Thread 105633929

if I'm not a bitter incel with a chip on my shoulder, why should I stop using brave?
it's the only adblocker that consistently lets me watch youtube for free without ads

>>105633929 (OP)
Because it's been deprecated. Kneel before the Otter.

>>105633929 (OP)
how do they make money?
Is it moral for them to include an adblocker which deprives content sites of revenue?

>>105634060
by selling my data
no it's not moral
still not enough arguments for me to drop brave, because as I said, I'm not bitter

>>105633929 (OP)
Why are you asking me?

>>105634329
because g is the board most opinionated on which OS, browser and extension to use

>>105633929 (OP)
Best comfort/security ratio
>b-b-b-buh BAT token
not using it

>>105633929 (OP)
Honestly, the only reason I use brave is because of its adblocker and nothing else.
it has ugly logo, ugly setting interface and terrible blank tab page. I unironically prefer Edge over this.

and the worst offender of all, I HATE how the cookies popup buttons don't work properly. I click once, it doesn't go away, I click again, it still doesn't go away. I have to click again and fucking again for it to go and I hate it.

>>105633929 (OP)
>it's the only adblocker that consistently lets me watch youtube for free without ads
That's not true at all, and it never could be. Brave uses a Rust implementation of UBO with all the same lists. Nothing about its adblocker is unique to it.
Stop being a retard.

>>105633929 (OP)
I have literally not seen a single Youtube ad on my PC and I've never so much as farted towards le shill lion browser.

>>105633929 (OP)
I have never seen a youtube ad with ublock origin.

>>105634670
funny, ublock origin is what forced me to go to brave because it stopped working for a while and every person was giving me conflicting info on how to fix it

How is vivaldi's adblocker holding up?

>>105634060
you can subscribe to have ads (consensual)
insane concept

>>105634060
>Is it moral for them to include an adblocker which deprives content sites of revenue?
it's always morally right to block ads, there is no exception

>>105635352
It's probably the same as ublock origin or brave shields because most likely it used the same filters lists.

whatever you say jan
can Brave even bypass the age check?

Brave probably has one of the worst UI's i've ever experienced. for the
most part all Chromium's do except maybe for Vivaldi but god damn.
either you Firefox or you're woke and a fag

>>105635896
>firefox
huh didn't know we had firefox shills after all the shit that was revealed about them being a bunch of pedophiles

>>105633929 (OP)
You already have a thread up, Arjun. Coordinate better with your manager so this doesn't happen.

>>105635396
ublock origin isn't just blocklists, it can stop requests before they're made and has a functional element picker. Your scamware can't even block youtube ads.

>>105635896
>can Brave even bypass the age check?
Last I checked, no one can

>>105635961
check picrel maybe?

>>105636012
I already use FreeTube and it doesn't bypass age restriction
>Age-restricted videos cannot be watched with FreeTube as they require Google login and using an age-verified YouTube account.

>>105636068
idk works for me unless there are different tiers of checks
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2169GORCam0

>>105636195
I guess there's different tiers because I can even watch that embed video in my brave browser, and I don't even have a google account. Tell me if this works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bM2b5cfeZo

>>105636283
interesting

>>105636330
I guess they give more leeway to corporate stuff like video game trailers

I haven't seen any ads on youtube with Firefox

use chrome with ublock you fucking moron

Brave is one of the most anti-privacy browsers on the market right now.

>>105636485
wrong image

>>105636409
same anon. holy shit that's scary
the internet is getting smaller by the day
i thought this was a non-issue

>>105636593
Google will only get more greedy in the future, archive whatever shit you still can now

>>105634060
No one is owed anything.

>>105637242
i'm actually not against restricting accounts to a storage quota because fuck even gmail has a quota and the amounts of data and redundancy Google has to carry because of Youtube must be unimaginable, but when it comes to content policing itself, i don't know man... looks scary

at least now when the topic of skins, counter-strike or Fortnite will be brought up, i can point to simple Youtube and tell them you can restrict shit and it'll work

I tried to move my profiles between OS installs and it said my profile and extensions were corrupted then it deleted everything in the profile's extensions folder.

Firefox has no problem transferring profiles between computers for me so that's where I am now.

Spyware

>>105634060
Of course it's moral. The whole AD business is based on lies, misinformation and misrepresentation of products and abusing people who don't know better. It is a legit scam and even normies are start to catch on that.

If the only way to support your product is ADs, your business model sucks and deserve to die.

>>105634060
Ads but consensual: Brave has news sponsorships and a privileged ad channel that reward the ad watcher with its cryptocurrency (BAT). Imo it may not be a bad model, the profit from ads is weighted back with the cryptocurrency exchange that theoretically should cap the potential for having the browser going through the enshittification process: imagine brave at some point reaching a dominant position in the browsers market share and then to switch their ads model to mandatory, the need for BAT exchange at that computational scale would still be profitable? I'm just speculating since i don't know shit about these things but i'm sure some anon can clarify better the ins-outs of their model.