Yes, we are complying with Tom's RTBF request.
-
-
Replying to @BrendanEich @kirkins and
I would also like my sites to be removed from brave's network. For privacy reasons I don't wish to provide you with any information about me, past what I've consensually given you through twitter. Will you respect my privacy, while also respecting my wishes to not be removed?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @SquidDLane @BrendanEich and
See, here's the thing. I do *not* consent for you to include my sites on your platform, but I am also unwilling to verify against your platform to be removed, because then I'm forced to accept your terms and conditions to do so. Do you understand consent yet?
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @SquidDLane @BrendanEich and
This is kind of like saying, I don't want my site to appear on Chrome, IE, or any device that browses the web where I publicly created my website/youtube account. Simply do nothing to solve this issue. At least in my eyes. Or start your own private intranet.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @OddStockTrader @BrendanEich and
Chrome, IE, or other browsers aren't collecting money based on my identity, without my consent. They aren't blocking sources of funding on my site, providing an alternative I can accept at a cost of 5% of my revenue.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SquidDLane @OddStockTrader and
Actually Chrome is blocking some ads now (cosmetic filter). Browsers not captured by ad businesses, including Brave & Safari, block tracking by default. Firefox is adding default anti-tracking. And your "sources of funding" violate users' consent by imposing 3rd party tracking.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @OddStockTrader and
How do you know that my sources of revenue don't support "do not track"?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SquidDLane @OddStockTrader and
I know very few ad tech partners who do, but DNT is dead. It is off by default in all browsers, and it's toothless: almost no ad-tech vendors respect it. Be real, the only defense is aggressive blocking, not "please don't loot me!" cries in the dark.
4 replies 2 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @SquidDLane and
Ultimately I think the solution is to have fully encrypted DNS + os level tracking/ad blocking (not browser).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @westoque @SquidDLane and
The latter does not work as the adversary moves into 1st party content (ads loading via a CNAME proxy or embedded via a randomized JS "nanovisor"). OS is not going to parse JS or HTML, or more important, MitM the TLS connection that terminates in userland in the browser.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
Looking at the mess the web is, I wonder if there’s any solution short of a truly anonymizes protocol serving pages with static, isolated content. Browsing mainstream news sites today in an OS default browser is thoroughly broken.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @BrendanEich and
It sucks that we've got to this point, where people judge the web and its capabilities based on its worst offenders. The web is FAR more capable than shitty news sites would have you believe, and nothing about the web forces you to use those shitty ad-driven revenue models
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @bai0 @TimSweeneyEpic and
Do we write off the whole native ecosystem because malware is possible, and much more deadly when it does slip by the gatekeepers at the app stores? Bad actors are everywhere and we have to be judicious about what we install, and what sites we visit. Sucks, but this is our world
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.