There are many enemies of privacy. There are politicians claiming the (at best) misguided pretense of “protecting the children,” intellig…
There are many enemies of privacy. There are politicians claiming the (at best) misguided pretense of “protecting the children,” intellig…
I’m really confused. The article points out why Brave is a bad choice right after saying it’s a good choice, says that logical fallacies are a problem, moves immediately into why false equivalence is something to look out for in general, and ends. Why is does this mean Brave isn’t going to steal our info? Because Mozilla might too? How does that address any of the valid privacy concerns with Brave (eg forced affiliate links, a privacy violation) rather than social ones (eg Brandon Eich being a piece of shit)? Empathy is a tool to have a conversation with others who might have different values, not a lens to evaluate privacy or user experience.
It kind of ties into their argument that it’s more complex than that. And I’d agree. People always want simple answers to complex truths. Could very well be the case that you can’t say if Brave is “the best” without analyzing the threat scenario. Or even after doing that you end up with a list of both pros and cons.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Yup, I use Brave, but not as my primary browser. I use it for work stuff so I don’t have to see ads and because some sites I need for work don’t work properly on Firefox browsers.
I think it has a place, but there are certainly caveats.