I think we need all support we can get to fight Google on this, so I welcome Brave here actually.
Use this link to avoid going to Twitter:
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/BrendanEich/status/1684561924191842304
Brave have started their marketing spree to try and distract from their most recent controversy. Like clockwork, every time they do something controversial they start marketing to drum up new users.
Just a reminder that Brendan Eich who founded Brave was ousted from Mozilla for being a homophobic piece of shit.
Brave is the edgelord of browsers.
Don’t forget that he inflicted the blight that is JavaScript upon the world.
JS is one of the most fun programming languages ever created; how dare you slander its great name.
sure mate, just tell me the result of the following without trying it out.
0 && 1 && false
If I remember correctly, 0 and 1 are considered falsy and truthy respectively, so it should be
falsy and truthy and falsewhich I believe would return false.Tried it out to double-check, and the type of the first in the sequence is what ultimately is returned. It would still function the same way if you used it in a conditional, due to truthy/falsy values.
yes, that is a solid logic, one that I also applied and expected to be the result.
that is until a Vue component started complaining that I am passing in a number for a prop that expects a boolean.
turns out the result of that code is actually: 0, because javascript
of course if you flip it and try
false && 0 && 1
then you get false, because that’s what you really want in a language, where && behaves differently depending on what is on what side.
I was incorrect; the first part of my answer was my initial guess, in which I thought a boolean was returned; this is not explicitly the case. I checked and found what you were saying in the second part of my answer.
You could use strict equality operators in a conditional to verify types before the main condition, or use Typescript if that’s your thing. Types are cool and great and important for a lot of scenarios (used them both in Java and Python), but I rarely run into issues with the script-level stuff I make in JavaScript.
I only use it for the rare web app where I really don’t want the browser ui on pc, any suggestion, preferably before this cryto scam go down? I tried Gnome Web, but on my pc it freeze and crash wherever there is a video on screen.
You can enable PWA in Firefox, try with this https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox
Brendan Eich who founded Brave was ousted from Mozilla for being a homophobic piece of shit.
He was ousted because he donated 1000$ to a political project that he personally supported, which yes, was banning of homosexual marriage.
I specify that, even if I shouldn’t, the project in question is not something I agree with. Yet firing him and continuing to attack him years after (like you’re doing here) over opinions he kept personal (he didn’t bring it to Mozilla nor did he comment openly about this opinion) is a little shocking to me.
Let’s say you personally supported a wildly unpopular, some might call bigoted, societal change, say drug criminalization in states that legalized it. As long as you just not exposed this in your professional life, how would you feel if your work fired you over it and if people kept bashing you (without knowing anything about you) and your future professional endeavors for the rest of your life?
We should probably just chill out on that part.
Let me translate your comment with equivalent wording that reveals it’s true nature.
Imagine being caught calling for the eradication of jews in private and then being fired and called an anti-semite for the rest of your life. Even though you didn’t bring this into your workplace and then companies being reluctant to hire you.
also your drug criminalization is an entire load of false equivalence bollocks, drug criminalization is a far more complex issue than Gay Marriage, or rather whether we should treat people equally. There are very valid arguments for certain drugs to be criminalized that are way too easy to abuse and kill people with, like fentanyl and I say that as someone that’s a supporter of full drug decriminalization.
Not to mention there are levels to drug criminalization, there is a difference if you have a gram of drug on you or a metric fuck ton.
There is no version of treating LGBT+ as just somewhat less equal that’s morally defensible.
also your drug criminalization is an entire load of false equivalence bollocks, drug criminalization is a far more complex issue than Gay Marriage, or rather whether we should treat people equally. There are very valid arguments for certain drugs to be criminalized that are way too easy to abuse and kill people with, like fentanyl and I say that as someone that’s a supporter of full drug decriminalization.
Sorry english is not my first language, so that wasn’t clear. By drugs, I meant cannabis here, well I don’t know the details in the US but “soft drugs” that’s being de-criminalized there. Not other kinds of drugs. Though that was just an example to make people realize that expressing unpopular opinions, as long as they’re not illegal, should not lead to firing people and insulting them for life.
Also, you’re the one exposing false equivalences with your godwin point. Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder. And the action of calling for the eradication of any people is (rightly to me) illegal in any case.
There is no version of treating LGBT+ as just somewhat less equal that’s morally defensible.
Never defended the guy’s opinions, I just find comments here a little bit (euphemism) extreme.
Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder.
Continuing to marginalize a vulnerable segment of society sends a message that it’s ok to harass and kill members of that segment. It’s not mass murder, but it certainly encourages violence.
how are you not defending him? you are literally making arguments in his defense or in the defense of someone like him, trying to get people to empathize with him for having an “unpopular opinion”
so if you think mass murders are a bit of a stretch (it really isn’t if you know anything about fascism) let’s say he donated to a political group whose goal is to make interracial marriage illegal, do you still think you need to make comments about how that’s “just an unpopular opinion”?
Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder.
How do you think genocides start?
Nah it’s fair to keep hassling people who have done bad things to society like that. I hope that all the Jan. 6th traitors have a similar permanent status of being hassled about it too.
I get it, but not giving them any kind of an out means they will be permanent enemies even if they do change their mind about wanting a Trump coup. But on the other hand, it’s hard to tell if someone really changes or just realizes they should pretend they’ve changed to make their life easier and bide their time for the right time to come back out.
I just know that I have some views now that are polar opposites of what I believed when I was younger.
There are unpopular personal views, and then there is advocating to politically oppress human beings. That’s a hard bright line that disqualifies someone from all civil affairs among decent people.
From his lack of response on the topic it’s clear he still supports that position (being anti-gay marriage). He was ousted in part because Mozilla is supposed to be and open and inclusive place to work, hard to do that when your boss doesn’t believe you should be allowed to marry.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
Jobs fire people ALL THE TIME over personally held beliefs or things they say/do outside of work. We can argue that’s not right but as long as it happens to the rank and file I think it appropriate to at least try to hold C-level to the same standards. If it helps you sleep at night I’m almost sure he would have survived the backlash at any company that wasn’t like Mozilla, lord knows C-level came get away with murder most places.
He was ousted in part because Mozilla is supposed to be and open and inclusive place to work,
So by “open and inclusive” that means “everyone has to have the personal opinions, even when they don’t bring any of those opinions to the company?”
To clarify, I think gay people should be allowed to marry. I don’t agree with the supposed position Brendan Eich has. I say “supposed” because you haven’t provided any proof that this is his position.
Here’s 2 great questions you should answer:
- Should Muslims be allowed to work at Mozilla?
Islam is very anti-gay, and if you’ve met any Muslim immigrants, I have, they don’t think the gays should marry either. Among, uh, other things. Depending on age and where they’re from.
- Should you be penalized/reprimanded/fired by your employer for having opinions they don’t agree with?
Let’s say this: you work for a Pakistani Muslim and in a workplace that’s predominantly Middle Eastern and North African. He doesn’t believe in gay marriage, you do. You donate like $50 to some LGBTQIA+ organization. Should your boss fire you?
Or let’s be less controversial: you want to legalize all drugs and donate to a candidate who thinks the same. Your employer had a family member who died of a heroin overdose, and they’re pretty anti-drug. Should they fire you?
Or lastly: you’re a Republican. Your boss is a registered Democrat. Neither of you talk politics at work and you get along well and you do your job. Should they fire you?
hard to do that when your boss doesn’t believe you should be allowed to marry.
Was Brendan Rich going out of his way to tell any gay people at Mozilla he thinks they shouldn’t marry? Was he bullying gay subordinates? If he was, yea, he should absolutely be fired. If not, it doesn’t make sense to me for an employer to fire you for personal opinions you hold that don’t effect your day-to-day job.
Fire the Muslims too if they take any public actions to oppress others, I say.
Sure, I don’t disagree. But you can’t fire them simply because Islam isn’t pro-gay.
But I need proof that Eich was going out of his way to specifically oppress the gays, not a “well obviously” or tangential claim. If he simply donated to some Republican who later turned out later to actually be anti-gay marriage, who’s to say Eich didn’t know they had that position?
And we don’t even know if Eich is against gay marriage, no one here has shown proof of that. Should I assume you’re possibly Islamaphobic because of your comment? I don’t think I should.
We can’t assume people’s positions based on nothing tangible. It comes off as obnoxious mind reading. In fairness, the internet created these mind reading games all political sides do, because it gets attention and likes. If someone truly holds a disagreeable opinion, you should be able to sufficiently counter it. Granted, that’s a whole different think when we’re talking about being in the workplace.
Believing in oppressing other people’s rights is not the same as actually taking an action to take those rights away.
Advocating those beliefs is! If he wasn’t doing that, no one would know about it
Look, a well thought out argument that really shows the hypocrisy of people now a days. Of course no one is going to respond.
Jobs fire people ALL THE TIME over personally held beliefs or things they say/do outside of work
I thankfully (at least in my opinion) live in a country where this is illegal and it does seem well-enforced (I live in France). I understand this can and does happen in the US, but I still find it shocking enough for me to comment on it. The firing of Brendan Eich had a pretty big backlash so I’m not the only one.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
I do not use brave either because I’m not comfortable with the philosophy and whole crypto thing, but using that as a proof to “the lack of morals and character” of Brendan Eich is a big shortcut to take IMO. Ironically that quoted parts also sounds like something I normally would more likely hear from someone at the opposite side of the political spectrum - from what I guessed is your political affiliation - but I digress and my guess may be completely wrong (in any case, I don’t care much, I just thought it may help me to make you get my point).
Then to make things clear, I’m not against boycotting companies due to the personal actions of someone you vehemently disagree with, I’m against the idea of insulting publicly both him and the projects he’s affiliated with every time his name comes up. This is the very annoying and toxic part.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
I wish you had that level of moral integrity when it comes to working with companies that are banked by institutions that ravage and pillage the working class.
Don’t care, still won’t use out of principle.
What principle are you referring to? (Serious question)
There are 3 possibilities:
- brave has crypto stuff
- brave is based on chromium
- brave is selling data breaking the licenses
Also, I’ve seen accusations of blatant homophobia been thrown around against the founder, haven’t looked into that though so no idea how accurate that is
What people are referring to in that regard is how, in 2011, Brendan Eich (who later founded Brave Software) stepped down as CEO of Mozilla, 11 days after his appointment to said position, after it came out he had donated $1000 dollars to the campaign for California Proposition 8 in 2008, a proposed state constitutional amendment seeking to ban same-sex marriage. Prop 8 wound up passing, although it was overturned a few years after the fact in court.
Here’s an article from when Eich stepped down about the whole ordeal.
Thanks for adding context to this!
crypto is the future
chromium is more secure
licenses shouldn’t exist
“I ain’t like all the others”
deleted by creator
The DRM will be so interwoven into the core engine that they won’t be able to remove it. chromium is a sinking ship
Time to switch to Firefox as the base.
This is the way.
Amen. I’m just waiting for them to screw everything up and I’ll follow along.
t. Currently using Brave
Just use Firefox. I already like it better than brave personally.
It really isn’t though. I also started using Firefox recently and I miss tab groups on mobile as well as on my PC. Yes, there is the simple tab groups add-on, but it just doesn’t compare.
Brave is also easier to set up ad-blocking, because it comes with ad-block enabled and script-blocking two clicks away.Don’t get me wrong, I will continue to use FF, but Brave has some features, FF does not have (yet).
The more that use Chromiun, the more likely WEI will be rolled out and the death of ad blockers comes quicker.
I moved from FF to Brave but I’m currently testing Vivaldi, I quite like it.
I found FF on mobile to be flakey.
Vivaldi is my default browser, but isnt it chromium though?
Tab groups is the biggest thing I’m missing after I made the switch the other week. I’m used to having loads of tabs open, so not being able to easily minimize the ones I’m currently using is annoying to say the least.
One plus is containers. Only opening Meta sites in their own container, same with Google/Youtube is pretty neat.
Tab groups and container tabs are the two things I want. Tab groups I’m missing a lot. The extension is not available on mobile.
Remembered one more thing; in Firefox I can only have 31 tabs open before the scroll bar appears. In Chrome it’s closer to 90-100! That’s kinda huge imo.
No need to wait, Firefox is already a strong competitor (in terms of features, not market share). Adblock on Firefox mobile makes mobile sites so much easier to use.
I don’t know how people navigate the internet without adblock on mobile. Each website is a nightmare with the majority of the screen being ads.
Yeah, ff mobile may be complete garbage UX/security wise, but its the only usable mobile browser IMO, simply because of ublock support.
What makes Firefox on mobile complete garbage security wise? Genuinely curious.
According to the GrapheneOS docs
Firefox does not have internal sandboxing on Android.
Apparently Firefox’s sandbox is still substantially weaker than chromium and it is currently much more vulnerable to exploitation.
I guess you could argue that having ublock is a pretty big deal for security though. Regardless I won’t consider an alternative unless it offers ublock, even if ux or security is better - happy to sacrifice convenience for privacy and usability.
God I hope so, Google’s definitely in that “Live long enough to become the villain” camp of the infamous dichotomy (is that the right word) offered from that line from Dark Knight.
It might be interwoven, but at the end there are three interfaces:
- the headers or tags that trigger it to be enabled for a website
- the API towards the attester
- the headers that are added to subsequent call to include the verdict of the attester
It should be enough to disable/sabotage nr. 1. If not, you can sabotage nr. 2 so it simply doesn’t attest shit. And finally you can suppress adding the verdict to the responses.
If the actual “fingerprinting” or whatever else is in there is still intact doesn’t matter if you just don’t trigger it.
Of course webservers would simply deny serving brave then. But it’s still a good move. The more browsers get “denied”, the easier it will be to make a case against websites for some kind of discrimination.
Chromium is open source. Brave can just fork it.
What do you mean Brave “can” fork it? It’s already a fork.
Yes, and Brave employs software developers that do this sort of thing as a primary task of their job.
“Just” fork it. Right.
It’s a massive undertaking to maintain a fork of something that large and continue pulling in patches of later developments.
Not to say that Brave doesn’t have the resources to do so - I really don’t know their scale - but this notion of “just fork” gets thrown around a lot with these kinds of scenarios. It’s an idealistic view and the noble goal of open source software, but in practical and pragmatic terms it doesn’t always win, because it takes time and effort and resources that may not just be available.
Did you read the tweet from Brendan Eich linked in the OP? According to him, Brave already is a fork, and he provides a link to a (surprisingly) extensive list of things that are removed / disabled from chromium on their browser.
This is correct - any “Chromium-based” browser is literally a fork unless it’s completely unchanged from upstream (even rebranding and changing the logo and name would require maintaining a fork).
“Don’t like it? Just fork it!” is the software equivalent of “Are you sad? Just be happy!”
Brendan is quick to act when it comes to $$$$… and anti LGBT law
Nothing related to Brave, and Mozilla has been going downhill since the departure of Brendan.
I don’t get all the hate Brave gets. I understand that techies have some issues, but for me as a user I have nothing bad to say. Ads are blocked everywhere, including YouTube. There’s an option to use tor…
If you don’t like the crypto options don’t use them. I always thought crypto was bunk, but I wish I bought a bunch of bitcoin when I first heard of it.
As a normal browser user:
The browser works fine, although with time they kept adding more and more stuff that I had to disable. I could deal with it, but it’s not a browser I’d recommend to most of my friends.
After a few years using Chrome and then Brave, I moved back to Firefox. Not as polished, but works fine for me.
As a Brave Rewards/Creators user:
I simply don’t trust them anymore.
I used it for a while to make some money with my site. Some people used Brave (like me), so since they were blocking ads, I confirmed my site so I could get some of the automated donations the browser sends to the top sites people visited that month. I received a few payments, had everything confirmed, paid taxes on the revenue… all 100% legit, never tried to game the system or anything like that. It wasn’t much, but helped with running costs.
One day I couldn’t login to see my balance, but ignored it and forgot about it. Then they sent me an email asking me how I was making that money, to which I replied. Months went by without any reply… until I forced the issue. Then they banned my account without providing any reasons or a way to appeal. My site was still verified, so I assume I was still receiving donations, which I could not access. The site continued to be displayed as “verified” even after them banned me… I have no idea if they sent the donations back to the senders. I actually had to ask them to un-verify the site if they were going to keep my account banned.
The way they dealt with it was bad and receiving donations to a banned account is shady as fuck. I wouldn’t use the word “hate”, but I just can’t trust them.
deleted by creator
I think it’s largely because of Brendan Eich not supporting gay marriage. The browser itself seems fine to me also.
I don’t like it because it’s a chrome derivative. Sure, they use Chromium and can edit some things. But at the end of the day, they use the Chrome javascript engine and render the HTML/CSS however Google wants to. Therefore Google more or less defines how that browser represents the web. If Google wants to implement or not implement some web standard, Brave has to follow along whether they like it or not.
I want less power in Google’a hands, not more.
The chrome javascript engine? V8 you mean? That’s used in Node, it basically powers most, if not all, of the modern web lol
Node is far from the most popular. Majority of websites run on PHP.
Hence the modern. Most modern websites nowadays don’t use php anymore, at least for their FE
Laravel is modern enough. If you’re talking bleeding edge web dev, that’s actually on elixir with Phoenix
Not sure how you count how “modern” something is considering PHP still has new versions and cut lots of releases
at least for their FE
People totally still just output html from PHP in modern websites, not everything is react
Props to Brendan! Firefox and Brave are have put their foot down. Now they need our support. I’m hoping that nobody here is using Chrome (or anything else Google for that matter). We the users are what gave Google their power. We wanted free shit and look where that landed us. Time to turn things around.
Just going to leave this here
I was going to link the controversies section but it seems to have been removed without any reason at all though the controversies are discussed on the talk page for the Wikipedia article that I have linked
https://nitter.net/BrendanEich/status/1684561924191842304
Nitter link.
Also, the Chromium forks need to get onboard. I think Opera doesn’t care about ads either so it will likely go against it but Microsoft will definitely add it to Edge.
Use Firefox :)
I guess nitter needs to be renamed to…nix?
Mandatory Opera is fucking evil comment.
deleted by creator
Yeah it’s really hard to say it’s only a reskin. It’s clearly not.
There is also https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium as an option.
Does this mean anything, I mean they can just prevent us accessing to site. And even though this is something we dont wish many websites are going to implement web integrity; which lead us to being forced to use a browser compatible with web integrity if we want to use web.
I know there are always alternatives to services that are probably going to implement web integrity(mainly referring big techs’ services) but we all sometimes use their services in some cases.
All google has to do is make this web DRM mandatory for websites to use its advertising engine Adsense, and suddenly a majority of the internet may refuse your browser. There are apparently about 56 million sites using Adsense. Here is a list of the top 1k by traffic. All of these could be blocked, along with 56 million more.
Yes, it means a lot.
Just don’t use Chrome, don’t use websites that lock you out, complain to support
As @mosiacmango suggested many websites use adsense, it is easy for you to say just dont use them but some of them cant be replaced and dont forget you wont be able to use an alternative frontend. Even if you are not using I believe many of us are using at least some of those services that will implement web integrity or uses google ads
Blocking adsense is NON-NEGOTIABLE
Switched back to Firefox myself. Highly recommend.
I don’t agree with Brave’s business model, and the shady stuff they did, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Bold claim for a chromium-based browser.
Not really. It’s easy to see exactly where the code is for a new feature by reading the commit history. It shows more or less exactly what to cut out.
And that’s easy to do right now.
But that’s permanent, unfixable, and potentially ever-increasing tech debt they are taking on.
How easy will it be to do when it’s an old feature?
“Permanent, unfixable, and potentially ever-increasing tech debt” is just a description of maintaining a web browser. Using Chromium is still orders of magnitude less work then starting from scratch.
And orders of magnitude worse than just firefox.
It’s just code. It’s not like it’s cursed.
It’s just code…
Their business model is replacing ads with ads they get paid for. Obviously they aren’t going to like Google making that harder.
Brendan Eich is an asshole deep in the Conspiracy Victim Complex too. I like Brave search as an alternative to Google but I’m still using Firefox
Have you given Ecosia a shot? I find it better than Brave’s search, with the side-effect of not having a shithole CEO.
Ecosia “tree planting” is bullshit though. They only raise funds towards the statutory goal when you click ads, so if you have an ad blocker in your browser or purposefully skip over sponsored search results then they don’t make money towards the tree planting programme.
Well yeah, that’s how search engines make money. They aren’t magic
Exactly, and yet they claim “each search plants a tree”.
You may be right but I have been using Brave on iOS simply because you can’t just install Firefox and uBlock, and since I reconfigured the new tab page I haven’t seen any ads anywhere at all.
From now on, any browser that refuses to implement Google‘s evil shit should be worth a look.
Why not stick with Safari with the Adblock extension and all the others that are available?
Because this way, instead of two apps it’s just one and with better control over content blocking.
But every browser on iOS is just a wrapper around safari… So you’re still just using safari plus another app
Had been using Brave for 4 years. Switched from it to Firefox after the Google DRM news came out. Firefox is awesome!
I never liked Brave. The whole “allow ads to get awards” thing doesn’t sit right with me. The only adblockers that do that are the ones that are in bed with the ad companies. Firefox with UBlock Origin and NoScript is all you need.
(I mean, there are other good addons for privacy as well, but it’s easy to go down a rabbit hole and next thing you know you have 30 different extensions installed and websites are breaking. Then you have to start disabling things one-by-one until you find the culprit. Setting your security settings in FF to “Strict” and using those two addons should be good enough without going overboard.)
Edit: only thing that sucks about Firefox is that it still doesn’t support HDR and RTX Video Super Resolution yet, so in the meantime I use the “Open in Chromium” browser extension when I’m watching videos on YouTube, so that they display properly with all the enhancements.
I’m an avid YouTube watcher on Firefox. What does HDR and RTX Video Super Resolution do?
HDR is High Dynamic Range. Makes your monitor more colorful and realistic, closer to what you see in real life. Bright scenes are brighter, colors are more vibrant and accurate (for example, you can actually see teal properly with an HDR monitor, which normal monitors can’t display accurately). Requires a compatible monitor. You would know if you had one cause most people don’t spend extra money on a display unless they know/care about this feature.
RTX Video Super Resolution uses AI to sharpen and upscale lower resolution video. It’s useful for watching 1080p videos on a 4K monitor. Or for watching 720p videos at 1080-quality because your internet sucks and can’t handle 1080p. Requires an Nvidia RTX graphics card (again, you would know if you had one cause they’re expensive and meant for PC gamers).
Basically I’m complaining about features that only enthusiasts care about, but Chrome supports them so why not Firefox too?
Sounds pretty cool! Why is this done at browser level and not at window manager level?
Beats me. ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ That is a good point. Why isn’t this shit done at the window manager level? Fucking Microsoft. Wish I could switch to Linux but it doesn’t even support HDR at all.
Recent Windows 10 and Windows 11 support auto HDR, You can enable HDR in the display settings, and it works for pretty much everything. I’ve never noticed that Firefox lacks native HDR support, because Windows does compensate. The only time it doesn’t is when older games use exclusive fullscreen mode, and then auto-HDR still works as long as I tell them to run in a window and use borderless windowed mode.
When Google chrome was released in 2008, I read about it in a tech magazine and it described how much it’s going to be spying on you. I was immediately put off by it, and decided not to install it. At the time I wondered why would anyone ever install this junk. Oh boy, was I in for a surprise! Pretty much everyone installed it, and within the next 10 years chrome had become the most popular browser.
Obviously, I never switched from FF.
Imagine if everyone started using a browser made by an advertising company, such that they pretty much had complete control of the way we use and view the web.
Better yet, imagine a social gathering place where people are encouraged to share everything about themselves, but the place is actually tun by an advertising company. Oh what, that actually happened.
Hello fellow Firefox lifer. It’s been awesome!
If only someone would put the Firefox over the earth like the logo, that would be epic.
