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.
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.
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.
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)_/¯
Good enough for this gay Californian.
Gay Nuyorican
I don’t know what you’re saying, but I infer it’s not meant kindly.
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.