I hate these misleading headlines. It is just so justifying to the magats when articles like this are touted against them. They do plenty of clearly illegal shit, lets stick the headlines like this on those other cases.

Interesting. I have never paid for an adblock before, but it’s good to know there’s a backup. It seems a bit wild to pay for an adblock when free and open sourced solutions exist I guess…

If you want to block youtube ads, I think it is really the only option as of now. Adguard can be downloaded on the app store and it does a mediocre job blocking ads, but the placeholder space for them remains and it straight up fails to block some for me. I am stuck with brave for now until something better comes along.

By boot do you mean chromium? Id love to use a gecko browser, but my busy life is too short to spend extra seconds every time waiting for pages to load. If that makes me a boot licker so be it I guess :)

The article is unfair about the fingerprinting issue. Brave utilizes a technique they call farbling and it does a really good job at keeping websites from knowing who you are, in theory anyways.

People really love to attack brave, but it can be configured to be a very fast, private, and clean browsing experience. Faster than Firefox by a long shot, open source, decentralized encrypted syncing… I get there have been controversies, and it is chromium, but at the end of the day you have to use the tool that works best for you.

EDIT I must say I am disappointed in how I was (at the time of posting) the only one to actually start a discussion about the article’s technical claims, and instead of any rational dialogue we went right to blind downvotes and immature statements. I guess I expected more from this little corner of the internet.