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."

  • Xæris@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    TIL; stay away from Brave.

    Not only because of this article, but merely an hour ago I have read also this post (numerous links provided in the post) about the dubious Brendan Eich.

    • Monologue@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      i don’t get why people choose to use brave, firefox is great and if you really need that chromium base ungoogled chromium exists

      • Matt@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Brave is great for less techy people because it’s defaults are good enough. It’s not necessary to tweak settings and install add-ons to get basic privacy. I definitely prefer Firefox, but it takes some knowledge to get it to surpass Brave’s defaults.

      • dngray@lemmy.oneM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        ungoogled chromium exists

        The reason is they have proper build infrastructure managed by the Brave. With Ungoogled Chromium the binaries are produced by third parties, vary in version etc. People claim they would only use “open source software” but they do download binary versions nevertheless and don’t compile that code themselves. This increases the risk of a supply chain attack, where a malicious binary is submitted and nobody has really knows until it is too late. The other issue is they disable CRLSets because of “google hate” which we think actually increases the likelihood of a MiTM attack occurring because rogue certificates are not detected and invalidated as quickly as they could have been.

        This article describes a few other things https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/

      • frequency@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think Brave did some aggressive marketing, including social media posts and comments. I did buy their narrative at first too - a browser that already tuned to block ads and trackers. But later I’ve noticed that it constantly connects back to brave server and it looked suspicious. Firefox is the best.

      • goji@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ungoogled Chromium is my current favourite

        Previously was using Firefox Developer’s edition which is also decent. But I like a minimalist browser that acts more like a framework to which I can just add what I want, and doesn’t come with a lot of bullshit I don’t need.

        • dngray@lemmy.oneM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ungoogled Chromium is my current favourite

          The reason we don’t recommend Ungoogled Chromium and instead recommend Brave on the privacyguides.org website is because they have proper build infrastructure managed by the Brave. With Ungoogled Chromium the binaries are produced by third parties, vary in version etc. People claim they would only use “open source software” but they do download binary versions nevertheless and don’t compile that code themselves. This increases the risk of a supply chain attack, where a malicious binary is submitted and nobody has really knows until it is too late. The other issue is they disable CRLSets because of “google hate” which we think actually increases the likelihood of a MiTM attack occurring because rogue certificates are not detected and invalidated as quickly as they could have been.

          This article describes a few other things https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/