And google keeps threatening to make it not work at all on Chrome. Most recently, yesterday [1], with warning banners harassing users supposedly rolling out on Monday.
It’s one of the few options (the only other being Orion afaik) that you can natively block ads from the browser on iOS. The other solutions like firefox/chrome/safari have to go through the declarative content blocking API since you can’t install Chrome/Firefox plugins.
This post is about the search engine, not the web browser. I use Brave instead of Google search because Google presents me with captchas every time I use it, and Brave's search engine is good enough. I already use Firefox and ublock origin.
Thanks for this. I don't get why most comments are about the browsers...
I tried kagi, the results start great and get noticeably better even within the free trial period. I don't have to worry about ads and I've blocked or lowered all poor quality sites on the fly. I sort results by tracker count and find most of the time results with lowest trackers have the best content for what I am looking for. Anything I couldn't find was also not findable with google or bing. I started a year of paid subscription and I don't think I'll ever go back to any ad-funded search or any free search that might be tempted to add ads later.
Chrome is heavy spyware that scans your whole PC by default under the guise of "chrome is an antivirus now". Chrome tracking data is used for google's advertising wing and they lied about it extensively, which was obvious to many but now there's proof because of the recent leak.
Brave does not do this. Pretty much without exception, anyone using chrome is better served by using brave. It doesnt mean brave is perfect or the best, but holding up chrome as better is a joke.
The only real constraint on what Brave will and will not do is their VC pressures to make money vs reputational damage. And reputational damage isn't all that expensive.
Ads were always part of the Brave experience via the BAT program. Brave doesn't want there to be no ads, just ads that are non-intrusive and non-spyware. Duckduckgo does search term correlated ads as well, and I think its a fine way to build a revenue stream.
> The only real constraint on what Brave will and will not do is their VC pressures to make money vs reputational damage. And reputational damage isn't all that expensive.
The VC's will be disappointed because Eich & co have said they will never exit through an IPO. They don't want to give up control like Google did.
> Safe Browsing
> The Brave Browser automatically uses Google Safe Browsing to help protect you
against websites, downloads and extensions that are known to be unsafe (such as sites that are fraudulent or that host malware).
> We proxy these requests through Brave’s servers to reduce the amount of information sent to Google (for example, we remove your IP address) to protect against Google profiling or tracking you when using Safe Browsing.
Mozilla is in bed with Google. I use brave because:
* it has reasonable way of funding, crypto may suck, but it is believable they will not sell my data
* anonymous bookmark sync with multiple profiles. With Chrome and Firefox I have to sign up for each sync.
* Chrome based debug tools
* It is usable without any plugins. In some environments I do not want to install some questionable plugins, that may change ownership anytime! (It is already named "Ublock Origin", ownership already changed )
* Proprietary Video Codecs support out of the box on Linux. Some distros do not have it, and I do not want to enable community repos.
Does that same reasoning of yours apply to JavaScript, given that person's involvement with its development? For example, do you disable JavaScript in whichever browser(s) you use? Do you avoid all desktop and mobile apps that may contain JavaScript code?
Does it also apply to Mozilla's offerings in general, given that person's significant involvement with the formation of that community, its organizations, and its software? Do you avoid Firefox, Thunderbird, and so forth?
Yes, the same reasoning is used whenever I have a choice. However, let's not pretend like choosing JS or NoJS is the same as choosing a browser. At least you have a small handful of browsers to choose from.
I mainly use NoScript and enable as needed for a select set of websites (banking, etc). I'm not a full on RMS, but I at least make choices that align with my thoughts and opinions, even when it's not convenient.
You'd have to ask him. He financially supported campaigns against it, so he's willing to put his money where his beliefs are. I have no idea how many gays he has tossed.
> it has reasonable way of funding, crypto may suck, but it is believable they will not sell my data
You can rest assured that Brave absolutely will and does sell your data.
> anonymous bookmark sync with multiple profiles. With Chrome and Firefox I have to sign up for each sync.
Nothing at all anonymous about it, firstly. Secondly, you can import/export bookmarks from Firefox and Chrome and do an actual 'anonymous' sync that way.
> Chrome based debug tools
Like.... chrome has?
> It is usable without any plugins. In some environments I do not want to install some questionable plugins, that may change ownership anytime! (It is already named "Ublock Origin", ownership already changed )
No it's not. It's completely unusable if you actually don't want ads.
> Proprietary Video Codecs support out of the box on Linux. Some distros do not have it, and I do not want to enable community repos.
The only reason prop codec implementations are not supported in some (not most) repos is because of licensing/OSS policy... which would equally apply to Brave within those same repos.
reply