As an onlooker it still appears to me that your primary complaint is around Brave using an Android-provided attestation API for part of their optional ad rev-share feature, and this weak foundation is used to mark them as a terrible / dishonest etc org.
Doesn't seem good faith.
Conversation
It's not an Android API. The relevant Android API is key attestation. They use SafetyNet attestation, which is a Google Play Services API. Google Play Services isn't part of the official definition of Android. CTS / CDD don't include it. My issue with it is not it being weak.
1
You're misrepresenting my statements and continuing the concern trolling you started with in your initial tweets. I never stated or implied that my issue with it is having a weak DRM implementation. When people act as he did and to a lesser extent yourself, it's not productive.
1
If you want to have a productive conversation and hear my in-depth thoughts on it, don't start a conversation that way, and definitely don't do what he did and just fill the thread up with nonsense, baseless accusations and ridiculous spin spammed without substance at all.
1
I am interested, but also very wary of double-standards in debate when dominant bad actors seem to escape scrutiny in these ad / privacy discussions.
So the issue (in part) is this API: developer.android.com/training/safet and that it relies on Google Play Services unnecessarily?
1
As I said, my issue with Brave is not the sub-par implementation of DRM that's unnecessarily dependent on Play Services and explicitly tries to enforce that the feature cannot be used on an alternate OS. That isn't my issue with the project. It just suggested they do better.
1
I don't agree with doing this in the first place. I suggested they take a better, less easily bypassed approach if they are going to do it because I was trying to be helpful since I have experience with it. The reason I have an issue with it is not it being unnecessarily weak.
1
Okay logically I think I have to give up.
You think their ICO was illegal, they're a sketchy company, and that attestation is bad, but you wanted to help them build stronger attestation approach?
Being on someone's case for logical contradictions doesn't = concern troll!
1
1
Once again, I never said that attestation is bad. You keep misrepresenting what I wrote. I'm stated at least 4 times in response to you that I do not think attestation is bad. You're going far out of your way to misrepresent my statements. How is this anything but trolling?
2
From your initial comments, you've repeatedly misrepresented my statements. You spun my words into something far more adversarial than what I actually wrote in my initial tweets and then pinged people in a way that what they would see first is your spin on my tweets.
1
You've repeatedly gone of your way to claim that I said things I didn't do, misrepresent my statements and act in a dishonest way that's clearly not in good faith. Like Brendan, you repeatedly accuse me of what you have been clearly doing yourself from the start. It's ridiculous.
Considering acting like a decent person instead of a dishonest scumbag. You went far out of your way to misrepresent my statements and stir up trouble. You're still doing it here, lying about what I said after being repeatedly corrected and you keep doing exactly the same thing.
1
So, as I said, you aren't welcome to follow me anymore or participate in my future threads. Concern troll and stir up trouble somewhere else. I'm tired of trolls and dishonest scumbags, especially ones falsely claiming the other person is making misrepresentations or lying.
1
Show replies