414

From the article:

"I know for a fact that Wikipedia operates under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which explicitly states that if you're going to use the data, you must give attribution. As far as search engines go, they can get away with it because linking back to a Wikipedia article on the same page as the search results is considered attribution.

But in the case of Brave, not only are they disregarding the license - they're also charging money for the data and then giving third parties "rights" to that data."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Monologue@lemmy.zip 82 points 1 year ago

i don't get why people choose to use brave, firefox is great and if you really need that chromium base ungoogled chromium exists

[-] SmugBedBug@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 year ago

Firefox has always been my go-to. In my opinion more people should use it.

[-] azron@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Librewolf is starting to replace Firefox for me. Either way birds of a feather!

[-] Jarmer@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

I think LW is better out of the box. It has both UBO and Containers built in. Which is just awesome. I still use FF as my daily just because I have customized it beyond belief, but if I were to start over again I think I'd start with LW.

[-] frequency@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

I think Brave did some aggressive marketing, including social media posts and comments. I did buy their narrative at first too - a browser that already tuned to block ads and trackers. But later I've noticed that it constantly connects back to brave server and it looked suspicious. Firefox is the best.

[-] CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

Agreed, a lot of Reddit comments felt very shilly. Firefox is king and helps prevent Google dictate web standards.

[-] oblique_strategies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, exactly. If every browser is chromium based the web will be an unhealthy monoculture. Easy for a single player to dictate standards. Haven't seen this mentioned as much, but its really important

[-] Matt@lemmy.one 19 points 1 year ago

Brave is great for less techy people because it's defaults are good enough. It's not necessary to tweak settings and install add-ons to get basic privacy. I definitely prefer Firefox, but it takes some knowledge to get it to surpass Brave's defaults.

[-] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 5 points 1 year ago

I don't like installing add-ons. I'd rather have it baked into the browser.

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago

Add-ons give you a lot more choice and control than baked in options.

What's stopping Brave's blocker from just allowing ads from Brave's services? Can you see under the hood to tell if it's blocking everything or just surface level stuff?

A proprietary built in blocker is only as trustworthy as the people that made it, and as the links in this discussion suggest, Brave isn't earning much trust.

[-] Monologue@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 year ago

you are right about choice and more control but brave's ad blocker is not proprietary here is the github link, ublock origin is still the king though

[-] Melpomene@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Of course, using add-ons also requires diligence, as each add-on from each source requires one to both trust the source and vet each source regularly. An add-on is also as trustworthy as the people that made it, and one must be willing to do the work the verify that those add-ons continue to be safe.

[-] Syakaizin@lemmy.fmhy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

For me, Firefox is an inferior product in terms of security feature implementation

https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html

[-] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Stock Firefox has very limited privacy protections.

[-] dngray@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

ungoogled chromium exists

The reason is they have proper build infrastructure managed by the Brave. With Ungoogled Chromium the binaries are produced by third parties, vary in version etc. People claim they would only use "open source software" but they do download binary versions nevertheless and don't compile that code themselves. This increases the risk of a supply chain attack, where a malicious binary is submitted and nobody has really knows until it is too late. The other issue is they disable CRLSets because of "google hate" which we think actually increases the likelihood of a MiTM attack occurring because rogue certificates are not detected and invalidated as quickly as they could have been.

This article describes a few other things https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/

this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
414 points (99.8% liked)

Privacy Guides

16749 readers
1 users here now

In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.

This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.


You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:

Learn more...


Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We've tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!

Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!


This community is the "official" Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other "Privacy Guides" communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.


Moderation Rules:

  1. We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
  2. This is not the place for self-promotion if you are not listed on privacyguides.org. If you want to be listed, make a suggestion on our forum first.
  3. No soliciting engagement: Don't ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
  4. Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
  5. Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
  6. Don't repost topics which have already been covered here.
  7. News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
  8. Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
  9. No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don't abuse our community's willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
  10. No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
  11. Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
  12. General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.

Additional Resources:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS