Why was appointing Eich as CEO so controversial? It's because he donated $1,000 in support of California's Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California's state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
Besides this I cannot find another good reason not to use brave. Nobody point to a specific line of code that ruins privacy, not enough reasons.
Good enough for this gay Californian.
Gay Nuyorican
I don't know what you're saying, but I infer it's not meant kindly.
I'm gay and I'm from New York ಠ_ಠ
Their carrot-on-a-stick routine with the BAT they fail to pay is enough for me to have switched.
False advertising is false.
They do point out a couple of instances of questionable if not outright scummy things (e.g. the affiliate codes situation) but the article mostly gives off "stop using brave, I've decided it's cancelled" vibes.
They block the website's own ads, but inject their own instead. So the user still gets ads, but the profits go to Brave. I know that if the site's owner is aware of that and goes through the process of registering with Brave they get a share of the profits, but this should really be opt-in. As it is, the whole scheme is shady as fuck.
Because Firefox is better.
I don't care what the CEO of a corporation is doing because most of them are conservative pieces of shit.
They used to change the url which the user typed into the address bar to include a referral code. The article mentions going to binance.us, the browser appended a referral link to the url.
That's scummy as fuck.
I stopped using it because it was kinda shitty. Some page elements in my webapps just didn't display or work correctly. Firefox is the more polished experience now. But it is kinda nice not having to morally justify your choice of browser, too.
So you've read all the way up to that line and closed the article didn't you ?
There were 3 points:
CEO is a dick: not enough of a reason
Swapping ads: I have ads disabled anyways so what do I care. If I did care I wouldn't block ads in the first place
Besides this I cannot find another good reason not to use brave. Nobody point to a specific line of code that ruins privacy, not enough reasons.
Good enough for this gay Californian.
Gay Nuyorican
I don't know what you're saying, but I infer it's not meant kindly.
I'm gay and I'm from New York ಠ_ಠ
Their carrot-on-a-stick routine with the BAT they fail to pay is enough for me to have switched.
False advertising is false.
They do point out a couple of instances of questionable if not outright scummy things (e.g. the affiliate codes situation) but the article mostly gives off "stop using brave, I've decided it's cancelled" vibes.
They block the website's own ads, but inject their own instead. So the user still gets ads, but the profits go to Brave. I know that if the site's owner is aware of that and goes through the process of registering with Brave they get a share of the profits, but this should really be opt-in. As it is, the whole scheme is shady as fuck.
Because Firefox is better.
I don't care what the CEO of a corporation is doing because most of them are conservative pieces of shit.
They used to change the url which the user typed into the address bar to include a referral code. The article mentions going to binance.us, the browser appended a referral link to the url.
That's scummy as fuck.
I stopped using it because it was kinda shitty. Some page elements in my webapps just didn't display or work correctly. Firefox is the more polished experience now. But it is kinda nice not having to morally justify your choice of browser, too.
So you've read all the way up to that line and closed the article didn't you ?
There were 3 points:
CEO is a dick: not enough of a reason
Swapping ads: I have ads disabled anyways so what do I care. If I did care I wouldn't block ads in the first place
3.1. Promoting/friendships with crypto: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
3.2. Privacy leak: it happens ¯_(ツ)_/¯
3.3. Partnering with weird people: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
3.4. IS AN ADVERTISING PLATFORM: ¯_(ツ)_/¯