Conversation

Replying to

and

Thanks for sketching out some of your concerns in a bit more detail. Need to ponder. So is weak attestation bad, or all attestation b/c it ultimately leads to lack of user agency? Is the bigger criticism simply that ad-funded model is totally unworkable as a model?

1

Replying to

and

If the last, then good bye Internet. It own't be user funded, not at $320B/year globally growing to $1T/year. If you have a better way, lay it on us. In the meanwhile, we level the antifraud playing field vs. G and FB native stacks (low adfraud incidence) vs. programmatic (high).

1

Replying to

and

The painful reality seems there is no 'best' way. Appreciate fear that normalising strong attestation for ad-views may lead to mandatory rather than optional ad-view by industry even if not Brave. Also appreciate that without attestation fraud wins, content loses.

2

Replying to

and

No Best Way = Worse is Better. I object to double standards. Apps (including big ones) use safetynet and are not pilloried for "DRM" or accused of "enforced viewing". Use the same yardstick on us.

1

Replying to

and

I do call that DRM consistently. I'm using the same standards. I was very put off when I saw that Brave was doing this. Regardless, I suggested a stronger way of doing it without a hard dependency on a Google service to try to be helpful and was basically told to fuck off.

2

Replying to

github.com/brave/browser- is one of the places that this started and github.com/brave/browser- is another. Notice how in both cases I was trying to help and was told to fuck off in response. I even put in work to resolve an issue for other browsers, but you aren't welcome to use it.

1

2

1

Replying to

I talked about it on Twitter a while ago, which was followed with you folks spreading misinformation about Chromium and Android without Play Services. I took a deeper look into what Brave has been doing in particular with using SafetyNet attestation as a form of advertising DRM.

2

1

Replying to

You can whine all you want in my mentions about a couple tweets that I posted retracting my endorsement of Brave while saying I still considered it a better choice than Firefox. You did the opposite of changing my mind about not supporting it. I will actively fight you scumbags.

2

2

2

Replying to

and

I'm not whining, I'm calling you either an ignoramus or a liar.

2

Replying to

This is such a tragedy. Why did this have to start out so bitter and adversarial? You are both good people trying to do the right thing.

1

Replying to

You can see where it starts down the wrong path at twitter.com/justsee/status where someone tries to make criticizing the project into a personal attack on

and then claims I am casting shade on

with a ping to bring him into the conversation. Clear concern troll.

Quote Tweet

Replying to @DanielMicay

What are the serious issues with security, how are they any different to every other software-at-scale project and how has @bcrypt unsatisfactorily dealt w them?

2:14 AM · Jul 26, 2019Twitter Web App

Replying to

I apologised for poor wording. As I said, I'm just an end-user who was interested in your / Brendan / Yan's discussion on this. Don't appreciate the concern troll label just because I was trying to understand logical positions, challenge logical contradictions.

1

1

Replying to

Also, from my perspective as a long-time follower of both of you for different reasons, it clearly went wrong around this sequence of events:

Quote Tweet

Replying to @DanielMicay @BrendanEich and @bcrypt

Hmm - publicly calling out a project as nefarious absent any evidence / rationale, getting a strong response from project team, then dismissing it as 'whining' and doubling-down on 'scumbags' language all seems very bad faith tbh.

1

1

Show replies