“If someone recommends Brave to you, you should ignore them, because they are wrong.”
I stopped reading here. If you would like to present objective technical arguments, please try not to sound like a 5 year old “I’m right, you’re wrong, blah blah”.
Use Brave or use Firefox. They both work great for privacy, but I find Brave is easier to configure to be private.
I actually sincerely went into the article hoping for logical technical explanations. But I can’t justify listening to someone who starts off with “I’m right you’re wrong”. It’s childish.
The fact is that all browser companies have their problems. I’m interested only in the technical aspects. For example, why is there a whole spec sheet of config settings to make Firefox private against Mozilla? Why does Mozilla continue to install spyware alongside Windows installations (default browser task) ? Why do I have to remove feature plugins, with each major update that assist Mozilla with telemetry and adware, despite Mozilla claiming to have removed those long ago? Why do I have to turn off Normandy? Why should Normandy exist in a so called private browser?
This is what I’m looking for… Not “I’m right you’re wrong”.
When is the last time you saw a thesis that began with "you should ignore them, because they are wrong.”
He had a great opportunity and lots of eyes here from people who use brave to show them how it’s problematic. He started his opinion article with nu’uhhhhhh
Compelling summary: “You’ve been hearing a lot about Brave, maybe you use it yourself, you should look into the company you’re supporting and how they’re turning their back on you before you continue”
Start with privacy issues with tor
Show a historical track record of illegal action add swapping and referrer swapping
Show their shady crypto currency issues. trading out FTX for their own stuff, the FTC/SEC looking into them selling their coin as a security.
Show the CEO is a horrible person.
Make the case that their going to sell your data more unscrupulously than Google or Microsoft.
But no, he’s a horrible journalist that can’t manage to put the critical points first.
“If someone recommends Brave to you, you should ignore them, because they are wrong.”
I stopped reading here. If you would like to present objective technical arguments, please try not to sound like a 5 year old “I’m right, you’re wrong, blah blah”.
Use Brave or use Firefox. They both work great for privacy, but I find Brave is easier to configure to be private.
Or if you don’t like the article, check up on it from other sources instead of burying your head in the sand?
Edit: a word
that would require some bravery
Ah yes let’s ignore everyone that challenges our own opinions because that’s the best way to never be wrong and always feel safe.
I actually sincerely went into the article hoping for logical technical explanations. But I can’t justify listening to someone who starts off with “I’m right you’re wrong”. It’s childish.
The fact is that all browser companies have their problems. I’m interested only in the technical aspects. For example, why is there a whole spec sheet of config settings to make Firefox private against Mozilla? Why does Mozilla continue to install spyware alongside Windows installations (default browser task) ? Why do I have to remove feature plugins, with each major update that assist Mozilla with telemetry and adware, despite Mozilla claiming to have removed those long ago? Why do I have to turn off Normandy? Why should Normandy exist in a so called private browser?
This is what I’m looking for… Not “I’m right you’re wrong”.
Today, a Lemming did not learn what a thesis statement is.
When is the last time you saw a thesis that began with "you should ignore them, because they are wrong.”
He had a great opportunity and lots of eyes here from people who use brave to show them how it’s problematic. He started his opinion article with nu’uhhhhhh
Compelling summary: “You’ve been hearing a lot about Brave, maybe you use it yourself, you should look into the company you’re supporting and how they’re turning their back on you before you continue”
Start with privacy issues with tor
Show a historical track record of illegal action add swapping and referrer swapping
Show their shady crypto currency issues. trading out FTX for their own stuff, the FTC/SEC looking into them selling their coin as a security.
Show the CEO is a horrible person.
Make the case that their going to sell your data more unscrupulously than Google or Microsoft.
But no, he’s a horrible journalist that can’t manage to put the critical points first.
Thank you for being a great example of exactly what the author refers to.
Maybe you should keep reading then