Talk:Brave (web browser)

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)

 Done Idk when, but this was fixed. Thanks! Kim Jong Undo 04:13, 12 June 2019 (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

I think we absolutely should add something about that. I think it's fascinating and I've always wondered how publishers felt about Brave's mission. They still have their post up on the NAA website. Interestingly, while that CoinDesk article says the NYT, WSJ, and WaPo all oppose Brave, WaPo changed its tune and became a verified publisher with Brave and the LA Times and the Guardian too. --Kim Jong Undo 04:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Jong Undo (talk • contribs)

I added Controversies sub-section describing two other controversies Brave was involved in. f there are any reliable third-party sources about Newspaper Association of America controversy, please consider adding this information there.Anton.bersh (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2020 (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

Agreed. Though the current version not only blocks ads but also allows users to earn BAT by viewing ads provided by Brave. --Kim Jong Undo 03:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Jong Undo (talk • contribs)

Improving article to remove advert tag

Let's talk specifics about how to remedy the article and remove the advert tag. I'm combing through the NPOV and any other guidelines or policies related to advertising and then I'll do a sweep through the article to see if there's anything that needs to be reworded or removed.

If anyone knows what inspired the tag in the first place or has any suggestions about why it's still here, that would be helpful. -- KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 15:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, there's a lot of self-publishing going on. I'm going to dig into that a bit. -- KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 16:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There also seems to be a crazy amount of speculation going on. . . unnecessarily. A lot of the features that were speculative became real this year. I will update the language and citations in the article to reflect that. -- KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 04:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

There are too many quotations of what various (usually biased) people have said about Brave, and not enough clear, impartial explanation of what it actually does. Of course owners of websites that depend on ad revenue say nasty things about Brave. It would be amazing if they did not. I don't care what biased parties say; I want to know exactly what it does.

My impression of what the article is saying is:

1. Brave strips all ads from pages served by webservers. This cannot be true, because detecting what is an ad and what is content is beyond current technology. Maybe it strips some kinds of ads? What kinds?
2. Brave shows ads selected by Brave Software to users who agree to view such ads. This sounds weird, because people who use Brave are ipso facto people who refuse to view ads - that's the whole point of Brave. Is it really true? How is the obvious contradiction resolved?

Please can we have some facts and clear explanation in this article? And I'd like to see the quotations in the "Critical Reception" section deleted. Call its operations "illegal" when a court has ruled them illegal. If a non-frivolous lawsuit against it is in progress, mention that. Until then, speculations about "illegal" have no place here. Sayitclearly (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Brave Browser Transparent.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant Critical Reception

The last point in Critical Reception is irrelevant to the critical reception of the product and is already mentioned on Brandon Eich's wiki page. I suggest it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliciousInternetSpeeds (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Paragraph removed. --Wire723 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears to have been placing undue emphasis, but with how closely Eich's role at Mozilla was tied into the initial advertisement of Brave and ongoing discussion around Brave (including his role at Mozilla being mentioned in the titles of 11% of the references in the article), the reason he left Mozilla probably should have some mention. 198.52.130.148 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Other languages

Why this page doesn't link to other languages versions? Alifono

It does. Retimuko (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Insertion of referral codes

At the time of this writing, the section currently states the following:

In June of 2020 Twitter user pointed out that Brave was rewriting some links to cryptocurrency trading websites inserting affiliate referral codes (to gain a commission money). In response to the backlash from the users, on June 7 Brave introduced a toggle for this 'feature' and disabled it by default in the next release[46] (without admission of any wronging).[47] On June 8, Brave's CEO apologized and called it a "mistake" and said "we're correcting".[48] In response to this controversy developers forked Brave into Braver promising to remove all referral codes, BAT integration, and other "adware".[49]

I believe there are a few ways this section could be improved:

• Link to the relevant Tweet
• Remove the claim that Brave was "rewriting some links" (Note that the Tweet did not claim that Brave was "rewriting some links," as the current article suggests)
• Clarify the nature of the feature (optionally, link to the source code):
  • It offered contextually relevant referral links in the browser's URL suggestion list.
  • It did not modify web-pages in any way
  • It did not involve user-data or violation of privacy in any way (Industry experts Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte covered this on episode 771 of Security Now (transcript), where Gibson concluded "It wasn't nefarious," and Laporte made it clear that while "there was a lot made of it," this didn't involve user data.)
• Remove the "without admission of wrongdoing" as it doesn't seem appropriate or accurate
  • On June 6, Brendan Eich acknowledged the mistake.
  • On June 9, Brave responded in a blog post titled On Partner Referral Codes in Brave Suggested Sites which addressed the "mistake" and "error" in the feature
• Remove or reduce the mention of developers forking Brave. If there were a released product, or significant work behind the effort, it might merit a reference. But there appears to be neither.

Note, I am an employee at Brave. Please help me to ensure my suggestions are accurate, neutral, and in good faith.

Jonathansampson (talk)

Thanks for disclaiming your relationship with Brave and the constructive criticism.

• On Wikipedia we do not link to tweets or source code but to WP:secondary sources such as news articles instead.
• We should definitely clarify how the "feature" works: It makes a difference whether just typing "binance.us<Enter>" in the URL bar inserts the affiliate code or whether you need to select the "binance.us/en?ref=35089877" suggestion.
• We need to correct the date of Brendan Eich's tweet from June 8 to June 6. It also looks like it was possible to deactivate the "feature" before June 7 so the statement "on June 7 Brave introduced a toggle for this 'feature'" seems wrong.
• Concerning Braver: You are right, there are almost no code changes in the GitHub repo. But the fork shows something about the community reaction and opinion.

—Dexxor (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Note, the team behind the Bold Browser (formerly "Braver") announced they won't be forking Brave, and will instead fork the Ungoogled Chromium project. I still feel as though this merits little, if any, mention. — Brave Employee, Jonathansampson (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe we should link to any tweet, source code, or github per WP:SECONDARY. If your company disputes the accuracy of the reporting by reliable sources, it would be best to take that up with them. I would not object to including a link to the company's blog post under external links. I am in favor of keeping the forking content, although I'm not certain about the current sourcing. I will check WP:RSP. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Dexxor, could you help with cleaning up this section? Also, a small update on Bold. The project is no longer based on Brave. It now exists as an unmodified clone of Ungoogled Chromium, with a single issue. It has been in this state for a week now. I don't think it merits any mention on the page. Jonathansampson (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cointelegraph isn't the best source, but it appears to be the only one available one at the moment, and it does seem to be directly quoting participants in the Bolder project. (The RS board notes that the main issues with that source is that it's not good for establishing notability). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Braver" changed to "Bold"

The name "Braver" was apparently changed to "Bold". Perhaps reflect that in the article?

--Mortense (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any reason to keep references to Bold (formerly "Braver") on this page. The intention was announced well over a month ago, and today their repo has no commits or even custom branches; it's simply a fresh fork of the Ungoogled Chromium project. Further, their Discord shows no serious development effort underway. Forks aren't worth mentioning unless they make a notable community impact, IMHO. Brave Employee, Jonathansampson (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)