[–] SpottyMatt 1 points 48 points (+49|-1) ago 

This headline is sensationalized.

According to a Brave Browser issue that was opened on September 8th, 2018, the developers decided to whitelist tracking scripts from Facebook and Twitter because blocking them would affect the functionality of many sites.

The problem is that Facebook and Twitter realized people are blocking trackers and JavaScript by domain, so they started serving critical pieces of their website and their trackers off the same domain. You can't block the tracking and still use the site (at least not with by-hostname tools).

So if you're an up-and-coming browser, what do you do?

  1. Tell users that Facebook and Twitter don't work in your browser
  2. Work around it so two of the largest social media properties can still be used in your browser while you figure it out, and leave a comment in the code acknowledging it as a temporary hack?

Realistically, the path to "significant marketshare and adoption" is blocked if big social media properties don't work in your browser, and that's a path that Brave is trying to advance down.

Pretty sure the article authors are trying to do a "hit piece" on Brave.

[–] TheKnightOfGod 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Besides, you can now install privacy badger and ublock origin (I haven't tested all extensions but these work for me) to fuck kikebook and shitter. Brave is working with these extensions as a recent patch.

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

If I need to add third party items to it in order for it to work properly then why not use another browser completely? It becomes obvious Brave doesn't want to fix that issue if third party items can do so.

[–] RoboGoat2000 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

(((They're))) aware that people on the right often have zero tolerance for liars and hypocrites. Trying to make Brave out to be like that would have got a bunch of people to abandon the browser. Good catch.

[–] PraiseIPU 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago 

So you are aayong yes brave is a scam?

Nice try brave shill

[–] UnknownAlias365 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

Damn, here I am using Brave on mobile...

[–] Rotteuxx 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

If you find a better mobile browser, let me know

[–] asdf2345 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I've liked Waterfox since it's a modified Firefox meant for privacy and speed, but it's 64-bit only

Edit: There's also Lightning, it uses Android System Webview, and can block Ads

And if you're on iOS, Safari with content blockers has worked the best for me, in battery life

[–] nyckreimem 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

EZ. Bromite if you prefer a Chromium base, IceCat mobile if you prefer a Firefox base, and Orfox if you need tor. Anything else is a joke and should be swiftly ignored.

[–] patpit 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Naked Browser Pro

[–] AmazingAutist 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Dolphin browser or Firefox.

EDIT: apparently not, see replies to this comment.

[–] FuckRedditInTheAss 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If you're on iOS, all the 3rd party browsers use Apple's web functions. Unless something has changed, that is.

[–] alakai 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Seems like you're a victim of catchy slogans

[–] chemlord11 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

got a better browser?

[–] Winston321 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Does anybody have a recommended blog that keeps tabs and reports on browser privacy?

[–] Realhero33 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Not aware of any unfortunately. There'd be people that would suggest a neocites website but the info on the website is mostly bullshit or unnecessary stuff. I personally keep a tab on these browsers myself though, I don't rely on a blog for this stuff.

[–] Winston321 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I try to keep tabs but here I sit reading Voat on a Brave browser. Sometimes I get the feeling it's all Kabuki theater.

[–] vbralt45 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I think this is the blog OP mentioned in his reply to you: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html I wouldn't call this info "unnecessary" or "mostly bullshit" as hes ranking the browsers by what unwanted shit they do in the background (something you want to avoid when looking for a new browser). If you're curious as to how this guy ranked them read this: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/liftingtheveil.html

[–] TheTrigger 3 points 9 points (+12|-3) ago 

[–] Fuckyounigger 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

directly from the page you linked

"The Future In order for Waterfox to grow, it needs to do so in more than one sense. Thankfully, with the arrival of a new contract with a rather popular search engine (and a good track record for privacy), this is now possible."

uh huh

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Meh. That just sets your default to Bing but lets you set it to whatever you want easily. Least intrusive way to make money to keep it going in my mind.

[–] TheTrigger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You don't have to use whatever search engine is paying them to be the default setting. They have to make money somehow to keep the project going, I honestly don't see a problem with this. Do you? Look at the ToS and Privacy Policy. It's very concise, straight-forward, and reasonable.

Partnering with a third-party for funding isn't inherently a bad thing. Otherwise: why are you even still on voat? You have no idea who the "Angel" that is funding this website currently is. By your logic, you need to stay way away from here.

[–] nyckreimem 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Waterfox is just GNU IceCat but inferior in every way besides legacy extension support.

[–] HootersMcBoobies 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Does Waterfox implement Quantum? The speed improvement of FF Quantum is pretty much too good to ditch, and nothing I really need extension-wise hasn't been ported over.

[–] speedisavirus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

No. And it has far more vulnerabilities than Firefox because they not only are always behind on the old engine but Mozilla moved their ets release to quantum now too so they can't even merge fixes for new vulnerability fixes

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

No. It is based off an older fork. There is a lot of discussion about when/if it will get Quantum implemented with no result to my knowledge.

[–] Adminstrater 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

There is no way to know if your browser is spying on you or not.

All attempts for the public to create and manage a well meaning browser has always fallen victim to being "bought out".

It's hard to find a decent browser that functions with all modern technologies (especially all the different methods of displaying videos) and seems to be privacy aware and efficient.

[–] jewish_nigger_faggot 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

FOSS to the rescue.

[–] SpottyMatt 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

If anything, this is a case study in FOSS' success and Brave's success: the workaround/whitelist is clearly visible to all, and if someone wanted, they could rebuild the browser without it.

[–] Morbo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This isn't a new problem and FOSS hasn't come to the rescue yet. Don't hold your breath.

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Except even with FOSS you have to trust that someone who has your exact same thoughts in mind has gone through the source code to ensure nothing bad is going on. And when everyone is relying on everyone else to do something it is common for nobody to do anything.

[–] anon_a0f3a9 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

The complexity of the html standard is by design so no one could easily make their own browser. HTML needs COMPLETELY FUCKING SCRAPED. It's a 20-30+ year old shit that was thrown together just to make an example of an idea. It should have NEVER been expanded on. Backwards compatibility is a joke and goes against any practice of an idea on how a software should have evolved.

[–] Adminstrater 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You can support HTML 4 and have a functioning website. It's this push to make mobile a dominant method of website viewing, which has lead to the demand that all websites not only be HTML 5 compliant, but use many of the new HTML 5 features that can really slow down your entire computer, especially mobile devices.

For example: The way Voat functions, aside from some javascript and ajax functionality, it could be built using just HTML 4 tags, and work in simpler browsers.

[–] nyckreimem 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I like your skepticism. But, this might bring your hopes up. Read the actual reviews, it'll qualm your worries about not being able to discover the spying. There are tools, and they are thorough.

[–] kevdude 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I stopped using Brave the moment they took away the ability to delete browser history upon close.

Anyone have any suggestions?

[–] Futt 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

You can't really trust any of them 100%, unless you've done a code audit and compiled it yourself, or run wireshark locally or something. Personally I use Vivaldi (chromium-based) with AdBlock, Privacy Badger and a handful of Tampermonkey-scripts to weed out some of the crap that slips through the cracks (such as anti-adblock scripts etc). I find this combination to be a good balance between privacy and usability; it catches most of it while requiring a minimum of knob-fiddling to get websites to load properly.

I highly recommend Privacy Badger, it does a pretty decent job of blocking tracking cookies and gives you a nice report of all the crap it has caught (so you know which websites try to screw you over). Incidentally, Voat is squeaky clean - no third party resources :)

[–] kevdude 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Incidentally, Voat is squeaky clean - no third party resources :)

That doesn't surprise me at all. @PuttItOut always proves himself worthy of our trust.

[–] ghastlymellow 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I heard in the past that AdBlock was paid to allow some ads and trackers through so I personally would recommend uBlock Origin. I used to use Chromium, Opera, Brave, Iridium, and I recently switched to Waterfox but I'll be sure to check out Vivaldi. It seems decent so far but I don't know how long that'll last before it gets compromised if it does. I'd love to settle down with a browser eventually because I feel like a college whore when it comes to browsers.

[–] asdf2345 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Incidentally, Voat is squeaky clean - no third party resources :)

Voat does use fonts.googleapis.com

[–] nyckreimem 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This tier ranking chart is just perfect. The fact that usability and actually tested privacy go hand in hand with the ranking criteria gives it an edge over basically every other ranking chart I've seen. The only browser that is even remotely near the viability of Ungoogled Chromium and GNU Icecat is Vivaldi; and that's only because of its superior UI customizability. If the two top tier browsers in that list had vertical tabs like Vivaldi, I'd say the chart is the end-all-be-all guide for any desktop web browser user for any reason, besides ease-of-install and need-of-tor.

[–] 14WordsToFreedom 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Geez. They could’ve made it part of the setup dialogue:

Facebook and twitter track you across the web.
Blocking their tracking breaks their sites.
Do you want to:
[ ] block Facebook and Twitter entirely
[ ] allow Facebook and Twitter to track you everywhere 

[–] DesertFox33 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

That means their entire mission statement has failed

load more comments ▼ (20 remaining)