# Is Brave already going down the path of enshittification? **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/is-brave-already-going-down-the-path-of-enshittification/14481 **Category:** General **Created:** 2023-10-16T20:40:01Z **Posts:** 32 ## Post 1 by @xe3 — 2023-10-16T20:40:01Z **Is Brave already going down the path of [enshittification](https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/)?** I use Brave, it is my secondary/backup browser behind Firefox+Arkenfox. I’ve noticed recently a series of small - Full page, flashy, intrusive ads built into the browser ([Ford trucks](https://brave.com/static-assets/images/optimized/brave-ads/ad-formats/images/sponsored-image@2x.png), [Soda Brands](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/44GCaHeaJoY/maxres2.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEoCIAKENAF8quKqQMcGADwAQH4AbYIgAKAD4oCDAgAEAEYYSBJKGUwDw==&rs=AOn4CLCvwVHj-l34s6cJAblGlvJVNxt5mQ), etc) - Less effecive adblocking (by default Brave Shields doesn’t block Reddit ads or promoted posts) - Brave Shields won’t block their own first party ads - variations[dot]brave[dot]com has recently become the most blocked domain according to my NextDNS logs (and that is without Brave even being my primary browser, I probably use it \<5% of the time). Brave has always felt a bit like a cheap las vegas billboard, What with all the ‘features’ they bundle and push/advertise through the browser (Rewards, Wallet, VPN, Search Ads, Homepage Ads, etc). But more recently I feel like I am noticing more distasteful things about the browser than before. That said, I’m well aware Brave has always had a business model centered on advertising, their stated goal being a business model centered on a supposedly more ethical, user-respecting, form of advertising. I don’t know that I’m comfortable with this business model, but I also don’t hold it against them for trying to re-imagine the relationship between Advertisers, Publishers, Users, and the Browser, but with all these recent things I’ve noticed it just feels like a rather ‘cheap’ experience, like one of those free browsers bundled with anti-virus software from the early 2k’s. What are you thoughts? Am I reading into these things too much and nothing has changed? Do you feel this is nothing new and just Brave continuing down the path it was always on? Am I expecting too much/acting entitled? --- ## Post 2 by @anon63378630 — 2023-10-16T20:46:19Z ![3bc1566a5c03743d5e90d23794e27ffb](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/8/80e12a6cacb2746c8eb6263ef95f5d061898ecf2.jpeg) How else are they supposed to make due on the $37+ million in VC funding? People need to learn to say no! --- ## Post 3 by @anon54160479 — 2023-10-16T20:56:36Z Chrome based multi Plattform alternative? --- ## Post 4 by @xe3 — 2023-10-16T21:41:48Z @anon63378630 probably can speak to this better than I can, but I don’t believe there is one. At least not one that takes privacy+security as seriously as Brave and is also cross platform. As much as I have complaints about Brave, they do seem to actually care about extending privacy+security to a more mainstream audience, at least so long as it aligns with their incentives. Honestly, Firefox has no peers. On the Chromium side of the fence, every cross platform option seems to be a commercial product with profit incentives that make it difficult for them to stay aligned with the interests of their users. I don’t totally fault them for that, they are somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place, developing a browser costs real money (even moreso if we are talking about an independent Browser like Firefox), but almost none of us are willing to pay for a browser, so browser companies, and even not-for-profit browsers, must look for alternative revenue streams. The big guys (Google, Apple, MS) can subsidize the development of their browser through other revenue streams or through monetizing private user data in the case of Google), the independent companies must get more creative. and pay for development through some other model (ads, selling services, donations, etc). --- ## Post 5 by @anon54160479 — 2023-10-17T04:54:45Z > [@xe3](#): > > but I don’t believe there is one. At least not one that takes privacy+security as seriously as Brave and is also cross platform. Yes, I know :wink: --- ## Post 6 by @bee — 2023-10-17T06:19:53Z I use Brave on mobile, so I can’t speak for their desktop experience. Personally, I haven’t been bothered at all by Brave’s business model and default features. The day I installed the browser, it took less than 5 minutes to run through all the settings and disable any of the features I disliked. My mobile browsing is limited, but based on the content I’ve seen, I haven’t noticed any instances of the adblocker failing to block any content. I also don’t use any brave services besides the browser, so it goes without saying that I haven’t seen any instances of not blocking their own first-party ads. I am curious though, what ads have you found they don’t block on their own platforms? All in all my biggest and only gripe with the Brave web browser is the orange/red colour palatte and logo, but that is something I am able to live with. --- ## Post 7 by @Valynor — 2023-10-17T13:42:39Z I’ve been using Brave on macOS for ~2 years now. I have not noticed the enshittification yet - I turned off all of the Brave crypto stuff on install and it stayed off. The occasional new feature like the VPN is disabled with 1-2 clicks and Brave is never aggressively trying to convince you to switch stuff on again. Can’t comment on Brave Shield, I’ve disabled that and been using uBO since day one. --- ## Post 8 by @anon41231090 — 2023-10-18T09:15:02Z What is up with all of these anti-Brave topics lately? I have never encountered any of the items on your list on Android, iOS, or Linux. I have also never encountered any of the problems other people are bitching about like bloat or crypto or ads. It takes 5 minutes when you download the app to configure the settings and get rid of all that. There are a few videos on YouTube (Side of Burritos I think is one) that walk you through the process. Even a dumbass like me could figure it out. --- ## Post 9 by @anon54160479 — 2023-10-18T09:18:09Z > [@anon41231090](#): > > It takes 5 minutes when you download the app to configure the settings and get rid of all that. At maximum :wink: --- ## Post 10 by @You_will_own_nothing — 2023-10-18T10:35:49Z > [@anon41231090](#): > > **I have also never encountered any of the problems** other people are bitching about like bloat or crypto or ads. We shouldn’t assume that because **we** never faced that issue, it doesn’t happen at all. It’s a dangerous path. > [@anon41231090](#): > > **It takes 5 minutes** when you download the app to configure the settings and get rid of all that. I think this is where the problem is: You shouldn’t waste time turning off things that might hurt privacy. Also, why should someone who doesn’t want to deal with ads and tracking have to turn off crypto things and wallets? Doesn’t this seem odd? The fact that they have their own [ad network](https://brave.com/brave-ads/), might be a potential conflict of interests. --- ## Post 11 by @anon28734771 — 2023-10-18T12:11:17Z > [@anon41231090](#): > > What is up with all of these anti-Brave topics lately? > > I have never encountered any of the items on your list on Android, iOS, or Linux. > > I have also never encountered any of the problems other people are bitching about like bloat or crypto or ads. > > It takes 5 minutes when you download the app to configure the settings and get rid of all that. > > There are a few videos on YouTube (Side of Burritos I think is one) that walk you through the process. Even a dumbass like me could figure it out. It’s easier to whine than to accept the fact that it costs a lot of real money to maintain and develop a browser like Brave. --- ## Post 12 by @AbuMubarak — 2023-10-18T13:04:58Z Every privacy browser comparison i have come across pits Brave, LibreFox, Mull, Fennec & Firefox on top, depending on OS Whatever issues one may have, Brave is always rated within the top two or three --- ## Post 14 by @Dkama — 2023-10-19T02:56:08Z I don’t get it either. I don’t use it in desktop, where it’s a 3rd backup, but it’s my main in GOS. Yes, there’s a growing lot of bloatware, but it’s fairly easy to disable it all when you first set it up. I haven’t changed anything and yet none of the recent changes affected my homepage or whatever. Of course, I’m not using Brave Search, so that might help. On the other hand, Brave Shields is the best thing there is, and I hope FF would just copy it. Having ad blocking, cookies, script blocking and “forgetness” settings, all per site, all in one place, is just amazing. Site breaks in Firefox? Disable RFP for all sites. Site breaks in MB? Set safety to standard to all sites. That just sucks. Or multiple clicks inside the settings page to manage per site cookie exceptions. Yes, Brave has to earn money to appease it’s VC overlords, but people seem to forget about Mozilla. FF can’t come with uBO pre-installed (or even better, integrated) because it would kill it’s $500-million-a-year deal with Google. Because those are the good guys, right? And PS: how Mozilla can’t produce a decent browser with half a billion a year to spend is beyond me. --- ## Post 15 by @You_will_own_nothing — 2023-10-19T08:57:14Z @Dkama I also don’t get it why people seem to follow this browser like a cult (I thought this only happened with OS’s and _brands_). > Yes, **there’s a growing lot of bloatware** , but it’s fairly easy to disable it all when you first set it up. I haven’t changed anything and yet none of the recent changes affected my homepage or whatever. Of course, **I’m not using Brave Search** , so that might help. Yeah, that _might_ one of the [problems](https://www.searchenginejournal.com/brave-browser-under-fire-for-alleged-sale-of-copyrighted-data/491854/)… > Brave has to earn money to appease it’s VC overlords, but **people seem to forget about Mozilla**. FF can’t come with uBO pre-installed (or even better, integrated) because it would kill it’s $500-million-a-year deal with Google. Because those are the good guys, right? No one forgets about Mozilla… everybody remembers when they [pushed the Pocket crap](https://venturebeat.com/mobile/mozilla-responds-to-firefox-user-backlash-over-pocket-integration/) down user’s throats! I think everybody here knows (or should know) that they need to earn some kind of money to keep the product(s) evolving (this is the way the world works). The issue is that **there needs to be a fine balance between earning revenue and providing features that don’t harm the user**. This is the key. There isn’t a good guy/bad guy thing in the corporate world. That’s utopia! You just have to assume that they are all bad, but some of them are less bad than others, and that they always need users to keep them in line. --- ## Post 16 by @anon28734771 — 2023-10-19T09:13:28Z > [@You_will_own_nothing](#): > > I also don’t get it why people seem to follow this browser like a cult (I thought this only happened with OS’s and _brands_). Well, I think this is because, objectively, Brave is the best browser for daily driving for most people, and the only arguments against it are like this: “Well, it’s based on chromium, and chromium is Google, and Google is bad, so chromium is bad.” “Well, I think that crypto is bad; I don’t like crypto! So Brave is bad, it has crypto stuff!” “Amm, I have no technical, objective criticism, so I will mention that Brave’s CEO is homophobic, like it has to do anything with a browser itself.” Some people are just tired of hearing these same points over and over again, and I understand them. --- ## Post 17 by @Tech-Trooper — 2023-10-19T09:45:46Z I wish Brave and Vivaldi developed their browser based on Firefox not chromium. We would be in a very different situation. --- ## Post 18 by @You_will_own_nothing — 2023-10-19T10:05:09Z > [@anon28734771](#): > > Well, I think this is because, **objectively** , Brave is the best browser for daily driving for most people, and the only arguments against it are like this: > > “Well, it’s based on chromium, and chromium is Google, and Google is bad, so chromium is bad.” > > “Well, **I think that crypto is bad** ; I don’t like crypto! So Brave is bad, it has crypto stuff!” I’m not going to argue about which one is better because I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Why didn’t Tor choose Chromium instead if it was the best choice? Regarding the Crypto topic, let’s be real, if you go into the blog [Private Cryptocurrency Blockchains - Privacy Guides](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/cryptocurrency/) you have a warning there: ![image](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/f/ff8e39b4e7ad7d3232b42873e441fe2bb2238ac4.png) > **Many if not most cryptocurrency projects are scams**. Make transactions carefully with only projects you trust. So, it seems that most people agree on this take. If Brave wants to follow that path, it’s okay, but let’s not pretend that it’s the good path. --- ## Post 19 by @moonwriting — 2023-10-19T10:51:21Z I would appreciate it if you could not use straw man arguments. You may not like these kinds of arguments, but objectively speaking, they are valid criticism. 1. **Chromium** : Acting as if the Chromium monopoly wouldn’t matter seems strange when Google is pushing forward new web standards such as Manifest V3 and Web Environment Integrity API that clearly achieve more harm than good. Google is just a too powerful actor in the web space right now as they can basically decide themselves what web standards get implemented and what don’t. 2. **Crypto** : Like others have stated already, even PrivacyGuides is critical about crypto, and Brave’s choice to implement their own cryptocurrency instead of using something privacy-focused like Monero can be criticized. 3. **Brave’s CEO** : Even though this criticism isn’t technical and strictly related to the browser, it doesn’t make it invalid. If you are a homosexual, for example, you may feel uncomfortable using a browser whose CEO has these kinds of views about you. --- ## Post 20 by @anon29423700 — 2023-10-19T12:26:12Z > [@You_will_own_nothing](#): > > The fact that they have their own [ad network](https://brave.com/brave-ads/), might be a potential conflict of interests. It’s not a potential conflict, it’s a conflict of interests as it is. The only question is where and when it fires. --- ## Post 22 by @ph00lt0 — 2023-10-20T15:47:16Z Honestly wonder what is the advantage here? You can add any list to brave? brave://adblock --- ## Post 23 by @AnthonySaar — 2023-10-20T16:07:04Z People don’t know this, but Firefox is essentially funded (and owned in a way) by Google. Brave is the best option you’re going to have. They keep adding great features, VPN, Tor, AI You can simply turn off Brave Ads if you don’t want them, their model works showing you ads in exchange for BAT. It’s a much better model than the current internet, and you can opt out if you don’t want the BAT. --- ## Post 24 by @xe3 — 2023-10-20T16:31:11Z > [@AnthonySaar](#): > > People don’t know this, but Firefox is essentially funded (and owned in a way) by Google. No Firefox is definitely not “owned” by Google. Hyperbole or misinformation helps nobody. Google pays Mozilla money to be the default search provider in Firefox (as they pay to be the default search provider in many other Browsers and platforms of their competitors). Their largest search deal is with Apple, they pay over 10 Billion dollars (20x what they pay Firefox) to be the default search provider in Apple’s Safari. That doesn’t mean Google “Owns Apple”, nor does it mean the own Firefox. This is also not limited to Google, prior to Google, Yahoo paid Mozilla for the privilege of being the default search in Firefox, Bing and Duckduckgo have both separately discussed search deal with Apple. Being the ‘default’ is worth a lot for search engines, they pay for the privilege becausei t benefits their business, not because it makes them the corporate overlord of the browser they pay. --- ## Post 25 by @Valynor — 2023-10-20T17:01:38Z The advantage is mainly the dynamic filtering modes that uBO offers: > **[Blocking mode](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode)** > > uBlock Origin - An efficient blocker for Chromium and Firefox. Fast and lean. - gorhill/uBlock --- ## Post 26 by @JibJab — 2023-10-20T17:20:48Z How can FF be independent when Google provides most of its funding? --- ## Post 27 by @Tech-Trooper — 2023-10-20T17:31:30Z Most people don’t know but Mozilla foundation and corporation are separate entities. If Google stops funding, Mozilla foundation can support the others development. However, if Google makes bad changes in Chromium, then Brave will be screwed. Also, I am really wondering they will earn enough money when VC funding dries up. Still, I both use Firefox and brave. Edit: Firefox also can make a deal with DDG or other search engines. --- ## Post 28 by @xe3 — 2023-10-20T17:41:22Z > [@JibJab](#): > > How can FF be independent when Google provides most of its funding? Possibly I’m getting hung up on semantics here but Google doesn’t “fund” Firefox (in the same sense that you or I don’t ‘fund’ the grocery store or ‘fund’ the gas station, or ‘fund’ our landlord). Google _pays_ Mozilla for a service/privilege of being the default search provider. I absolutely agree with you insofar as its a precarious position for any organization to be to get a majority of its funding from a single entity, even more so if that entity is a competitor. But Mozilla has a long track record, and has a demonstrated history of independence, is frequently one of the the most outspoken voices on the opposite side of issues from Google. Or put simply, the proof is in the pudding, FIrefox is a 25 year old project, is open source, and has been in the public eye all that time, there is no evidence that their independence has been limited by Google or anyone else. Its not a perfect arrangement (but there are no perfect arrangements in the Browser space, Firefox is by far the closest thing to a fully independent Browser (and I’d love a future where Mozilla could have more diverse income sources (they are working on this) and work out a deal with a more ethical search provider (duckduckgo maybe). > Most people don’t know but Mozilla foundation and corporation are separate entities. If Google stops funding, Mozilla foundation can support the others development. I agree with your comment overall, only caveat is I really think using the word ‘funding’ gives the wrong impression. Mozilla _sells_ Google (and before them Yahoo) the privilege/advantage of being the default search engine in Firefox. If Google decided to stop paying for this privilege (they are unlikely to, they spend 10’s of billions ot be the default on every platform, its really important to them), Mozilla would be free to find another customer to pay for the privilege (Bing is aggressively trying to gain market share right now and recently offered 10 billion to Apple for the privilege (and was turned down), DDG and other would be interested as well but probably couldn’t pay as much) --- ## Post 29 by @AnthonySaar — 2023-10-20T19:45:08Z > The majority of Mozilla Corporation’s revenue comes from **royalties earned through Firefox web browser search partnerships and distribution deals**. Precisely about 88% of Mozilla’s revenue came through royalties received by search engines to be featured on its Mozilla Firefox browser. In 2017, Google closed a deal with Mozilla to be the primary search engine, by putting an end to a previous deal with Yahoo. Google contributes 88% of Firefoxes revenue, they effectively own the company. Firefox exists to serve Google, because Google is pretty much its only customer. So whatever Google says, Firefox does. It’s simple. > However, if Google makes bad changes in Chromium, then Brave will be screwed. Also, I am really wondering they will earn enough money when VC funding dries up. Brave can always choose to fork and selectively implement Chromium changes. They are a legitimate competitor to Google, whose revenue does not at all come from Google. They have a legitimate business model that doesn’t require them to be paid by Google, via selling VPN, Search, AI, and Ads. It’s really no comparison. One is a legitimate competitor (Brave) and one is a puppet , where Google is the only customer, (Firefox). > The Mozilla Foundation is funded by donations and 2% of annual net revenues from the Mozilla Corporation, amounting to over US$8.3 million in 2016. Mozilla foundation has no business model, its money comes from the Mozilla Corporation. It has no customers and relies on donations. > Edit: Firefox also can make a deal with DDG or other search engines. Yeah, I’m sure that’s going to happen, because Google will let go of paying them the most money to control them. because the Mozilla Corporation is an independent entity that can make it’s own choices about whom to partner with…and there’s nothing Google can do to stop this. --- ## Post 30 by @xe3 — 2023-10-20T20:27:56Z > they effectively own the company. Firefox exists to serve Google, because Google is pretty much its only customer. So whatever Google says, Firefox does. It’s simple. Can you provide any evidence of this. Firefox has a 25 year track record, if this is the case you should be able to provide concrete evidence of at least a few substantive, specific real world examples of this. Otherwise its just a conspiracy theory. --- ## Post 31 by @xe3 — 2023-10-20T20:29:25Z > Brave can always choose to fork and selectively implement Chromium changes. They are a legitimate competitor to Google They are very much dependent on Google and affected by Google’s decisions in a way that non-Chromium browsers are not. Brave is a derivative of and dependent on Google’s Chromium and Blink Browser and Browser engine. not an independent competitor to Google. Chromium and Blink are developed and controlled almost completely by Google, Brave is downstream of them, any changes made by Google upstream will effect Brave. The decisions Google makes effect Brave, as an example, the recent move to undermine adblockers (MV3) will effect brave, they’ve committed to a workaround, but it is not guaranteed to be sustainable permanently, Many people mistakenly think Brave will not be effected but here is the commitment Brave’s CEO actually made: > We’ll keep supporting V2 _ **until it gets too costly for us** _ Each workaround costs time, money, resources. Through either indifference or in order to deliberately undermine Brave, Google can make life difficult for Brave and other derivatives, and do things that undermine its ability to deliver a private browsing experience. It remains to be seen whether this will happen or not. > One is a legitimate competitor (Brave) and one is a puppet , where Google is the only customer, (Firefox). Seriously? Come on.. This forum is not /r/privacy and has higher standards of discourse and informed discussion, lets just have a discussion without devolving into baseless hyperbole and conspiracy theories. It is an assumption but I feel like you may be on the younger side (nothing wrong with that, I’m not trying to devalue your opinion) and don’t have a whole lot of awareness of the role Mozilla has played in promoting and protecting an open internet over the last couple decades, in many cases in direct opposition to Google. As far as medium to large organizations go, Mozilla has pretty consistently been on the right side of history, with respect to ethics in tech and a healthy open internet. --- ## Post 32 by @AnthonySaar — 2023-10-20T20:53:00Z Sorry, you’re kind of right. I don’t have time for a nuanced discussion, and shouldn’t be posting. > Can you provide any evidence of this. Firefox has a 25 year track record, if this is the case you should be able to provide concrete evidence of at least a few substantive, specific real world examples of this. Otherwise its just a conspiracy theory. I would say you would have to look for what they didn’t do rather than what they do to find this. My opinion persists, in that Firefox is controlled opposition for Google and that Brave is a better alternative with more potential. There is a deep and worthy debate about the merits and pains of Chromium vs an alternative engine. I’m done, both Brave and Firefox are good browsers. --- ## Post 33 by @Valynor — 2023-10-20T22:08:44Z Conversation seems to have run its course, OP requested the thread to be locked.