Talk:Brave (web browser)

Underlying engine

Is this based on Gecko, Webkit, or what?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It is based in Chromium see chapter 8 in FAQ 8. Why aren’t you using Mozilla’s Gecko engine on laptops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielperezglez (talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Move infobox version number to LPR

Anonymous IP-editors cannot create wikipages, so I am requesting one to be created. Please create Template:Latest preview software release/Brave, so that it can be included in Template:Infobox web browser in this article and at Comparison of web browsers.

The wiki markup for the template is as follows:

{{LPR
| article = Brave (web browser)
| latest preview version = 0.12.1
| latest preview date = {{Start date and age|2016|09|15}}
}}
<noinclude>
➔ Back to article "'''[[Brave (web browser)]]'''"

{{Template reference list}}

[[Category:Latest preview software release templates|Brave]]
</noinclude>

80.221.159.67 (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC) (edited: 07:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC))

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Create LSR at Template:Latest stable software release/Brave (web browser)

Like previous request, I request Template:Latest stable software release/Brave (web browser) to be created since anonymous IP-editors cannot do so.

You can use this wikimarkup:

{{Multiple releases
 |branch1  = Android
 |version1 = v1.9.56
 |date1    = {{Start date and age|2016|09|12}}<ref name="gh-brave-android-1.9.56">{{Cite web
  |url          = https://github.com/brave/browser-android/releases/tag/v1.9.56
  |title        = v1.9.56
  |last         = Zhukovsky
  |first        = Sergey
  |date         = 2016-09-12
  |website      = brave/browser-android (source code repository)
  |publisher    = GitHub
  |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20160930234822/https://github.com/brave/browser-android/releases/tag/v1.9.56
  |archive-date = 2016-09-30
  |dead-url     = no
  |access-date  = 2016-09-30
  }}</ref>

 |branch2  = iOS
 |version2 = v1.2.16
 |date2    = {{Start date and age|2016|09|30}}<ref name="gh-brave-ios-1.2.16">{{Cite web
  |url          = https://github.com/brave/browser-ios/releases/tag/1.2.16
  |title        = Brave iOS 1.2.16
  |last         = Keeley
  |first        = Garvan
  |date         = 2016-09-30
  |website      = brave/browser-ios (source code repository)
  |publisher    = GitHub
  |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20160930234339/https://github.com/brave/browser-ios/releases/tag/1.2.16
  |archive-date = 2016-09-30
  |dead-url     = no
  |access-date  = 2016-09-30
  }}</ref>
}}<noinclude>
➔ Back to article "'''[[Brave (web browser)]]'''"

{{Template reference list}}

[[Category:Latest preview software release templates|Brave]]
</noinclude>

I will do some post-cleanup to Template:Latest preview software release/Brave (web browser). I have no conflict of interest in Brave. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, there is a caveat with Template:Infobox web browser, that requires Template:Latest stable software release/Brave to be created as well (redirect) when using |ver layout=stacked. This is due to |name=Brave in the infobox. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this is  Already done by User:Andy M. Wang. Marking as answered. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation 5 links to article comment, not article

Rather than linking to the article in question, cite 5 currently links to the first comment after the article (a user saying "This model sounds illegal to me, or at the very least immoral"). Based on the text, I suspect the cite URL should be for the article itself, at https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozilla-co-founder-unveils-brave-a-web-browser-that-blocks-ads-by-default/ , rather than https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozilla-co-founder-unveils-brave-a-web-browser-that-blocks-ads-by-default/?comments=1, as it currently stands. 71.234.116.22 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversy?

There's nothing about the Newspaper Association of America (now News Media Alliance) and their opposition to Brave? Formedras (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Lack of NPOV

All of the sources linked in this article are from reviews of really early (2016) versions of Brave, and all of them are negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.170.200 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Claims about Ad-Replacement

In a few places, this article states that the Brave Browser replaces ads. This statement is not correct, as even a cursory use of the product would reveal. As its baseline, Brave blocks ads and trackers—I'm happy to provide third-party testimonies to this if necessary. I believe this claim originated from 2016 proposal on the brave.com domain. Brave has never replaced ads on websites. Brave co-founder and CEO Brendan Eich explained on Twitter that ad-replacement would never take place without prior consent.

References

Unreliable Techworld article

The best secure browsers 2018 by Techworld is cited in the critical reception section as signaling an improvement in Brave. But the article does not seem reliable at all. It calls I2P and Freenet "browsers." It calls Yandex a "re-skin" of Chromium, then lists it as one of the "best secure browsers" without including Chromium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmarmstrong (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pay to Surf?

From the article,

Brave is a free and open-source pay-to-surf[4] web browser...

The claim that Brave is a pay-to-surf browser is based on a 2-year-old article making false claims about how the browser operates. Consider the following quote:

"However, it doesn’t eliminate the ads completely, instead, it replaces the ads with ads from Brave’s own network. If the user agrees to see the replaced ads, he will be paid in bitcoin. Yes, you read that right; you can get paid to surf web!"

This is untrue, and has never been correct. Brave does not replace ads (see the Ad-Replacement section below). Secondly, Brave has never paid users in Bitcoin for viewing ads. I should note also that the source material doesn't contain any citations.

Brave is working on an alternative, opt-in digital advertising model that rewards users for their attention. Brave has also been giving out grants for some time to those who have enabled Brave Payments.

Brave's default behavior is to block ads and trackers. Grants and Rewards are only available to those who opt-in to Brave Payments and/or the forthcoming ads component. It is for these reasons I don't think the pay-to-surf claim should be unqualified and stated as a general fact for all Brave instances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansampson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Brave Pay to Surf

Brave is describing itself as a pay to surf since at least 2016. If you get money for browsing the web, yes this is pay to surf.

This is according to Brave owns marketing: "Brave pays you to surf the web", "Brave will pay you for browsing the web" ? https://www.engadget.com/2016/04/01/brave-will-pay-you-in-bitcoins-for-browsing-the-web/ ? https://www.androidauthority.com/brave-browser-pays-you-683579/

The (2016) Engadget article is citing a post by Brave calling for feedback on the ledger specification. The post is not detailing how the browser works. The title of the post is Brave's Payment Spec Out for Developer Input, which is quite unequivocal. Please see the original post (via the Wayback Machine) for yourself. Also, it should be noted that many resources in 2016 were based on speculative behavior of a browser in development, as we see time and time again. Your Android Authority post appears to repeat the same claims as the Engadget article. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is 2016, and also confirmed in recent: http://blog.christianmoney.com/2018/03/new-high-speed-browser-pays-you-to-surf-the-web.html https://dzone.com/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-brave-web-br https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@pandorasbox/earning-crypto-from-surfing-the-web-basic-attention-token-from-the-creator-of-mozilla-and-javascript https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/web-browsers/brave-browser-begins-controversial-ad-repeal-and-replace-tests.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicbbr (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Christian Money article doesn't give any details. That resource appears to be talking about the BAT grants given out to those who have enabled Brave Payments. Note, that is a subset of Brave's user-base; and therefore not necessarily the case for general Brave use. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The DZone article is from 2016 and isn't recent. My response to your use of the Engadget article works here as well. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The Steemit article also refer to the BAT Grants. It also explicitly states that "the Basic Attention Token ecosystem is still in the works and not fully operational," giving as an example "the feature of getting paid to surf the web". Again, you do not get paid to merely surf the web in Brave. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your last reference, to Computer World, accurately describes the voluntary user-trials that are presently taking place. The Computer World article even states clear that "Brave users who agree to receive ads will be rewarded with BATs." Note again that this is a subset of the Brave user-base, and presently only an option to a group of volunteers. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Would it be worth creating a section on Wikipedia about this? I am thinking of saying something like "There is a program which provides BAT token rewards by visiting websites, but currently this is an experiment. While these BAT tokens can be sold..." - Yuhong (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Edits by Basicbbr (talk · contribs · count)

On August 14, Basicbbr reverted all of my recent edits with the edit summary "Revert to the last neutral version of 31 July 2018‎ which did not have advertisement". The diff of their reversion shows that they replaced my neutral wording with their unambiguously negative wording, despite their misleading edit summary. Basicbbr's version of the Critical reception section cherry-picks negative aspects of the cited reviews, which are actually mixed reviews that mention both positive and negative aspects of the browser.

Additionally, Basicbbr completely ignored Jonathansampson's concerns ([1] [2]) regarding their "pay-to-surf" designation, which is not supported by cited sources. All of the sources state that a testing version of the browser includes the advertising scheme, while the release versions do not. As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is too soon to label the browser as "pay-to-surf" because the affected version of the software is not available through standard release channels.

Finally, while Basicbbr has noted Jonathansampson's conflict of interest, Basicbbr's own contribution history shows that Basicbbr is a single-purpose account that almost exclusively makes negatively toned edits to this article.

Basicbbr, please address the issues above. — Newslinger talk 20:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the most contentious part of this content dispute comes from the "pay to surf" designation, and there are not enough interested editors to establish consensus for whether this designation should be used, I am going to submit a request for comment. — Newslinger talk 19:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on "pay to surf" classification

Should the Brave web browser be classified as a pay-to-surf web browser? — Newslinger talk 19:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. As stated in a previous revision of the article, Brave Software intends to adopt a pay-to-surf business model in a future version of the browser. In June of this year, a testing version of the browser was released with pay-to-surf elements, but this was outside of the standard release channels. Right now, if a user goes to Brave's official website or downloads the app from Google Play or the App Store, the downloaded app does not have pay-to-surf elements. The release version of the browser is just a free and open-source web browser with integrated ad blocking. As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is not appropriate to label the browser as "pay to surf" at this time, particularly in the infobox and lead paragraph. — Newslinger talk 19:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Additionally, no reliable source describes the browser as "pay-to-surf". The closest is an Engadget article that describes Brave as a browser that "will pay you in Bitcoins for browsing the web", and the article notes that this feature would be optional. The term "pay to surf" has not been used since the dot-com crash, and as you can see from its article, the connotation of this term is extremely negative. The term is also ambiguous, as it can be interpreted to mean that the user is paying to surf the web on the browser. Could there be a more neutral term to describe the company's business model? — Newslinger talk 19:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Have found out an App Dynamics article and Android Authority article saying that the browser is pay-to-surf. Both are reliable sources and multiple other sources mentioning the same. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that your sources are from 2016, and are based more on projections and plans rather than the product itself. Please see the Pay to Surf and Brave Pay to Surf (including responses) sections above. Jonathansampson (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• No they appear to be working on that, but don't currently have that functionality. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)