I used to be optimistic about Brave, but I no longer consider it to be a good project. It has had some serious issues with security and the intent behind it is starting to seem nefarious. Monetizing other people's content was always sketchy and their DRM is going far beyond EME.
Conversation
Replying to
What are the serious issues with security, how are they any different to every other software-at-scale project and how has unsatisfactorily dealt w them?
2
1
1
How is their intent nefarious? Have seen a lot of vague attempts at casting shade on project with nothing of substance.
Criticism of monetising content is criticism of entire internet industry, not particular to Brave? In that context theirs seems like better model?
1
1
DRM to enforce viewing advertising as part of building their business model based on monetizing attention spans is nefarious and a terrible precedent. They've set the precedent now and good luck to them at preserving their business model if web sites end up doing the same thing.
2
1
1
We don't use DRM to enforce viewing advertising.
Brave Ads are opt-in.
We do not monetize other people's content. Brave Ads go in user inventory (notification if clicked opens new tab).
Why are you spreading misinformation?
1
1
I'm not spreading misinformation. Explain to me what purpose you have for adopting SafetyNet as part of Brave Ads on Android if it's not an implementation of DRM. It's clearly a poor attempt at enforcing people are actually viewing the ads. How is it not a DRM implementation?
You wrote "DRM to enforce viewing advertising" which says we use DRM (false) and that we "enforce viewing" ads (we do not! any construction of those words is false). What's nefarious here is making false statements knowingly.
We use safetynet & devicecheck to cut down on fraud.
1
You are overtweeting and then deleting tweets (I get it, no edit button; not nefarious). How about slowing down and we take turns, one (corrected) tweet each?
I never said the feature isn't optional. I explicitly said otherwise here: twitter.com/DanielMicay/st. I have serious issues with DRM, and it being part of the anti-fraud enforcement for an optional feature doesn't dismiss my concerns. If it needs DRM, it clearly won't work out.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @RichFelker
No, but they made the attention span feature depend on it. It still works without it, and you wouldn't have wanted to use that anyway. I still find it to be over the line despite being optional and it just makes it so clear that their goals are totally incompatible with mine.
1
And look, when this is the communication with the community improving the experience with the DRM system introduced in the browser, what else do you expect?
github.com/brave/browser-
Bonus points for the same person spreading actual misinformation (unlike my factual statements).
3
Show replies