←back to thread

1034 points deryilz | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
raydenvm ◴[] No.44548145[source]
I suppose that switching to Brave will be one of the best solutions after all. They have already comment this in June: https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3
replies(3): >>44549491 #>>44550071 #>>44551563 #
moffkalast ◴[] No.44549491[source]
What makes Brave trustworthy enough for us to run our entire life through it? For me it's irreparably forever tainted by crypto grifting.
replies(2): >>44551033 #>>44551098 #
1. esskay ◴[] No.44551098[source]
The 'crypto grifting' is something you can turn off completely, it's there as a way to make the browser sustainable without accepting payments from Google to make it the default search engine.

I'd argue its far more trustworthy than modern day Firefox/Mozilla, they're not exactly the second coming these days.

What makes Firefox more trustworthy?

replies(3): >>44551617 #>>44552019 #>>44565314 #
2. mathgradthrow ◴[] No.44551617[source]
the lack of cryptogrifting.
3. moffkalast ◴[] No.44552019[source]
That's kind of like saying "yeah this is a mafia pizzeria but you can come eat at hours when the goons aren't there". Besides, why does Brave need that much funding? All they make is a Chromium wrapper, Google does all the work for them. They're not really an actual alternative in that sense, they just stuff it full of adblock, crypto, and god knows what. There was even a thing recently where it autoinstalled a VPN.

Yeah it's true that Mozilla's mostly financed from Google's anti-antitrust payments, but at least they actually made something of their own and have a trustworthy track record three decades long as a non-profit and Netscape before that.

replies(1): >>44570158 #
4. asadotzler ◴[] No.44565314[source]
"You can turn off the evil feature that evil people added" isn't really an argument that's gonna convince me that evil people are trustworthy.

Tell me I can turn off the evil intent, and not just one of its manifestations, and we're in business. But you can't tell me that.

replies(1): >>44570148 #
5. esskay ◴[] No.44570148[source]
By that logic you'd have to extend the same argument to Firefox, Chrome and Edge. All have a bunch of "evil" (which by your own definition evil = thing that makes a business money) things that can be disabled.

Once you've done that you're back to the same old question - why is <other browser> any better/safe/trustworth than Brave, which is arguably the only one that's gone out of their way to make sure its sustainable and not reliant on farming user data to the highest broker.

6. esskay ◴[] No.44570158[source]
> and god knows what

That right there sours your whole argument. Your entire reasoning here is based on "they're probably doing something dodgy", ignoring the bit about it being opensource, or that Firefox and Chrome are at the very minimum on equal terms of "dodgyness", as you'll no doubt already know.