If you are keen on personal privacy, you might have come across Brave Browser. Brave is a Chromium-based browser that promises to deliver privacy with built-in ad-blocking and content-blocking protection. It also offers several quality-of-life features and services, like a VPN and Tor access. I mean, it’s even listed on the reputable PrivacyTools website. Why am I telling you to steer clear of this browser, then?
It seems incredibly obvious to me. For example, here are some things I believe:
Personal beliefs about what government policy should be can be very different than personal beliefs about what is “good” and “bad.”
To be clear, I support same-sex marriage because it’s on the table and my preferred alternative has almost no shot of being considered. So I support it as a harm-reduction policy, not because I actually believe the government should actually regulate marriage.
Marriage is a basket of contracts (power of attorney, joint custody, financial obligations, etc), and it’s limited to two people, which is odd. The original intent seems to be to encourage procreation, but it’s hardly enforced at all, nor is that particularly important in most countries (except maybe Japan).
We should treat marriage similarly to corporations. If you want to call your civil partnership “marriage,” more power to you. If you want to call it being BF/GF, life partners, or whatever else, more power to you. The government should only care that you meet the requirements for whatever the benefit is.
In many (most?) states, it is enforced unless you specifically opt-out (e.g. a pre-nup). Laws certainly vary by state, but generally speaking, if you’re legally married, anything you earn in the marriage is considered joint assets, even if you keep them in separate accounts. In some areas, things you bring into the marriage are also jointly owned, unless they are never interacted with.
That’s why divorces are so messy, the couple could have agreed to keep things separate at the start, but without any evidence of that, it’s up to the courts to decide what’s fair. And pretty frequently, they’ll lean on the side of 50/50 for all assets, regardless of when it was acquired or what the understanding was.
Integration into the browser product, users, and marketing.
I’ve been wanting Firefox to do something like this so get more visibility w/ online services. I’d love to be able to load up an account balance and click “view article” and the website owner sucks a few pennies from that balance or whatever. But my only options are:
Axate provides more than that, but so few online services work w/ it. A browser could bring them a ton of visibility.
Agreed. But like I said, users request features, bugs happen, etc. At the end of the day, the responsibility is on the user to pick the right product for their needs. Brave isn’t that product for at-risk individuals until it has been vetted by actual security experts.
Eich did the first half of that, his only “sin” was that someone found out about his donation. That’s it. My understanding is that nobody was aware of it until someone dug into the donation records.
Got it, so being gay isn’t “wrong” or “invalid”, it’s just “bad”?
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. You might call it a “contract”.
They don’t need Brave for that. They need the website owners. If you’re talking about injecting Axate ads where Google and other ads already are, then we’re back to square 1 where you’re ripping off content creators from their revenue for their content.
The problem with doing that with fiat is that there are transfer fees. You’d essential be paying a $3 to transfer 5 cents. That’s why everyone uses crypto for this.
Users can request features all day, developers are the ones who have to implement them.
It’s a completely unnecessary bug from someone trying to replace a perfectly safe and secure tool with their own and build value for themselves. This isn’t just any bug. Like I said, people’s lives can hang in the balance in a very real way. They need to get it right or just stay the fuck away.
Bullshit. Both are responsible.
Then they shouldn’t have launched it.
Not good enough.
I didn’t say that.
My point here is that personal views can differ from political policy views.
The issue is that it’s opt-out. Instead of that, people should opt-in only to the parts they want.
No, I’m talking about creating a protocol where browser clients can inform website owners that the customer is using this separate method of payment. It could happen separate from the browser (e.g. as an extension), but the browser gives it a lot more visibility.
The UX here would be pretty simple: if the user has enabled this feature, websites would prompt users for payment or to show ads.
Browsers win because they get a revenue stream, Axate wins by having more customers, and websites win because they’re getting paid instead of customers blocking ads.
That’s why you batch up transfers. General flow:
Boom, total number of transfers are pretty low, no need for cryptocurrencies.
Sure, but the browser vendor has very little at stake, whereas the user has everything at stake. At the end of the day, it’s on the user.
You’re welcome to your opinion. I personally don’t have an issue with how people spend their money, I only have an issue with how they treat their employees and choices they make about their product.
That makes absolutely no sense. You would advocate for and even donate to political reform for something you don’t personally believe in?
No, it isn’t.
Nothing says more about who a person is than their political donations.
Yes. I believe in personal freedom, so I’ll support the freedom to do things that I believe are harmful like drug use, gambling, or prostitution. You doing those things doesn’t impact me or anyone else so it should 100% be your right to do it. In short, I believe principles should carry the day.
I may not agree with you doing something I believe to be bad, but I’ll defend your right to do it.
In the same vein, I believe governments should be as small as possible, and no smaller. The role of government is to protect me from you, and vice versa. It’s not to ensure I’m making good choices, in fact it shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what’s “good” or “bad,” it should merely enforce laws that protect people from eachother.
Does the government deciding which marriages are valid protect me from you? Not really, all it does is determine who can take advantage of certain benefits. That sounds exclusionary with no particular purpose, so the government shouldn’t decide that.
So I really can’t speak to why Eich donated to the prop 8 fund (or whatever it was). Was it because he hates gay people? Or because he thinks same sex marriage goes counter to the reason marriage exists as a government institution? Or something else? I don’t know, nor do I really care, provided it doesn’t get in the way of doing his job.