Secondo voi ha senso questo articolo? Dice il vero o è troppo allarmista?
(premesso che Brave essendo chromium-based non dovrebbe essere usato a prescindere)
Secondo voi ha senso questo articolo? Dice il vero o è troppo allarmista?
(premesso che Brave essendo chromium-based non dovrebbe essere usato a prescindere)
this could be the right place to “remove” the supposed bias and clarify the technical workings that have been ignored.
The big one for me was acting like BAT was something it’s not (a regular crypto currency) and not being clear that it’s opt in. It’s a means to ‘tip’ or payback sites for not being served up ads. It won’t make you money or is even any sort of investment.
Even if you don’t see BAT the same as me, being opt in is the part that clearly doesn’t put it into ‘a reason you shouldn’t use Brave’. If it was being forced on anyone than sure, throw it on the list. Who says don’t use something because it offers a service you aren’t interested in?
I vaguely remember him mentioning something about how brave did and didn’t handle blocking ads, and I think it also came down to an option that someone would have to select. If you’d like to go over that more I could re-read it but it was few days ago that I did.
thanks. I got the gist. I tend to agree that it actually sums up to: the main author is homophobic. Now I have an ethical dilemma (not technical). How do you (fedinauts) deal with such cases? Do you “boycott” an opensource project because of intolerable ethical/political stance of a founder (despite no money goes directly to the founder/developer, being opensource)?
No, I don’t. I “boycott” Brave for other reasons, but not for ethical stance of the founder, expecially if no money goes directly to him.
If the product is good and works well, it could be made from the devil in person - for me it’s enough