>>54738664
>hurr ads are bad m'kay
>let's replace those mean ol ads with our happy friendly ads
no thanks

>>54738664
What are the pros?
In comparison to cliqz, what's the better/safer choice?

>>54738681
already getting tired of the "new ad here soon" bs
probably will try pale moon next but I've heard it's like using a 5 year old browser

>>54738798
pros

it's not chrome/firefox
will get petty change eventually in the form of bitcoin

I've never used cliqz, couldn't tell you

>>54738664
What concerns me is that the remove adds completey option might get removed in the future. Other than that I actually quite like the browser, it's fast as fuck

>>54738664

Is it another Chrome based catastrophe? I have to give them props for being open source at least, but I really wonder. Can you use Firefox or Chrome addons? What tracking-block technology do they integrate? Do they use Disconnect which is open source, like Firefox? Or something proprietary like Ghostery and run by an ad company.

The idea with the ads isn't necessarily a horrible one. However, putting aside the idea that I might not want to see ANY ads if I can avoid them, what is their privacy policy. Do they do any tracking with their so called Brave ads? If they weren't being ethical, since they were the main supplier of all main ads, everywhere, for every user they could easily give that information to those who buy advertising etc. But they seem to rail against tracking and profile generation etc... so what is their deal?

Now, as far as the ads themselves are put together... on their page the show that they leave so called "clean" 1st party ads. Why not block those too? Secondly, it shows them maybe replacing the ads with some less shitty ones... but it isn't like there's just ONE ad per page in their example. There's still one at the top, one midway through, a side box, plus however many first party ads remain. Sure this is an improvement... but why can't they just consolidate it instead into a maximum of 1 or 2 ads per page, located in more or less the same areas provided there is a "bad" ad to replace or free space?

I do like the idea of them offering more ethical ads, provided they actually do so, and paying users for watching them, so I'm wiling to see i how it develops. Oh and on the payment issue, they mention you can eliminate ads entirely if you pay for that site - well does that mean donating ALL revenue, your 15% from that site, every time you go etc..? Or is it like making a donation from your accumulated cash from all sites that unlocks that site as ad free?
Oh, and password managers. Keepass? Encryptr?

>>54739020

Oh and one more idea.... why don't they offer a "Brave Addon" for Firefox (and maybe Chrome) that would essentially add their ad-replacement tech, payment scheme etc... ? That way people can try it out without having to switch browsers. Of course,if you use full on ad blockers together then you wont' see anything, and you won't get paid imagine, but it would still be a good option.

Too bad they're starting password management with 1Password and maybe the turd that is LastPass. The only acceptable password management systems are KeePass / KeePassX , PasswordSafe (but it doens't integrate well online) , and Encryptr which seems to be the only web based, end to end encrypted open source password manager.

>>54738681
Except that not what they're saying at all.
They're saying regular ads are bad because:

1) they track you
2) they can serve malware
3) they are bandwidth and resource hogs
4) most revenue goes to the ad network, not the site (or visitors)

These are some of the issues Brave is trying to solve. Whether you think this is a good idea, morally right etc. is a different story. But at least educate yourself before you speak.

>Eich in charge of UI

It looks worse than Vivaldi.

>>54740959
Kill your parents for not having you aborted and then kill yourself for being a fucking loser.