I don’t run Brave because Brave runs a crypto scam right in the browser.
I don’t care that you can disable it, I don’t care that it might be the only way they found to make a buck out of free software: anyone who dabbles in crypto is instantly sketchy. And I don’t want to run a piece of software as critical as a browser made by someone who’s not 100% trustworthy.
Mullvad accepts crypto as payment; there aren’t many other options for anonymous online payment methods today. What Mullvad aren’t doing us creating and running their own cryptocoin in support of their advertising wing. The two are not equivalent.
How did I make a false equivalency when the op literally called any project that “dabbles in crypto” a possible scam? That includes Signal as well as Mullvad. Op’s comment does not in any way indicate the use of one’s own currency, simply abolishing all services using crypto.
Don’t you recognise a difference between creating a cryptocurrency to use it to encourage people to watch ads, and allowing people to pay with for a service with an existing cryptocurrency in the cause of anonymity? There’s a fundamental difference, right? If not, then fair enough - them taking exception to Brave but supporting Mullvad is hypocracy in your eyes.
FWIW, I believe no defender of !privacy should be opposed to cryptocurrencies; for better or worse, they’re the only option for online anonymous payments. But I also object to the proliferation of bespoke shitcoins, most of which are truly pyramid schemes in intention amd execution. But it’s a fine line, I’ll admit.
Of course I recognize the idfference. And I hate brave for somewhat abusing their users like they do. Still, that is not what op said. I won’t repeat it again, but that fundamental difference you are speaking of was not highlighted by them. Possibly leading other people to believe that cryptocurrency is bad to use as a whole, which as yourself has said is not right if one repsects privacy.
On the contrary, I’d expect people in these spaces to be more capable of separating the signal from the noise with crypto and not default to “crypto bad”.
Crypto is bad though. If you can’t see it, you’re either one of the scammed or one of the scammers (in which case you can see it but pretend you don’t).
Money is bad—it is used for a lot of bad things like trading drugs or hiring killers…? Money is the root cause of mugging, scams, exploitation, killing, corruption…?
Money is good—it can be used to help people…?
Perhaps money is not good nor bad; a person who uses it may be ethical or unethical. Please do not confuse pure mathematics or technology (such as public key cryptography) with its users/abusers.
Honestly I agree, quite sad to see such hostility to a relatively harmless technology, although Brave’s implementation is a bit meh. I like the idea as a concept, to have websites and content creators to have a source of income without compromising privacy, but using BAT as the median currency kinda sucks. I’d have much rather Brave have chosen a more mainline currency. Thankfully by default, it isn’t even used, only icons/new-tab-page are there to activate/use it… having it be an opt-out solution would have soured me more. Default is essentially advertising its use, the ‘disabling’ is just hiding the references, which I do ofc.
That said, I don’t care enough about this to take action. I still use it as my secondary for Firefox. I do actually use the brave search though, even on Firefox, as it seems to be better than DDG these days. Also not based/reliant on Bing.
I don’t run Brave because Brave runs a crypto scam right in the browser.
I don’t care that you can disable it, I don’t care that it might be the only way they found to make a buck out of free software: anyone who dabbles in crypto is instantly sketchy. And I don’t want to run a piece of software as critical as a browser made by someone who’s not 100% trustworthy.
It’s opt-in.
Mullvad and Signal support crypto
Mullvad accepts crypto as payment; there aren’t many other options for anonymous online payment methods today. What Mullvad aren’t doing us creating and running their own cryptocoin in support of their advertising wing. The two are not equivalent.
Well then maybe don’t call anyone who “dabbles in crypto” sketchy
I didn’t; that was someone else. But you did make the false equivalency.
I’m not anti-crypto myself, incidentally…
And of course, my mistake. Didn’t mean to falsely accuse you.
No problem. All social media apps on mobile have this issue of obscuring the chain. It’s the nature of the beast.
How did I make a false equivalency when the op literally called any project that “dabbles in crypto” a possible scam? That includes Signal as well as Mullvad. Op’s comment does not in any way indicate the use of one’s own currency, simply abolishing all services using crypto.
Don’t you recognise a difference between creating a cryptocurrency to use it to encourage people to watch ads, and allowing people to pay with for a service with an existing cryptocurrency in the cause of anonymity? There’s a fundamental difference, right? If not, then fair enough - them taking exception to Brave but supporting Mullvad is hypocracy in your eyes.
FWIW, I believe no defender of !privacy should be opposed to cryptocurrencies; for better or worse, they’re the only option for online anonymous payments. But I also object to the proliferation of bespoke shitcoins, most of which are truly pyramid schemes in intention amd execution. But it’s a fine line, I’ll admit.
Of course I recognize the idfference. And I hate brave for somewhat abusing their users like they do. Still, that is not what op said. I won’t repeat it again, but that fundamental difference you are speaking of was not highlighted by them. Possibly leading other people to believe that cryptocurrency is bad to use as a whole, which as yourself has said is not right if one repsects privacy.
What makes it a “crypto scam” and what makes “dabbling” in crypto inherently “sketchy”?
Come on mate, there’s no way you’d be aware of crypto in an online space like this without being well aware of why most people consider it a scam.
On the contrary, I’d expect people in these spaces to be more capable of separating the signal from the noise with crypto and not default to “crypto bad”.
Crypto is bad though. If you can’t see it, you’re either one of the scammed or one of the scammers (in which case you can see it but pretend you don’t).
Money is bad—it is used for a lot of bad things like trading drugs or hiring killers…? Money is the root cause of mugging, scams, exploitation, killing, corruption…?
Money is good—it can be used to help people…?
Perhaps money is not good nor bad; a person who uses it may be ethical or unethical. Please do not confuse pure mathematics or technology (such as public key cryptography) with its users/abusers.
Bingo. The myopia in this community is honestly kind of alarming.
You sound delusional
Such a juvenile take.
Honestly I agree, quite sad to see such hostility to a relatively harmless technology, although Brave’s implementation is a bit meh. I like the idea as a concept, to have websites and content creators to have a source of income without compromising privacy, but using BAT as the median currency kinda sucks. I’d have much rather Brave have chosen a more mainline currency. Thankfully by default, it isn’t even used, only icons/new-tab-page are there to activate/use it… having it be an opt-out solution would have soured me more. Default is essentially advertising its use, the ‘disabling’ is just hiding the references, which I do ofc.
That said, I don’t care enough about this to take action. I still use it as my secondary for Firefox. I do actually use the brave search though, even on Firefox, as it seems to be better than DDG these days. Also not based/reliant on Bing.
I wouldn’t really call it a crypto scam if they aren’t demanding or asking you buy it, just giving you free crypto