What Manifest V3 means for Brave Shields and the use of extensions in the Brave browser
What Manifest V3 means for Brave Shields and the use of extensions in the Brave browser
Brave is committed to maintaining Manifest V2 support, allowing users to keep their favorite extensions functioning beyond the industry-wide deprecation.
You're viewing a single thread.
Fuck brave, built on chromium
Pretty much all browsers are. Unfortunately Chrome holds the vast majority of users and websites are built for Chrome (and Safari but I'm sure as fuck not throwing buckets at Apple for their disposable and proprietary trash).
CEO is a homophobic shithead. Even if "politics" have nothing to do with the quality of software (I dont think donating to legislatures to block gay marriage is a case of "having a different political opinion"), people who care that much about how other people live their lives should NOT be trusted for a privacy respecting browser. The browser is decent, but it is stained by his presense, contributes to the chromium monoculture, and is filled with crypto bullshit.
Fuck all CEOs. Stop giving them platforms & celebrity where they get to be the symbol of products/services—which discounts all the labor done into something by the real folks building & making decisions.
I do agree with this. I dont want to discount Brave (just) because of their CEO. Fuck CEOs. Brave has done some iffy things in the past, but their Chromium patches are general decent for privacy.
Ramblings about Firefox
Firefox resistFingerprinting does more to preserve user privacy (through normalizing of many metrics) and allow for the possibility of a crowd of fingerprint-identical users, the only legitimate way to protect against advanced deanonimizing scripts. Maybe if Mozilla enshittification of Firefox makes a worse, unfixable, and inferior product to Chromium, these patches could lay groundwork for more thorough protections. The reason we have strong protections in Firefox is because of upstreamed code from the Tor Uplift Project, with their code designed for a stricter threat model (in my opinion) than what Brave intends (aka out of scope).
The first point makes no sense and that's why privacy is so important - not to lose trust in this stupid and toxic society because of different opinions.
I find it rather repulsive, that people would label “being against gay marriage” as “only holding an opinion”. It makes it seem so harmless. It is depriving people of the same rights that heterosexuals have. And that is why it might matter to people. It’s not just “any” opinion, like a view on how the economy should be regulated, where one could definitely argue about. But a view, which would deprive people of the same rights that others have, is not a valid opinion to have. There is no way that it can be respected. It’s the paradox of tolerance
In a comment further down you write the following: (Edit: the comment has since been removed by a mod)
You have the right to have a liberal opinion so why not let people have their own? It's like discrimination of black people at this point.
Which is quite ironic. You try to defend holding an opinion, which would discriminate against a certain group by not giving them the same rights. You argue that it’s discrimination to not respect their discrimination. In essence you ask the tolerant to respect the views of intolerant.
Having principles related to Human Rights is only toxic to people who are already problematic
I don't really understand what you mean, and I am sorry if I misunderstand you.
Privacy is important because we have a right to not have everything broadcast, tracked, and sold. Privacy is both good for our personal health and safety, especially because of how useful collected info is for even amateur threat actors. Society is toxic, but calling out people who specifically want to legally control how others (harmlessly) live their lives is not itself toxic.
His opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I think this is rather invasive. My point is that someone who is willing to donate thousands to homophobic lobbyists doesn't seem to care about gay people's rights to Privacy or freedom, and therefore I wouldn't want to use a browser that he leads. It takes a real POS to spend money towards homophobic legislation.
Regardless of that though, Brave is still worse at protecting fingerprintable metrics than hardened Firefox. Brave browser is decent, maybe the best chromium based privacy browser, but not close to Firefox. There really isn't such things as blending in with a crowd of other Brave users, like what is possible with Tor and Mullvad browsers.
He doesn't spend the project's budget on that donations so why would you care? This is the problem with liberal people. They are very toxic and exclusive towards everyone with a different opinion. Maybe non-liberal ones have this issue too but I never saw it in the amount I see by liberal people. This makes me very sure that their "opinion" (in brackets because I'm not sure if it's an opinion anymore) is unhealthy (unreasonable aggression is a normal organism's reaction when it's sick, especially mentally) or is a symptom of a disease. You have the right to have a liberal opinion so why not let people have their own? It's like discrimination of black people at this point. But that's besides the point. My point was that having good privacy doesn't let toxic people know your opinions and (stupidly imo) judge them for it.
And yes I do agree that Brave isn't the best browser out there. I don't use it myself and I am not defending its crypto features. But Mozilla doesn't look too strong now either unfortunately.
Also I am not willing to continue the political discussion. I said everything I wanted to say and this is not the place for such topics. Trying to cause a fight will be considered causing a fight and treated accordingly.
I do not understand the aggression you are putting forth. I am not sharing political opinions, neither am I a liberal. It may be hard to understand, but I do not trust people who discriminate against social minorities (and pay thousands to back it up) to simultaneously protect personal privacy. Why would I trust someone who thinks me and my friends shouldn't exist? I am not being toxic about it, I am just stating what I observe as a conflict of interest. I also was not being aggressive towards you, so I don't understand your vitriolic response.
CEO is a homophobic shithead. ... Privacy is important ... Privacy is good ... Society is toxic ... calling out people who specifically want to legally control how others (harmlessly) live their lives is not itself toxic ... His opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I think this is rather invasive. ... My point is that someone who is willing to donate thousands to homophobic lobbyists doesn't seem to care about gay people's rights to Privacy ...
And then:
I am not sharing political opinions
Brilliant.
Although I am not sure whether it is art or delusion.
You obviously do not understand what I am saying. I dont think I can explain it to you, especially when you are so sarcastic and opposed to honest conversation.
The plain and simple is I cannot agree with bigots nor trust someone to pays thousands to lobbyist to back up their bigotry. I dont think this is a political issue; I have said nothing of my politics. I could never trust a human who spends thousands to attempt to erase a third of the population. Saying that I dont trust a homophobe is not "sharing my political opinions". The lives of gay people may be affected by politics (just as we all are), but that doesn't mean homophobia (or being against homophobia) is a political opinion.
You did nothing by quoting my original comment. It only illustrates your categorical misunderstanding of my comments.
Saying that I dont trust a homophobe is not "sharing my political opinions". The lives of gay people may be affected by politics (just as we all are), but that doesn't mean homophobia (or being against homophobia) is a political opinion.
I couldn’t agree more with you👍🏼
Saying that I dont trust a homophobe is not “sharing my political opinions”
That's true.
However, you did not just say that. You mentioned how he supports some homophobic politics (ie. regulation against gay marriage), which you (and I'm sure a lot of people, me included) disagree with. That's politics.
You also shared your opinion about why you think privacy is important for our society. That's also politics.
I'm not saying that what you said is wrong... I'm saying that what you said is political. Sharing political opinions is ok. It's not like talking about politics is somehow a bad thing. At least not in this context. A lot of what surrounds the choice of a web browser like this is political.
You obviously do not understand what am saying.
I don't think you understand at all what being political actually means.
You clearly dislike this person because your and their political positions are at odds, and you seem to want to make that a priority. That is fine! I do that all the time.
I just thought it is absurd that you would think that this decision (or your argument) is not political, because it is.
I just tried to illustrate the obvious by quoting some of the many political things you've written before saying that what you write isn't political.
Like.. why would you think that?