ads is never a privacy first browser.
Perhaps you should at least do the bare minimum in terms of informing yourself before you hate on the project:
By the way, Firefox selects its Pocket articles in very much the same way (it’s enabled by default in FF). Not that it matters to you. And yes, FF has in-browser ads:
Don’t act like that’s not the case. The hypocrisy in this comment section is very strong indeed…
I’m glad that someone can actually answer back with technical knowledge based on sources on a tech forum instead of spewing random stuff.
Well written Iron Heart.
“as a marketing gimmick to suck in non-technical users (like Iron Heart).”
He understands perfectly how Brave works, so it’s worse that he defends this system. Maybe paid for that, maybe for free because he thinks that it furthers the glory of the “America first” party.
Like many who insult Iron Heart here understand perfectly how Mozilla Pocket or Cliqz that they support work, so that their criticism of the similar Brave problem often intentionally misses the main target to focus on side issues. Maybe they’re paid for that, maybe for free because they think it furthers the glory of the “America is back” party.
> He understands perfectly how Brave works, so itâ€™s worse that he defends this system. Maybe paid for that, maybe for free because he thinks that it furthers the glory of the â€œAmerica firstâ€ party.
Oh please… I’m not even American (there are more countries in the world, you know), and while my bank account could always make use of more money, I have not received any paycheck from Brave Software yet (lol). Anyhow, you fail to see the easiest explanation: That I find it necessary to debunk misinformation. It is what it is.
>>> You may have heard of the Cliqz browser
Iron Heart said on February 26, 2021 at 2:32 pm
Yes, the Cliqz system add-on was definitely spyware:
Cliqz is also the company that acquired the shady extension Ghostery (which was known for selling user data to advertisers), and Cliqz is is partially owned by none other than Mozilla(!).
When Brave Software acquires a search engine developed by Cliqz, then this should be held under scrutiny, however, all will depend on 1) whether the code is open source or not and 2) whether or not any problematic component that might(!) be there is being removed by Brave Software. So I think the jury on this one is still out, but yes, I do not trust Cliqz and as such any action like this deserves to be monitored closely. It’s also clear from the get go that I won’t ever use this search engine (I use DuckDuckGo and Searx), and I don’t believe that Brave will enforce its use in the browser itself (maybe make it the default, but nothing beyond that).
Iron Heart lying about Cliqz for the 1 billionth time
Here is “solso” who worked for Cliqz and now works for Brave. Never trust Iron Heart, he does zero research and posts shite
> There was no tracking on Cliqz, nor it will be any in Brave. To know more about the underlying tech of Cliqz there are interesting posts at https://0x65.dev, some of them covering how signals are collected, data, but no tracking. I did work at Cliqz and now I work at Brave. I can tell for a fact, that all data was, is and will be, record-unlinkable. That means that no-one, not me, not the government, not the ad department can reconstruct a session with your activity. Again, there is no tracking, full anonymity, Brave would not do it any other way.
> Mozilla never did such a thing. The browsing history was never sent in any shape or form. As the journalistic article you quote states, Mozilla put in place the HumanWeb[1,2,3], which was a privacy preserving data collection which ensured record-unlinkability, hence no session or history. Anonymity was guaranteed and the framework was extensively tested by privacy researchers from both Cliqz and Mozilla. Disclaimer: I worked at Cliqz.
>  https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-02/is-data-collection-evil.html  https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-03/human-web-collecting-data-in-a-socially-responsible-manner.html  https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-04/human-web-proxy-network-hpn.html
> Iron Heart lying about Cliqz for the 1 billionth time
Your comment says that they “anonymize” the data collected, so to speak, but how can you know this unless you are in control of those servers? You can’t. The fact is that it was collected(!) which is the only thing of interest to me – anonymization is outside of my control and I’d have to trust the company that owns a product that has sold user data (Ghostery), which is a bit much to ask for.
And I think collecting browsing data and website interaction data from users secretly, without their consent, is a) totally unnecessary and b) unethical even if they had anonymized the data sets, which I am personally not convinced of. Users were never asked for their consent (GDPR?), this data collection doesn’t need to happen, and anonymization can’t be proven aside from pledges.
Nobody asks whether something like that *needs* to happen and *why*. Nobody cares about informed *user consent*, and this is SAD.
Also, funnily enough, when I am voicing skepticism regarding Brave’s most recent acquisition, i.e. not defending them because of said skepticism, as I did here, then you somehow still manage to portray me as the villain. Quite amazing, to be honest.
When data collection is legitimate, making it unlinkable can be a privacy benefit.
However when it is not legitimate to begin with, like for advertisers or without user consent, making it unlikable won’t change the problem that it is privacy hostile. I even disagree that such unwelcome data collection should no longer be called “tracking” at all just because it is unlikable or anonymous, it is another vocabulary swindle to legitimate such attacks against privacy.
That sort of manipulation is used very often by tracking companies, starting with Google. Don’t fall for it.
@Anonymous – with the links to “solso”
I’ve not been aware of that side of story. The idea of EU digital infrastructure as a counterweight to US-capitalists tickles me where it should. Qestions:
– would Brave carry on that idea? Personally I doubt. Not due to evil motives, just money.
– what search engines would you guys reccomend that are not google/bing backed, made in eu, that at least declaratevily are “privacy oriented”, unbiased?
Have you tried eTools? https://www.etools.ch/searchInfo.do I’ve been using it for about a year and a half (after StartPage was bought by some shady guys) and really like it.
I don’t trust DDG )
“In researching the background DuckDuckGo, I uncovered some interesting history. The founder of DDG, Gabriel Weinberg, was also behind a social network called Names Database, which collected the real names and addresses of its users. He then sold Names Database (and all the user data) to Classmates.com for â€œapproximately $10 million in cashâ€ in March 2006.
DuckDuckGo was launched a few years later, in 2008 and was branded as a privacy search engine.”
Iron Heart said on March 4, 2021 at 10:52 am
>>> and Cliqz is is partially owned by none other than Mozilla(!)
… so to speak: evil Mozilla owns part of Brave. Oh boy your end is nigh!
@Et ess am rÃ¤ne…
> Brave acquired
> evil Mozilla owns
Failed the intelligence test. If Brave bought the search engine from Cliqz, it is no longer owned by Cliqz (the company that is partially owned by Mozilla). Hubert Burda Media is also not owned by Mozilla.
Do you remember this comment?
Cliqz was “majority-owned by Hubert Burda Media” and “The deal, terms undisclosed, makes Cliqz owner Hubert Burda Media a Brave shareholder.”
> makes Cliqz owner Hubert Burda Media a Brave shareholder.â€
That is reason for skepticism, as I said.
>>> The deal, terms undisclosed,
Oh, that’s by DEFAULT ;~) … or IOW your â€œmore Privacy-by-Defaultâ€ future.
>>> Hubert Burda Media a Brave shareholder
That which belongs together, grows together.
Enjoy your batty shitecoins and tracking sheeple
> Enjoy your batty shitecoins and tracking sheeple
Proof that Brave is collecting user data? Or are you just talking out of your ass, like so many others here?
And yeah, Brave users can get paid while browsing, while you, mate, earn nothing. Definitely a disadvantage of Brave, lol.
Iron Heart said “Brave users can get paid while browsing”
Not without giving up their privacy. Iron Heart logic at it’s best.
“Iron Heart logic” is still intact, neither Uphold nor Brave ever receive your browsing history at any point.
Ess et am rÃ¤ne?. Thank you for the link to Iron Heart’s post.
However, if you search the Internet, the following information is revealed:
Mozilla announced that it would offer Cliqz as an experimental ADDON for Firefox. Read the press release in the link below: The ADDON was only released for use in Germany where Cliqz was based.
Martin Brinkmann posted the following explaining the experiment:
IF a user checked the FF addons and found Cliqz, it was a simple matter to remove Cliqz with a single Click.
Furthermore, by using about:config, it was (and is) very easy to block Mozilla experiments.
By setting the value to false in about:config for the following preferences, Mozilla experiments are blocked. So it was not a Mozilla backdoor. Mozilla is very upfront about its use of experiments.
Finally, on April 29, 2020, Cliqz was closed down and disappeared.
I hope that this clarifies the issue regarding the Firefox SCANDAL
The problem is that FF has a backdoor enabled by default which they can use for “experiments”, and this can get abused for stuff like Cliqz.
I am not saying that it can’t be disabled by digging into the config, but you should realize that this is not how most people use Firefox, nor does it justify any abuse of user trust.
@ Iron Heart
Please post the links to the sources which explain how the Firefox default backdoor is implemented.
Mozilla can remote-install and execute any code they wish without having to use the browser’s regular update functionality. That’s hijacking in my book.
At its worst, this could be the result:
Mozilla isn’t exactly a foreigner to user data theft.
> I am not saying that it canâ€™t be disabled by digging into the config
Experiments and 99.99% of all telemetry can be disabled with a single checkbox in preferences. No need to dig into config. Stop being a drama queen
You should check in about:config whether or not the following settings are set to the following values:
app.shield.optoutstudies.enabled – false
app.normandy.enabled – false
app.normandy.api_url – empty string
browser.ping-centre.telemetry – false
And even after all this, Firefox still connects to the related firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com (check it out under about:networking), for which there ain’t even a pref (you have to stop it at firewall level). You call this “easy to disable”? The UI setting isn’t the whole story.
> The UI setting isnâ€™t the whole story
All experiments and 99.99% of telemetry can be disabled by a single preferences checkbox. Nothing you say alters that fact. But somehow you want to keep arguing and spamming like a baby
Just because connections are still made, does not make them evil or privacy invading or whatever the F you think it is. Grow up and stop spreading utter bull shite by spamming nonsense.
Its very obvious from the last several Firefox and Brave articles, that the majority is sick of your spam. It’s not healthy to be addicted to hate
> 99.99% of telemetry can be disabled
Yeah, when you know about hidden settings and out-of-browser telemetry. I’ve already debunked the rest, no need to further comment on it, I think.
> that the majority is sick of your spam
That the majority of *Firefox diehards* is sick of my *truth pilling about their browser*
Fixed that one for you, because the people complaining about me are the known, ahem, Firefox diehards. And I never expected these people to like me. News of the day.
> Itâ€™s not healthy to be addicted to hate
Your posts reflect that.
> Yeah, when you know about hidden settings and out-of-browser telemetry
More Iron Heart bull shit.
The only telemetry not covered by the preferences checkbox is a coverage ping. This is what it sends: appVersion, appUpdateChannel, osName, osVersion, telemetryEnabled. That’s it. Wow, what a fucking crybaby, worse than Yuliya. Would you like a hanky?
The scheduled telemetry task on default browser status, so scary, is covered by the UI preference
Nothing you can say alters the fact that 99.99% of telemetry can be disabled by a single checkbox in preferences
No-one should ever trust Iron Heart with information: he is a perpetual liar
The problem with the coverage ping is that a) sending telemetry from user installations that opted out of telemetry collection is unethical and b) that the settings for this being hidden makes it worse.
> The scheduled telemetry task on default browser status, so scary, is covered by the UI preference
Then why is the task still active and sends stuff even if users opt out of telemetry (everyone can check this for themselves, go ahead, Wireshark is your friend)? Also, the default browser, if it isn’t Firefox, is none of Mozilla’s business.
> he is a perpetual liar
And you, my dear Firefox diehard, are a perpetual troll.
PS: None of the telemetry is as bad as the FF Experiments backdoor or that snippet shit which Mozilla misuses for propaganda purposes – https://www.ghacks.net/2020/07/25/mozilla-used-firefoxs-notification-system-to-push-the-facebook-boycott/ – so even if you were right about telemetry (you aren’t), you’d hardly scratch the surface here.
> Then why is the task still active and sends stuff even if users opt out of telemetry
Still spreading lies. You have been told about this before
And you clearly admitted that you were wrong, like most things you claim.
– “OK, I was wrong there” says Iron Heart, two posts down
You are a chief-misinformation-spreader who hates Mozilla so much, you will knowingly lie. You cannot be trusted
To quote part of the link
https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2020/03/16/understanding-default-browser-trends/ â€“ â€œrespect user configured telemetry opt-out settingsâ€
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid â€“ â€œDeselect the Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla checkboxâ€
I didn’t realize that the scheduled telemetry task was still active because I wrongly trusted other people here. I was mistaken. It’s still active, and still sends data, and anyone can PROVE this for himself or herself using Wireshark.
Why are you even defending this, if I might ask? No other browser installs out-of-browser telemetry, this shit has no right to exist in the first place?
> You cannot be trusted
And you think you can be trusted after claiming that the experiments setting in the settings menu covers everything related to Shields / Normandy, which is clearly not the case?
> and still sends data
Still lying. Maybe you should learn how it works, go read the code. If telemetry is disabled, then nothing is sent. As a non-technical person, and self-proclaimed non-expert, I don’t expect you can.
> Still lying.
Wireshark is your friend. People can see it for themselves…
>And even after all this, Firefox still connects to the related
yep, sadly true :(
I just check mine, and they were all enabled and have some kind of user ID, despite me opting out of telemetry in the settings UI.
Thanks for the heads up.
Another Browser going to shit..tracking you with their own search engine.
Brave was always shit. Doesn’t come close to Firefox
Is that why Firefox is doing so well as of late?
“Is that why Firefox is doing so well as of late?”
It’s doing awesome. Steady at 220 million users for about a year
I fail to see how market share is a quantity that indicates quality. Your logic is fubar man, like most of your knowledge
> Itâ€™s doing awesome.
Explain exactly how that has anything to do with Firefox’s performance. It’s not even measuring the right components. Share% !== No.of.Users. Share% !== Income. Salary !== Performance. Performance !== No.of.Users.
Even ignoring that, I fail to see how the exec’s pay going up, reflecting a tiny percentage of outgoing, is even relevant. Maybe it’s market forces – blame it on the overall crap of exploding CEO salaries everywhere. It’s hardly consequential in the bigger picture
What an idiotic comparison and graph. How many times have you posted this stupid link? Must be getting up to a hundred times now. One of your unhealthily obsessive favorite bull shite links that have nothing to do with the conversation
Is Brave doing better? Riding the crypto wave and still standing behind Firefox in every metric! Woohooooooooooo!!!
Secondly, Firefox is 17 years old, Brave is 4 years old. Firefox gained its users in the quality vacuum left by IE, i.e. it only had to be better than the most shitty browser on earth to do well, Brave has gained a significant numbers of users in a saturated market where its competitors are actually competent. Apples and oranges at its finest.
And yet, Brave grows exponentially, having reached 25 million monthly active users ex nihilo, in 4 years time, in a market situation that is highly competitive. Firefox usage has been going down for at least a decade now.
Keep pretending that those are not the facts, it’s OK.
Brave is not a browser developer. They do not build the engine. They don’t even test their own work. Canvas randomizing still leaks. Tor window leaked. Wonder what else is shit. Eich is always apologizing for mistakes. Maybe he should hire Iron Heart as his super apology spreader
Brave is gifted a browser by their masters google and hardly have to do a thing. All Brave does is add a few wonky shitty patches on top and then go lie to everyone about how much they care about privacy. In four years they have done fuck all. Some adbocking that whitelists the internet’s biggest trackers, BATSHIT crypto to rip everyone off, code to inject BAT adverts into web content, and some fingerprinting which is almost useless, nothing like Tor Browser or privacy.resistFingerprinting.
It’s not hard to go from nothing to a rounding error greater than zero: 25 million is a rounding error in a world of over 7 billion devices
> Brave is not a browser developer. They do not build the engine.
Yeah, they should definitely reinvent the wheel for no reason.
Do you even realize what kind of resources would be required to develop their own engine for no tangible reason? Impossible for a company the size of Brave Software to begin with.
> They donâ€™t even test their own work.
They do have quality assurance.
> Canvas randomizing still leaks.
Their fingerprinting defenses are, like, one year old. Was Firefox perfect in its first year? And Firefox also still leaks shit, not canvas, but for other vectors.
> Tor window leaked.
Resolved fixed. By the way, Brave’s Tor windows were never meant to be a Tor replacement – which doesn’t mean that such bugs are OK and shouldn’t be fixed, it just means that if you want to use Tor, please stick with the Tor Browser.
> Brave is gifted a browser by their masters google and hardly have to do a thing.
Again, why reinvent the wheel for no reason? Also, Firefox is literally built on Google money, you seem to conveniently forget about that. Without Google, Firefox wouldn’t exist, either.
> lie to everyone about how much they care about privacy
Care to provide proof? Brave is the most privacy-respecting browser as far as the defaults are concerned, and that’s how most people use their browser. If you need to modify Firefox to match Brave, this is NOT a pro-Firefox argument. Sad that I need to explicitly point this out.
> Some adbocking that whitelists the internetâ€™s biggest trackers
Old fake news can’t be repeated often enough, apparently. Here is your desperately needed reality pill:
Firefox’s tracking protection, uBlock Origin, and AdBlock Plus don’t block these either, in order not to break(!) those websites.
> BATSHIT crypto to rip everyone off, code to inject BAT adverts into web content
Unrecognizable one liners, whatever you mean, I have debunked it already most certainly.
> and some fingerprinting which is almost useless, nothing like Tor Browser or privacy.resistFingerprinting.
If you enable this in FF, you are still being unique:
There really is not a better comment to explain the idiocy of this.
> Itâ€™s not hard to go from nothing to a rounding error greater than zero: 25 million is a rounding error in a world of over 7 billion devices
Trends, my dude, trends. It’s pointing upwards for Brave and downwards for FF, and if you were somewhat honest, then you would admit that Firefox isn’t exactly “relevant” anymore either, with its 4% overall market share (down from 30%).
“Brave says that Search will serve the user first, in other words it is not devoid of ads.”
They even write that :
Brave serves the users first, not the advertising and data industries.”
Showing ads, furthermore targeted from private data and tipping the advertisers about the efficiency of the ads, is “serving the user first, not the advertising and data industry” ?
No, it’s making the user the product to serve Brave and other members of the advertising and private data raping industry. Everybody outside of Brave understands “user-first” as implying “no ads”. There is a myriad of actual “user-first” services and software that are ethical alternatives to those shady businesses. But Brave can’t just live happily with being an ad company, it’s not wrong enough, they need to convince everybody that being an ad company is “user-first”.
We arenâ€™t in the business of harvesting your data. We donâ€™t want it!”
Deceptive, the problem is not as much “harvesting” data (smart wording) as “processing it for bad purposes”, no matter if it happens on a targeted ad supported search server that may not store queries or in a local malicious browser. In that sense, sure they harvest lots of private data and want that data a lot, that’s how they make money, from misusing that private data.
“We will offer best in class integration between browser and search, from personalization without compromising privacy to instant results as you type.”
Does this mean that search results will be personalized from what the user does on the browser ? If so another attack against privacy. The likely implied keylogger in the address bar is nothing new however.
“The browser displays random sponsored ads (non-personalized, ad campaigns)”
Browser ads are “random”, “non-personalized” ? No, Brave’s principle is to process an amount of private data rarely reached elsewhere to match ads to the user, by taping in the centralized private data source directly, the browser itself, instead of having to add together unreliable pieces of private data collected from tracking servers that could be blocked by pesky tracker blockers.
“Brave Ads are matched to you”
“Brave uses local machine learning with the browser profile to only place ads in optimal conditions.”
“How are ads targeted based on browser-side intent signals?
As mentioned above, the browser knows almost everything you do. It knows what sites you visit, how much time you spend on them, what you look at, what is visible â€œabove the foldâ€ and not occluded by opaque layers, what searches you make, what groups of tabs you open while researching major purchases, etc. Only the browser, after HTTPS terminates and secure pages are decrypted, has all of your private data needed to analyze user intent.”
“For behavior targeting, our approach uses an in-browser agent that studies all the valuable data feeds in every browser: navigation, search queries, ecommerce form filling and submitting, page views and visibility known in fraud-free terms by the browserâ€™s rendering engine. All of these feeds inform the agent so it can pick the best user ad”
Not having the full actual private data on a distant server does not matter as long as they can process it as they wish against the user with local malicious code. It’s even part of Google’s “privacy sandbox” ideas. Another famous “user-first, fighting the advertising and data industry” company.
“Cliqz browser, it was a fork of Mozilla Firefox, and was focused on privacy”
It was experimenting new ways to invade privacy to feed Cliqz’s search engine database from user’s browsing. It was a horrible spyware.
“the popular privacy-focused extension, Ghostery”
Cliqz’s “Ghostery Rewards” targets ads from browsing data, “Human Web” fed the now defunct search engine from browsing data, both described as opt-out, in a product users expect to be about “blocking trackers”. Yeah, “privacy-focused”, Mr Ashwin. Great piece of independent tech journalism again.
> Not having the full actual private data on a distant server does not matter as long as they can process it as they wish against the user with local malicious code. Itâ€™s even part of Googleâ€™s â€œprivacy sandboxâ€ ideas. Another famous â€œuser-first, fighting the advertising and data industryâ€ company.
This part is interesting: Where do you see the privacy violation when no data leaves the PC? Every step of the process of ad matching in Brave happens locally, they have none of your browsing details on any server they might have. And “malicious”… Seriously? It’s disabled by default and they mention it repeatedly on their website (from which the browser is downloaded), so even if users choose to enable it, I think they can’t claim to be uninformed (which is a key part of “malicious”). And even then, funny malware that doesn’t report back to its master, I must say. -.-
Iron Heart is losing this battle, and I’m not happy about it. Another good browser going down the drain.
> Iron Heart is losing this battle
How? I am not affiliated with Brave Software, if the browser stops meeting my needs, I’ll just switch. It’s as simple as that. I am skeptical of this acquisition.
“I’m not a fan of Ghostery or Brave for that matter”
And why do you not like Brave, do you have any special reason? I mean, while there are tons of desktop browsers, there are still not many serious desktop browsers around. You either like Chrome and evil Google, Edge from evil Microsoft, Firefox from evil Mozilla promoters of censorship and deplatform of people, Vivaldi with its closed sourced UI that makes Vivaldi customizable and beautiful but slower plus other stuff I don’t agree about the CEO and the company. Opera = CCP. Yandex= Putinland. And we get many forks but most are just not updated fast enough to ensure you will be fine from the dangers of the internet and Firefox or Chormium bugs or they are there to support old stuff I don’t care like Palemoon, etc. So yes, Brave might not be perfect but “not liking it” is not a reason and I am sure what you currently use is not any better (something tells me you like Firefox like most people promoting a false sense of privacy or maybe the useless ideology like “we need more than chromium so I will force myself to use and like Firefox even if hey openly promote censorship”
Anyway, so you know, Mr Ashwin, I don’t use Brave Rewards so I am sure it is a Browser and if you want the BATs then you can have it. So I already answered your question, it is actually a browser with a decent Adblocker that they keep improving, the ONLY chromium browser with CNAME filtering and other features unique to Brave, Tor (government made and funded, so it can’t be trusted but exists), first one trying to integrate IPFS, ONLY one giving you sync without requesting any information from you, no emails or phone numbers or anything, also they are trying to do some R&D about how to improve adblocking and its lists to make things more efficient and faster and fingerprinting protection that no other browser offers because Brave is the only one trying to improve it unlike others. so what is your reason?
ANYWAY, I actually was waiting for this post from you, ready with popcorn and a smile, because I am sure people will end up talking the same crap they do about Brave.
On Twitter and Reddit, I already read the usual misinformation and hate about Brave, people still bringing the Affiliate link misbehavior not even understanding the issue, and just parroting about it. Talking about it like “how terrible and non-privacy liars Brave are”, like if bugs didn’t exist on any software, and even if Brave fixed it fast, they still complain about it. Apparently people can’t understand that Affiliate link problem ONLY happened on binance addresses, which means only the person reporting it “got affected”, and I mean it in quotes because the person could have changed address for the one with non affiliate link, and realistically, how many people go to binance website, how many brave users? so I am sure less than 10 people got affected by it. But people are dishonest and lie about it.
I mean, I still see people talking crap about Eich, and how terrible person he is because he donated to blablbla and how in 2020s he talking against mask and lockdowns based on statistics is misinformation, so he is so terrible nobody should support Brave because he is intolerable and hates, yet, the ones supposedly being so affected by him are intolerant to his views so we get the usual hypocrisy.
Just dumb excuses to complain about this news, which I think is good. If people read Brave’s blogpost and PDF talking about goggles, they would understand how this is a good news for people. It even talks about how it will respect people’s not only privacy but freedom of thought. Sampson replied a tweet about it saying “Brave Search’s community-curated ranking models are specifically designed to “prevent algorithmic biases and outright censorship,” from our blog post today. You shouldn’t have Big Tech telling you what you can and cannot search online.”
That’s the interesting thing, we have companies actually promoting censorship and virtue signaling and “I speak against this but cover my eyes for a similar situation because it doesn’t fit my political agenda” and we have Brave, the only ‘big’ browser company that is promoting anticensorship. is that a negative thing? because people talk crap about them and I bet it will happen happen like usual, media and others will start making articles about how “X is helping spread misinformation” even if they can’t even prove the supposedly misinformation they talk about is misinformation because only saying “it is misinformation” it is not proving anything, and believing the big tech and mainstream media to tell them what is or not misinformation is just being completely naÃ¯ve about real life and how humans barely do anything with “good intentions” and to help others or because “we care about you” or some BS like that, there is always a reason behind and talking about big tech and mainstream, I doubt it is good.
Obviously Brave does too, they want to make a business through privacy, not messing with people’s privacy but actually promote it, while truly fixing many problems on the modern internet, I mean, It is stupid to think ads will become irrelevant or disappear in the future, so what’s wrong with trying to fix the internet by addressing the ads problem rather than just pretend it will get fixed by Google? If Brave so the same thing we see, how problematic ads are for privacy because google never cared to fix them and nobody else did, then good for them, I am still not forced to see Brave ads or use Brave rewards, although I know money is important to run a business, if not you are not totally independent you will have to depend like some companies on running thanks to google’s money which doesn’t sound good.
I see some people talking about DuckDuckGo and saying “what about DDG? we already have a solution” But first, reading about CEOs past and company mistakes, I never really trust them, I still use them, of course they can’t be worst than google, but I have seen DDG manipulating results = doing what Google does but at a lower scale since they are not so powerful. But In one case Searx DDG engine displayed the result correctly when you tired to find this nonmainstream news website, but somehow it wasn’t found in normal DDG until people complained and they fixed it, and I am not talking the result of the website address was displayed 10 search results below, it was completely removed from the results. Also I saw on DDG reddit how someone complaining about some search result images that “hurt” the person, and demanded DDG team to change it because if not, that meant DDG was a terrible search engine since I guess those images being displayed on top of everything ‘hurt’ the user. So DDG removed all the images from search results, if now I do the search, it’s like 100+ images until I see something, and if I want to see those search results I have to specify them but they are not displayed to me like before, I mean, I didn’t care, I just saw someone complaining and did the test, saw the images and next few hours I didn’t see them anymore. But supposedly DDG gives you the result based on how people search them, not if they hurt or not, and fixing some results make sense but completely remove them for the demand of a single user, seems a bit weird (I know the reasons, and it has to do with an agenda).
But if DDG can easily manipulate the results like in those both cases I witnessed, someone has to wonder how many more times have DDG team done that? How many search results they have changed and manipulated because more users searched for it so they displayed first? how many websites have they removed completely from search results and nobody notices it? or how many times they display mainstream news on top of others that people searched more just because they wanted to?
Well, this is why Brave search could be important and that’s what Brave team talks about anticensorship and others tell you what and how to think. Of course let’s hope results are good and all. And that’s why I am interested. There is a big difference between illegal content and freedom of thought, and that’s what Brave search in their PDF seems to have to address, I mean, how many times people said it was a conspiracy and tinfoil blabla about government ‘watching us’ and people rejected the information as “conspiracy theories” (a dumb term made for manipulating the masses anyway), some people made their minds about it without even research it, others didn’t even know about it because “mainstream media hasn’t spoke about it”, now people are all worried about privacy and governments this and surveillance that, same with other subjects, even if people want to call it whatever they want, it doesn’t take that it might be true or it is partially true, or maybe it is not true but it will not affect anything or anyone if people believe it or not, many subjects that people ignore that have turned “to be true” and people still deny it because Big tech and mainstream media bury the subject or call it names without being open and objective.
So yes, I would rather support a project that will not even try to fight the privacy problem of google and microsoft but also the censorship many companies promote because they want to control how you think, what you do, how you do it, where you do it. They want to become like this “internet totalitarian government” so if you don’t think like they want you to think, you should be banned, deplatform and censored from the internet and also Cancelled and destroyed in real life, like losing jobs, contracts and anything like that, which is not even new, I have seen it for so many years, people who go to jail for trying to find the truth, 70+ years old going to jail for not accepting official narratives or living with a thousand monthly because they got their life destroyed so much by others that they could never find a job for speaking what they thought would find the truth that they didn’t find, so the more companies and people trying to battle all this mess where big tech and others want to act like a government nobody voted for but tells who should use the internet or not, the better.
Duckduckgo uses Google track severs and Microsoft Binge trackers….I read a story about it. So them too are a bunch of liars.
Will Brave internal adblocker allow blocking of those ads in the search results ? Or will users be forced to accept them without a choice ?
You can set custom filters under brave://adblock/ in case they allow them. Brave also supports extensions, so I am not worried about that (though I will never use their search engine).
I am curious to know how much bitcoin the average user could expect to get in a year? for opting into the ad-system in Brave and just doing general everyday browsing?
Some content creators are making some serious bucks from it, but how much does an average user get?
Also who are the main advertisers on Brave? How much money does Brave get?
Used to be ca. 25 BAT per month (many hours of usage daily, 5 ads per hour setting) a few months ago, when the BAT price was approx. 0.20$ = 1 BAT. It is lesser now, because BAT proven to be volatile and has now reached higher price levels:
If one kept the BAT over the last 1 1/2 years, the sum isn’t too shabby.
However, contrary to what many * [Editor: removed, stay polite] believe here, the actual percentage of Brave users who use Brave Rewards was below 10% last time I checked (presumably because frequent system notifications are annoying?), and Brave Software has repeatedly said that they do NOT expect the majority of Brave users to enable Brave Rewards going forward.
> Also who are the main advertisers on Brave?
Good question, don’t know if an extensive list exists (and if so, it would also fluctuate most likely); I’ve found those:
Personally, as far as I remember, I got ads from the following companies so far upon testing: Amazon, NordVPN, ProtonMail, Verizon, various crypto-related companies, Visa, BlockFi etc.
But that might reflect my own interests more than it is a general overview – because after all, the ads are locally matched against my own browsing.
> How much money does Brave get?
> Used to be ca. 25 BAT per month (many hours of usage daily, 5 ads per hour setting) a few months ago, when the BAT price was approx. 0.20$ = 1 BAT.
Now i see why so many content creators (even privacy ones) want Brave to do well. Good way to tip censored content creators.
I may dislike Brave and crap on it at times, however, i don’t disagree that it is an excellent way for censored content creators to get around the GOOLAG and earn a coin or too. I can see why they promote it.
That is one thing i would comment Eich for, even if i don’t fully trust the dude lol.
I think that it’s not only “censored content creators” (might well be among them, I doubt it’s anywhere close to a relevant percentage) – Brave is a successful project, I already see major websites being registered.
Also, whom do you trust? If you don’t mind me asking…
I fully trust no one completely lol.
I do find though that FOSS that does not attempt to (or have an option to) monetise its users in any way shape or form to be the most trustworthy.
Don’t take that as a dig against Brave, its just that i feel uncomfortable using software where someone has the potential to gain lots of money from people using the monetisation capability inherently built into the software by design.
I don’t how rich Eich is or what he is making, but i disagree with monetisation being implemented into a browser, especially for an everyday browser. I do not care if its private and opt in, its just the principle of it is what bothers me.
I fully understand how others would like it, and like i said it gives de-monetised goolag censored content creators a chance or two to earn a shilling. Thats a +1 for freedom of speech. I don’t hate it, i can see and understand its use cases.
Whatever, I will not use that search engine. I’ve tried pretty much every one out there – Startpage, Duck Duck Go, Qwant, Bing… Google Search is still the best in serving results, I’m even down with dealing with Google’s increasing bullshit, because it just saves me so much time compared to pretending to be some tinfoil hat-wearing paranoid conspiracy theorist.
So you’re a top-tier tinfoil hat-wearing paranoid conspiracy theorist only when it comes to Microsoft? Gotcha!
Can you deny or disprove that Windows 10 has been acting more and more like malware?
When you disable telemetry, it enables itself.
When you open IE, it bombards you with ads for Edge.
Then it automatically starts Chromium Edge without asking, showing some small window in the top right corner that won’t go away until you do something in Edge.
You uninstall Chromium Edge, you get bombarded with ads for Chromium Edge in old Edge.
Then on some Windows Update, Chromium Edge is automatically installed without any indication or asking the user for permission.
In contrast all Google does in the moment is having an annoying cookie prompt when you load it for the first time or in Incognito mode. Using the Inspect/Developer Tools of the browser, I can delete that part, or I can create uBlock Origin rules to block these prompts automatically, I just don’t bother, I’m sure uBlock Origin’s developer will eventually include them.
And back to Microsoft, if you think this is double standards, it certainly isn’t. Windows XP, Vista, 7 did not act like malware. If Google continues to act in the same aggressive way, I will just switch to some different search engine and stop using YouTube. I don’t even have a YouTube on my phone, because NewPipe’s API constantly breaks and I you can’t watch videos until the developer releases an update. YouTube Vanced somehow got riddled with ads somehow and I stopped using that too. I use the browser version of YouTube, because Kiwi Browser has uBlock Origin and I can block all ads just fine. There used to be a website called TOOGL.ES, which had a YouTube API and it only showed the videos so you could see how fast YouTube can be if all the bloat from the official website is shred. But if Google tries to push it even further, I will even abandon YouTube and give up watching my favorite content creators there… Sure, not ideal, but more time for different activities.
So don’t get any stupid ideas, because you don’t know me, you’re just a local clown.
> You uninstall Chromium Edge, you get bombarded with ads for Chromium Edge in old Edge.
No, it’s even better now ) If you uninstall CE, it will reinstall itself after the next boot using edgeupdate service. And you cannot disable it. In order to do that you need to download the special Administrative template for group policies and then disable edgeupdate through gpedit. I shit you not! I discovered this behaviour a few days ago and was really impressed by shear greatness of MS.
I don’t have ANY Edge problems because I disabled it on the Startup tab in Task manager.
Rocket science it is not.
“donâ€™t get any stupid ideas” – Pfft, what sort of moron threatens a stranger on the internet from his momma’s basement while hiding behind his keyboard and employing an assumed name? Lol, talk about oafish and idiotic behavior!
Anyone who claims Google cares more about privacy or its products/sites behave less like data stealing malware than MS’ needs to seriously have his head examined.
“There will be two tiers in Brave Search; an ad-free premium search, while the other will be an ad-supported search as described above. ”
Total crap. Just pick your own search engine and skip Brave Search entirely. Done.
Just skip Brave entirely, cut out the advertising middleman completely. Just use Firefox and change the search engine
This has been the most enjoyable comments section on ghacks to date. Thanks to all you uber geeks!
Ah there is another good news from Brave. nice!
Great news. Now I can be monetized and tracked even more
Lol anon so salty because memefox don’t have any good news, only about redesign, and another layoffs news from Failzilla
I HAVE THE BRAVE LOGO TATTOOED ON MY FACE!!!
So brave to venture out in public like that! :D
Which search engine are you currently using with Brave?
I alternate between Searx and DuckDuckGo, mainly DuckDuckGo because Searx is not always giving me relevant results.
Iron Hearts’ infallible search engine is
77.99% his own twisted logic
In other words, a grimace of notorious deception in which an unproven truth and a disproven lie can exist simultaneously and be congruent.
Ah, so you are now hijacking a legitimate question directed at me with an asinine reply on your part? Haha, book definition of trolling.
And if anything, I have just debunked lots of lies by your troll colleagues above, go and read it. I know that you guys are salty about the fact that you can’t spread your misinformation here unopposed. Shit happens, move on.
â€“ hijacking your comments? â€¦ irrelevant to user privacy, 100% comparable to what other commenters do with comments, the use of the reply button is not reserved exclusively for you!
Also, lol at the word â€œhijackingâ€ coming from an Brave evangelist who has been hijacking and abusing ghacks forum since years for his vendetta against anyone he considers a FF users:
Ã€ propos “reality check”, I am providing you something invaluable:
Led around the manÃ¨ge pour enfants like a dancing bear on a nose ring, do you seriously call this “I have just debunked lots of lies” ?!
You are the most useless commenter on gHacks because your posts are without any value. When a question is directed at me and MY preferences, I am the only one who can provide the reply. You are just trolling.
> do you seriously call this
Yes. Since your colleagues and you are woefully unable to refute any of the points I raise.
> dancing bear on a nose ring
Emil the Delusional at his finest.
“unable to refute any of the points I raise.”
Just a quick example on the fly:
Iron Heart said on March 6, 2021 at 5:57 pm
>>> You help Mozilla get money from their overlords by using Google (count per search),
False – Google pays estimated between $400 and $450 million per year for the privilege of becoming the Firefox web browser’s default search engine in most regions.
This is a fixed amount and not “per search”. Firefox’s market share is strong enough to command that amount from Goggle.
>>> Brave users help Brave get money from Binance (count per visit), no fundamental difference here. Only in your mind.
False – @BrendanEich
“No fees for sign-up â€” standard Binance share of commission and only on BTC & ETH USD trades.”
… my Dear, a “share of commission” per trade is a fundamental difference from “count per visit”!
Appetite for more? You’re welcome …
Of course Firefox gets paid on the total amount of searches it generates. That’s how they broker those deals. Do you think Google just invents those figures based on the amount of “assistance” Mozilla thinks it needs? Pretty please…
You hijack a legitimate question directed at me for trolling? So mature…
> Iron Heart, who proudly claims other readers pain
Liar, I said “your hate is my pride”, “you” being the usual Firefox diehards in this case. They come here to troll Brave articles, I feel this sentence is justified once again.
> Numero uno shit poster by a galactic mile
Judging by the number of matter of factly refutations I had to write once again, I don’t think that’s the case.
And the demise of Brave continues…
brave’s numbers are a rounding error
Brave exists since 5 years in a highly competitive market, and yet it still grows exponentially.
Firefox, despite having existed for 17 years, and despite having been given a huge head start by its only competitor having been incompetent Internet Explorer in its early phase, has gone down from 30% market share to about 4% market share… I don’t think Firefox users have the right to judge the success of other projects without first looking at their own stats.
It’s still a rounding error, and it’s still easy to go from nothing to something
Comparing the stages of Firefox to Brave, and claiming 5 vs 17 years is just rubbish. If you’re going to compare, at least use the same sets of years. Anyway, no browser could compete with the rise of mobile and the dominance and lock-in of Safari in one and Chrome in the other. Overall share was always going to be a problem. Brave has zero android penetration.
And no browser could compete easily with Chrome on desktop, given it’s relentless advertising and pre-installs and money and having some of the biggest platforms on the internet. Pretty hard to stop losing share when everyone using google products gets plastered with install chrome buttons, not to mention Chrome deliberately sabotaging other engines performance on their own services. Brave would not have fared any better.
In the last year, Firefox has remained steady, at 220million users on desktop. Brave’s growth is not exponential, it’s logarithmic. It too will hit a wall and plateau.
BRAVE is still a ROUNDING ERROR
> Comparing the stages of Firefox to Brave, and claiming 5 vs 17 years is just rubbish.
Why? Firefox has a legacy user base because it has been around for so long, time in the market is definitely a factor.
> Anyway, no browser could compete with the rise of mobile and the dominance and lock-in of Safari in one and Chrome in the other.
> Brave has zero android penetration.
Android is Brave’s main area of growth.
> And no browser could compete easily with Chrome on desktop, given itâ€™s relentless advertising and pre-installs and money and having some of the biggest platforms on the internet.
> not to mention Chrome deliberately sabotaging other engines performance on their own services.
Urban myth. It’s true that YouTube for a time used an API that was Chromium-exclusive, however, the API was already scheduled for removal from Chromium back then and is no longer being used. When Firefox performs worse than Chromium these days on YouTube or other websites, you have nobody but Mozilla to blame for it.
There are also many non-Google services that are shittier on Firefox than on Chromium, basically everything that relies on hardware acceleration is better on Chromium.
> BRAVE is still a ROUNDING ERROR
And Mozilla Firefox is still a failure.
What is wrong with Ghostery?
By the way, one doesn’t need Ghostery if uBlock Origin is already installed.
That is 8 years old. But is this what @Ashwin meant?
> But is this what @Ashwin meant?
I think so, yes. I don’t know if there is anything else that’s dodgy about Ghostery. You missed the more important part of my post, though: You don’t even need Ghostery when you already have uBlock Origin installed. It provides no benefit, even if it were trustworthy.
@Iron Heart Well I see more details about trackers and such, so I find it complementary. Check it out bc if you did not have it for years… is changed a lot….
How can you NOT be a fan of Brave??? I use it in the NO ADS setting. It’s such a pleasure. No youtube or google ads so fcuk google! haha.
> he does all this shilling and trolling
*all this anti-misinformation work
So many people shitting on Brave but let’s take a look at the article above, which is from yesterday.
Don’t disturb the anti-Brave hate with facts! How dare you!
Even Bing is a distant second in search to Google. I never even heard about TailCat until I read Brave bought it. Nothing against Brave but I don’t really get into using these small players in the browser world. Will TailCat help Brave? It’s probably safe to say that even people using Brave prefer Google search. DuckDuckGo has had a little success, but it’s still a long way from any appreciable market share.
Some people still make countless useless posts about some browsers. And they think they contribute.
The word FANBOY is so small to what to are in real guys. I know Iron heart is a known one. Now we found another….
So I am a “fanboy” now for calling out the bullshit others post using facts, OK. Fine, I can live with that definition.
Firefox users’ arguments against Brave always about link hijacking, but hey, link hijacking is worse than install add-ons to your browser automatically without user’s knowing?