I'm fairly certain that I was not the only person in the world who thought to himself, "Did they just yoink the entire Internet and bundle it together

From the article:

"I know for a fact that Wikipedia operates under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which explicitly states that if you’re going to use the data, you must give attribution. As far as search engines go, they can get away with it because linking back to a Wikipedia article on the same page as the search results is considered attribution.

But in the case of Brave, not only are they disregarding the license - they’re also charging money for the data and then giving third parties “rights” to that data."

    • Solar BearEnglish
      3•1 year ago

      Brave still is a great browser just disable a few settings as recommended in the guide

      Brave is still Chromium in a new coat of paint and you’re still aiding Google in their domination of web standards.

      • @[email protected]MEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        Brave is still Chromium in a new coat of paint and you’re still aiding Google in their domination of web standards.

        That is a little unfair tbh, they do quite a lot, such as their privacy shields, including the script blocking one which is basically like NoScript.

        They also do some work on anti fingerprinting tech and other things along that vein.

    • @[email protected]English
      2•1 year ago

      If the whole selling point of a browser is security/privacy you shouldn’t have to check any boxes to make it work as advertised. It’s not a great browser or worthy of trust.

    • @[email protected]English
      1•1 year ago

      They also offer other things like a search engine which is not opensource, which is understandable for a business perspective.

      But I don’t know. I just don’t have a good feeling about Brave.

      Also, I prefer Firefox based browsers on desktop, we need competition in the browser space.

      On mobile, the chromium based browsers are just to superior in performance to switch from.