Conversation

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.

4

7

50

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

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

and

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?

2

1

Replying to

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

Replying to

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).

11:26 PM · Jul 25, 2019Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

DRM is WideVine. OS-level antifraud is not "DRM" in any useful sense of the TLA. I think

agrees, but anyway, your further "enforced viewing" words were inaccurate and misleading! You mean: we make Brave Ads viewers pass OS-tested antifraud that the appstores require. Yes.

2

1

Replying to

I'm not the one that picked a fight over this, and I also didn't appreciate some of the actual misinformation spread by that same employee of yours. I recommended the Android Brave app in the past, and I felt it was necessary to retract my personal recommendation to use it.

1

1

Replying to

and

You picked a fight. "DRM" abuse, then "enforced viewing". Ad fraud is real and the $320B/year growing to $1T system uses JS nonsense against it, fruitlessly except for the CYA shakedown artists who sell tag-level antifraud. G & FB use what you mislabel "DRM". We aim to as well.

1

1

1

Show replies

Replying to

and

I'll look into this. We correct misinformation. Do you?