Talk:Brave (web browser)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Underlying engine

Is this based on Gecko, Webkit, or what?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It is based in Chromium see chapter 8 in FAQ 8. Why aren’t you using Mozilla’s Gecko engine on laptops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielperezglez (talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Move infobox version number to LPR

Anonymous IP-editors cannot create wikipages, so I am requesting one to be created. Please create Template:Latest preview software release/Brave, so that it can be included in Template:Infobox web browser in this article and at Comparison of web browsers.

The wiki markup for the template is as follows:

{{LPR
| article = Brave (web browser)
| latest preview version = 0.12.1
| latest preview date = {{Start date and age|2016|09|15}}
}}
<noinclude>
➔ Back to article "'''[[Brave (web browser)]]'''"

{{Template reference list}}

[[Category:Latest preview software release templates|Brave]]
</noinclude>

80.221.159.67 (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC) (edited: 07:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC))

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Create LSR at Template:Latest stable software release/Brave (web browser)

Like previous request, I request Template:Latest stable software release/Brave (web browser) to be created since anonymous IP-editors cannot do so.

You can use this wikimarkup:

{{Multiple releases
 |branch1  = Android
 |version1 = v1.9.56
 |date1    = {{Start date and age|2016|09|12}}<ref name="gh-brave-android-1.9.56">{{Cite web
  |url          = https://github.com/brave/browser-android/releases/tag/v1.9.56
  |title        = v1.9.56
  |last         = Zhukovsky
  |first        = Sergey
  |date         = 2016-09-12
  |website      = brave/browser-android (source code repository)
  |publisher    = GitHub
  |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20160930234822/https://github.com/brave/browser-android/releases/tag/v1.9.56
  |archive-date = 2016-09-30
  |dead-url     = no
  |access-date  = 2016-09-30
  }}</ref>

 |branch2  = iOS
 |version2 = v1.2.16
 |date2    = {{Start date and age|2016|09|30}}<ref name="gh-brave-ios-1.2.16">{{Cite web
  |url          = https://github.com/brave/browser-ios/releases/tag/1.2.16
  |title        = Brave iOS 1.2.16
  |last         = Keeley
  |first        = Garvan
  |date         = 2016-09-30
  |website      = brave/browser-ios (source code repository)
  |publisher    = GitHub
  |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20160930234339/https://github.com/brave/browser-ios/releases/tag/1.2.16
  |archive-date = 2016-09-30
  |dead-url     = no
  |access-date  = 2016-09-30
  }}</ref>
}}<noinclude>
➔ Back to article "'''[[Brave (web browser)]]'''"

{{Template reference list}}

[[Category:Latest preview software release templates|Brave]]
</noinclude>

I will do some post-cleanup to Template:Latest preview software release/Brave (web browser). I have no conflict of interest in Brave. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

References

By the way, there is a caveat with Template:Infobox web browser, that requires Template:Latest stable software release/Brave to be created as well (redirect) when using |ver layout=stacked. This is due to |name=Brave in the infobox. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this is  Already done by User:Andy M. Wang. Marking as answered. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV

All of the sources linked in this article are from reviews of really early (2016) versions of Brave, and all of them are negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.170.200 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable Techworld article

The best secure browsers 2018 by Techworld is cited in the critical reception section as signaling an improvement in Brave. But the article does not seem reliable at all. It calls I2P and Freenet "browsers." It calls Yandex a "re-skin" of Chromium, then lists it as one of the "best secure browsers" without including Chromium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmarmstrong (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pay to Surf?

From the article,

Brave is a free and open-source pay-to-surf[4] web browser...

The claim that Brave is a pay-to-surf browser is based on a 2-year-old article making false claims about how the browser operates. Consider the following quote:

"However, it doesn’t eliminate the ads completely, instead, it replaces the ads with ads from Brave’s own network. If the user agrees to see the replaced ads, he will be paid in bitcoin. Yes, you read that right; you can get paid to surf web!"

This is untrue, and has never been correct. Brave does not replace ads (see the Ad-Replacement section below). Secondly, Brave has never paid users in Bitcoin for viewing ads. I should note also that the source material doesn't contain any citations.

Brave is working on an alternative, opt-in digital advertising model that rewards users for their attention. Brave has also been giving out grants for some time to those who have enabled Brave Payments.

Brave's default behavior is to block ads and trackers. Grants and Rewards are only available to those who opt-in to Brave Payments and/or the forthcoming ads component. It is for these reasons I don't think the pay-to-surf claim should be unqualified and stated as a general fact for all Brave instances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansampson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Edits by Basicbbr (talk · contribs · count)

On August 14, Basicbbr reverted all of my recent edits with the edit summary "Revert to the last neutral version of 31 July 2018‎ which did not have advertisement". The diff of their reversion shows that they replaced my neutral wording with their unambiguously negative wording, despite their misleading edit summary. Basicbbr's version of the Critical reception section cherry-picks negative aspects of the cited reviews, which are actually mixed reviews that mention both positive and negative aspects of the browser.

Additionally, Basicbbr completely ignored Jonathansampson's concerns ([1] [2]) regarding their "pay-to-surf" designation, which is not supported by cited sources. All of the sources state that a testing version of the browser includes the advertising scheme, while the release versions do not. As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is too soon to label the browser as "pay-to-surf" because the affected version of the software is not available through standard release channels.

Finally, while Basicbbr has noted Jonathansampson's conflict of interest, Basicbbr's own contribution history shows that Basicbbr is a single-purpose account that almost exclusively makes negatively toned edits to this article.

Basicbbr, please address the issues above. — Newslinger talk 20:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the most contentious part of this content dispute comes from the "pay to surf" designation, and there are not enough interested editors to establish consensus for whether this designation should be used, I am going to submit a request for comment. — Newslinger talk 19:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Brave Pay to Surf

Brave is describing itself as a pay to surf since at least 2016. If you get money for browsing the web, yes this is pay to surf.

This is according to Brave owns marketing: "Brave pays you to surf the web", "Brave will pay you for browsing the web" ? https://www.engadget.com/2016/04/01/brave-will-pay-you-in-bitcoins-for-browsing-the-web/ ? https://www.androidauthority.com/brave-browser-pays-you-683579/

The (2016) Engadget article is citing a post by Brave calling for feedback on the ledger specification. The post is not detailing how the browser works. The title of the post is Brave's Payment Spec Out for Developer Input, which is quite unequivocal. Please see the original post (via the Wayback Machine) for yourself. Also, it should be noted that many resources in 2016 were based on speculative behavior of a browser in development, as we see time and time again. Your Android Authority post appears to repeat the same claims as the Engadget article. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is 2016, and also confirmed in recent: http://blog.christianmoney.com/2018/03/new-high-speed-browser-pays-you-to-surf-the-web.html https://dzone.com/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-brave-web-br https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@pandorasbox/earning-crypto-from-surfing-the-web-basic-attention-token-from-the-creator-of-mozilla-and-javascript https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/web-browsers/brave-browser-begins-controversial-ad-repeal-and-replace-tests.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicbbr (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Christian Money article doesn't give any details. That resource appears to be talking about the BAT grants given out to those who have enabled Brave Payments. Note, that is a subset of Brave's user-base; and therefore not necessarily the case for general Brave use. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The DZone article is from 2016 and isn't recent. My response to your use of the Engadget article works here as well. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The Steemit article also refer to the BAT Grants. It also explicitly states that "the Basic Attention Token ecosystem is still in the works and not fully operational," giving as an example "the feature of getting paid to surf the web". Again, you do not get paid to merely surf the web in Brave. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your last reference, to Computer World, accurately describes the voluntary user-trials that are presently taking place. The Computer World article even states clear that "Brave users who agree to receive ads will be rewarded with BATs." Note again that this is a subset of the Brave user-base, and presently only an option to a group of volunteers. Jonathansampson (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Would it be worth creating a section on Wikipedia about this? I am thinking of saying something like "There is a program which provides BAT token rewards by visiting websites, but currently this is an experiment. While these BAT tokens can be sold..." - Yuhong (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yuhong, I think that would potentially be helpful. Brave Ads was an mere idea in 2016, but is now becoming a reality in 2018. Jonathansampson (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Request for comment on "pay to surf" classification

There is a clear consensus against classifying Brave web browser as a pay-to-surf web browser.

Editors noted that the browser's standard releases do not have pay-to-surf elements. Editors noted that Brave Software plans to adopt a pay-to-surf model and has released test versions with pay-to-surf elements. Subject to editorial consensus, this information can be discussed in the article's body.

Cunard (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Brave web browser be classified as a pay-to-surf web browser? — Newslinger talk 19:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. As stated in a previous revision of the article, Brave Software intends to adopt a pay-to-surf business model in a future version of the browser. In June of this year, a testing version of the browser was released with pay-to-surf elements, but this was outside of the standard release channels. Right now, if a user goes to Brave's official website or downloads the app from Google Play or the App Store, the downloaded app does not have pay-to-surf elements. The release version of the browser is just a free and open-source web browser with integrated ad blocking. As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is not appropriate to label the browser as "pay to surf" at this time, particularly in the infobox and lead paragraph. — Newslinger talk 19:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Additionally, no reliable source describes the browser as "pay-to-surf". The closest is an Engadget article that describes Brave as a browser that "will pay you in Bitcoins for browsing the web", and the article notes that this feature would be optional. The term "pay to surf" has not been used since the dot-com crash, and as you can see from its article, the connotation of this term is extremely negative. The term is also ambiguous, as it can be interpreted to mean that the user is paying to surf the web on the browser. Could there be a more neutral term to describe the company's business model? — Newslinger talk 19:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Have found out an App Dynamics article and Android Authority article saying that the browser is pay-to-surf. Both are reliable sources and multiple other sources mentioning the same. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that your sources are from 2016, and are based more on projections and plans rather than the product itself. Please see the Pay to Surf and Brave Pay to Surf (including responses) sections above. Jonathansampson (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• No they appear to be working on that, but don't currently have that functionality. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• No: WP:CRYSTAL. ==Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• No: NB I know nothing about Brave, but in the light of the foregoing exchanges, I support the removal of the claim until it can be unambiguously demonstrated to be stably implemented as such, not just planned. Until then it is unnecessary and undesirable to include it. JonRichfield (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• No (invited randomly by a bot) We should not be predicting the future (WP:CRYSTAL). Certainly can say the developers are intending that but cannot classify the current browser as other than what it is. If there was a "Planning to be pay-to-surf" classification our policy would support our use of that here. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - seems it is not. The plan to do so might be mentioned in the body, and if they change then the lead should do so. But do not make a currently false statement that is WP:SPECULATION. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes but later in article – not familiar with brave, but my first impression when I hear pay-to-surf is that their is a physical subscription or payment involved. I understand that is not the case after visiting the wikilink but this can me ambiguous to readers. I suggest only explaining this later in the article and not mentioning it in the lead until such time reliable sources can be found which unanimously support this. Waddie96 (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• No. Because it isn't. In the body of the article, we can mention the plans for it to become one. Maproom (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• No, as per other comments against above, particularly Newslinger's.--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• No (invited by bot) as per "No's" above. StarHOG (Talk) 13:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• No, not until it actually is one. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• No (summoned by bot) Agree with most of the aforementioned arguments. However, the "pay-to-surf" term should not be banned from the article. As others have pointed out, this is the software's intended business model and this should be stated somewhere in the article, just not to qualify the current version of the software and certainly not in the first paragraph. Dryfee (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Yes as I am really unsure about this because currently, the Brave website already contains a section that states that the browser's users can reward their favorite websites through blockchain-based tokens, which can be exchanged between publishers, advertisers, and users. This is under the section Reward Your Favorite Publisher, but as this article indicated, the token used for such rewards were also rewards to the users themselves for their attention on specific content. - Darwin Naz (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  According to Basic Attention Token#Integration with Brave you can currently tip websites and content creators with BAT tokens, but paying users is in their future plans. I see no evidence in the link you provided that contradicts this claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

My point there is that Brave is saying at this point in its website (through the link I cited) that its users can earn rewards and this is further supported by the capability to reward favorite publishers. In my understanding, it seems that pay to surf is not merely a plan but a core component of its business model. The browser blocks ads but it will be replaced by its own advertisements within a platform developed to split revenue with its users. The value proposition for users is that Brave blocks ad. To rationalize, thus, the existence of its own ads, the user will be paid. Otherwise, its claim of blocking ads that users "pay" for (since they consume data), is meaningless. - Darwin Naz (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality in Critical reception section

I've restored the Critical reception section from revision 854343862 of the article. Here is a comparison of the summaries for each source before and after the restoration:

Before (revision 861948117)	After (revision 861964809)	Sources
In 2016, version 0.7 of Brave was called “mighty primitive” by Network World.	In February 2016, Andy Patrizio of Network World reviewed a pre-release version of Brave. Patrizio criticized the browser's feature set as "mighty primitive", but lauded its performance: "Pages load instantly. I can't really benchmark page loads since they happen faster than I can start/stop the stopwatch."
Urbanophile stated that Brave is “very fast” with “quirks”.	Removed. Urbanophile is a blog with only one author, which is considered a self-published source.
Ars Technica called Brave a “double dip” and added “Brave just sounds like a cash-grab”.	In January 2016, in reaction to Brave Software's initial announcement, Sebastian Anthony of Ars Technica described Brave as a "cash-grab" and a "double dip". Anthony concluded, "Brave is an interesting idea, but generally it's rather frowned upon to stick your own ads in front of someone else's."
Several members of the Newspaper Association of America claimed that Brave's proposed replacement of advertising was illegal.	In April 2016, the CEO of the Newspaper Association of America, David Chavern, said that Brave's proposed replacement of advertising "should be viewed as illegal and deceptive by the courts, consumers, and those who value the creation of content". Eich responded by emphasizing that the browser gives "the lion's share" of ad revenue to content publishers.
In 2017, TechWorld praised Brave's "great speeds and advanced ad-tracking controls," but said that its "extension functionality is still lacking."	In April 2017, TechWorld praised Brave's "great speeds and advanced ad-tracking controls", but said that its "extension functionality is still lacking".
ComputerWorld, TechCrunch and Engadget qualified the "ad repeal-and-replace" operations controversial.	TechCrunch, Computerworld, and Engadget termed Brave's ad replacement plans "controversial".

If there are issues with the neutrality of the restored versions, please feel free to discuss and improve them. — Newslinger talk 08:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Ad-Revenue Sharing Correction

The article presently states the following:

"Brave intends to pay content publishers 55%…"

This claim is not supplemented with a source or citation. In fact, this claim is incorrect.

There are two major phases to the Brave Ads program: 1) User ads, and 2) Publisher ads. Presently, tests are underway for user ads. These ads are not shown on webpages, but are instead surfaced outside the browser. When the user opts to view the ad, they do so in a private tab. These users will receive 70% of the ad revenue:

"When the Brave ad system becomes widely available, users will receive 70% of the gross ad revenue, while preserving their privacy."

This is also stated on the (06 June, 2018) Basic Attention Token blog:

"Brave browser users will soon also be able to opt in to view private ads and receive 70% of the associated ad revenue."

With regards to publisher ads, the revenue-share is still 70%. This was most recently stated by Brendan Eich, Brave CEO:

"We always give the ad space owner 70%. We always pay the user >= what we make."

Brendan addressed this in greater detail during his Reddit AMA, in August of 2018:

"The main ideas are 1/ opt-in only, always user consent based; 2/ give the user 70% of the revenue for private ads in tabs, and if pubs partner (and get 70% as they are the slot owner in place of the user), give the user 15% -- so user makes >= what we make."

Note the clear distribution of ad-revenue.

Model	User Rev	Publisher Rev	Brave Rev
No Ads (default)	N/A	N/A	N/A
User Ads Displayed in a private browser tab.	70%	N/A	30%
Publisher Ads Displayed on pages of consenting publishers.	15%	70%	15%

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansampson (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jonathansampson, thanks for the clarification. The current text in the article ("Brave intends [...] through micropayments.") is supported by the Ars Technica article, although it's from 2016. Unfortunately, the sources you've provided for the new numbers aren't as clear as your table, and we can't base the article text on your talk page comment. I've marked the section as out-of-date with the {{update}} template, but we'll need a clear explanation from a verifiable primary source or reliable secondary source before the numbers can be updated in the article. — Newslinger talk 01:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Links need updating

Desktop versions of Brave no longer appear to be at https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/ and this page is no longer listed on the main page for Brave https://github.com/brave Seems to have moved to https://github.com/brave/brave-browser

This is possibly the cause of the misreported windows version (wiki reports 0.23.105, as of writing the latest stable release is 0.56.15)

--The Elysian Vector Fields 04:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Brave will be HTC phone's official browser app (still waiting on WP:RS)

Still waiting for a reliable source, but there seems to be a lot of talk about it happening: Dr-Bracket (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Basic Attention Token into Brave (web browser). Not independently notable. So far it's only used on Brave. Џ 02:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support per above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Neutral. Where is the evidence that BAT is used on Brave? In the section at the top of this page, all anyone had was future plans to do that. According to [3]they are still future plans. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see that R2d232h2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to go ahead and do the merge without discussing it here. I am still waiting for an answer to the above question. Reverted improper merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• I actually didn't say anything in the BAT merger discussion, because I could see it being better with a merge. I did a lot of work cleaning up the article itself too, since it was discovered on User:MER-C's talk page that it was written by someone with COI; however, from this perspective it makes no sense. I oppose(now support merge or delete) the merge due to the Brave browser having little to do with the token as of this time. I say that, as I write this message, from the browser itself. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Dr-Bracket: It may be useful to refocus the discussion on the fact that BAT is an integral component of the Brave browser, it comes preinstalled with every Brave browser since the 0.19 version (October 2017 release) of the browser. BAT cannot be used outside of the Brave browser ecosystem, and was created by the same people. It doesn't come switched on by default, if you have the browser, enable Brave Payments in the preferences panel to signup and start using it and the newer Brave rewards component (0.58 and newer). If you think a merge is impractical, I am confident that it can be deleted instead, because there is almost no independent coverage of BAT and it has no application outside of Brave.--R2d232h2 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, it does look like Brave has BAT as an opt-in option. I found a couple of secondary sources for this as well:[4][5] I changed my !vote to "neutral". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes that is why I didn't comment on the BAT sections for merging; someone brought up the "no independent coverage" argument and I found it highly reasonable. For this reason I will switch to support for either merging, deletion, or a partial merge with delete. Dr-Bracket (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't from a reliable source, but if the following is correct you can use BAT in Brave to contribute to Wikipedia.[6] I would imagine that someone at the WMF could tell us how much Wikipedia got from this source last year. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not BAT has been used to tip Wikipedia, my position doesn't change. If WMF confirms these tips were substantial, however, perhaps we could add a section within the Brave page mentioning that. Dr-Bracket (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI Guy, the whole BAT donation setup is a bit of a scam, the WMF and most the people on the platform were enrolled without their knowledge or consent and don't actually know anything about it. Short of it is Wikipedia doesn't get the money, if you need a source for this, just look on twitter [7] for omg wtf so illegal $BAT @brave. tweets... (shard) t 20:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.68.103 (talk)

I have merged the articles again now.--R2d232h2 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I use Brave and use the platform and comfirm that you get the tips from brave. Source: https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/15/a-brave-new-world/ --EastRaptor38085 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2019

Claims about Ad-Replacement

In a few places, this article states that the Brave Browser replaces ads. This statement is not correct, as even a cursory use of the product would reveal. As its baseline, Brave blocks ads and trackers—I'm happy to provide third-party testimonies to this if necessary. I believe this claim originated from 2016 proposal on the brave.com domain. Brave has never replaced ads on websites. Brave co-founder and CEO Brendan Eich explained on Twitter that ad-replacement would never take place without prior consent.

References

Agreed. Though the current version not only blocks ads but also allows users to earn BAT by viewing ads provided by Brave. --Kim Jong Undo 03:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Jong Undo (talk • contribs)

Citation 5 links to article comment, not article

Rather than linking to the article in question, cite 5 currently links to the first comment after the article (a user saying "This model sounds illegal to me, or at the very least immoral"). Based on the text, I suspect the cite URL should be for the article itself, at https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozilla-co-founder-unveils-brave-a-web-browser-that-blocks-ads-by-default/ , rather than https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozilla-co-founder-unveils-brave-a-web-browser-that-blocks-ads-by-default/?comments=1, as it currently stands. 71.234.116.22 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Idk when, but this was fixed. Thanks! Kim Jong Undo 04:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Improving article to remove advert tag

Let's talk specifics about how to remedy the article and remove the advert tag. I'm combing through the NPOV and any other guidelines or policies related to advertising and then I'll do a sweep through the article to see if there's anything that needs to be reworded or removed.

If anyone knows what inspired the tag in the first place or has any suggestions about why it's still here, that would be helpful. -- KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 15:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, there's a lot of self-publishing going on. I'm going to dig into that a bit. -- KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 16:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There also seems to be a crazy amount of speculation going on. . . unnecessarily. A lot of the features that were speculative became real this year. I will update the language and citations in the article to reflect that. -- KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 04:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

There are too many quotations of what various (usually biased) people have said about Brave, and not enough clear, impartial explanation of what it actually does. Of course owners of websites that depend on ad revenue say nasty things about Brave. It would be amazing if they did not. I don't care what biased parties say; I want to know exactly what it does.

My impression of what the article is saying is:

1. Brave strips all ads from pages served by webservers. This cannot be true, because detecting what is an ad and what is content is beyond current technology. Maybe it strips some kinds of ads? What kinds?
2. Brave shows ads selected by Brave Software to users who agree to view such ads. This sounds weird, because people who use Brave are ipso facto people who refuse to view ads - that's the whole point of Brave. Is it really true? How is the obvious contradiction resolved?

Please can we have some facts and clear explanation in this article? And I'd like to see the quotations in the "Critical Reception" section deleted. Call its operations "illegal" when a court has ruled them illegal. If a non-frivolous lawsuit against it is in progress, mention that. Until then, speculations about "illegal" have no place here. Sayitclearly (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Brave Browser Transparent.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant Critical Reception

The last point in Critical Reception is irrelevant to the critical reception of the product and is already mentioned on Brandon Eich's wiki page. I suggest it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliciousInternetSpeeds (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Paragraph removed. --Wire723 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears to have been placing undue emphasis, but with how closely Eich's role at Mozilla was tied into the initial advertisement of Brave and ongoing discussion around Brave (including his role at Mozilla being mentioned in the titles of 11% of the references in the article), the reason he left Mozilla probably should have some mention. 198.52.130.148 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Other languages

Why this page doesn't link to other languages versions? Alifono

It does. Retimuko (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Controversy?

There's nothing about the Newspaper Association of America (now News Media Alliance) and their opposition to Brave? Formedras (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

References

I think we absolutely should add something about that. I think it's fascinating and I've always wondered how publishers felt about Brave's mission. They still have their post up on the NAA website. Interestingly, while that CoinDesk article says the NYT, WSJ, and WaPo all oppose Brave, WaPo changed its tune and became a verified publisher with Brave and the LA Times and the Guardian too. --Kim Jong Undo 04:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Jong Undo (talk • contribs)

I added Controversies sub-section describing two other controversies Brave was involved in. f there are any reliable third-party sources about Newspaper Association of America controversy, please consider adding this information there.Anton.bersh (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Insertion of referral codes

Resolved

 – I improved the section, added Brave’s blog post, and removed the section about Bold —Dexxor (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

At the time of this writing, the section currently states the following:

In June of 2020 Twitter user pointed out that Brave was rewriting some links to cryptocurrency trading websites inserting affiliate referral codes (to gain a commission money). In response to the backlash from the users, on June 7 Brave introduced a toggle for this 'feature' and disabled it by default in the next release[46] (without admission of any wronging).[47] On June 8, Brave's CEO apologized and called it a "mistake" and said "we're correcting".[48] In response to this controversy developers forked Brave into Braver promising to remove all referral codes, BAT integration, and other "adware".[49]

I believe there are a few ways this section could be improved:

• Link to the relevant Tweet
• Remove the claim that Brave was "rewriting some links" (Note that the Tweet did not claim that Brave was "rewriting some links," as the current article suggests)
• Clarify the nature of the feature (optionally, link to the source code):
  • It offered contextually relevant referral links in the browser's URL suggestion list.
  • It did not modify web-pages in any way
  • It did not involve user-data or violation of privacy in any way (Industry experts Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte covered this on episode 771 of Security Now (transcript), where Gibson concluded "It wasn't nefarious," and Laporte made it clear that while "there was a lot made of it," this didn't involve user data.)
• Remove the "without admission of wrongdoing" as it doesn't seem appropriate or accurate
  • On June 6, Brendan Eich acknowledged the mistake.
  • On June 9, Brave responded in a blog post titled On Partner Referral Codes in Brave Suggested Sites which addressed the "mistake" and "error" in the feature
• Remove or reduce the mention of developers forking Brave. If there were a released product, or significant work behind the effort, it might merit a reference. But there appears to be neither.

Note, I am an employee at Brave. Please help me to ensure my suggestions are accurate, neutral, and in good faith.

Jonathansampson (talk)

Thanks for disclaiming your relationship with Brave and the constructive criticism.

• On Wikipedia we do not link to tweets or source code but to WP:secondary sources such as news articles instead.
• We should definitely clarify how the "feature" works: It makes a difference whether just typing "binance.us<Enter>" in the URL bar inserts the affiliate code or whether you need to select the "binance.us/en?ref=35089877" suggestion.
• We need to correct the date of Brendan Eich's tweet from June 8 to June 6. It also looks like it was possible to deactivate the "feature" before June 7 so the statement "on June 7 Brave introduced a toggle for this 'feature'" seems wrong.
• Concerning Braver: You are right, there are almost no code changes in the GitHub repo. But the fork shows something about the community reaction and opinion.

—Dexxor (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Note, the team behind the Bold Browser (formerly "Braver") announced they won't be forking Brave, and will instead fork the Ungoogled Chromium project. I still feel as though this merits little, if any, mention. — Brave Employee, Jonathansampson (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe we should link to any tweet, source code, or github per WP:SECONDARY. If your company disputes the accuracy of the reporting by reliable sources, it would be best to take that up with them. I would not object to including a link to the company's blog post under external links. I am in favor of keeping the forking content, although I'm not certain about the current sourcing. I will check WP:RSP. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Dexxor, could you help with cleaning up this section? Also, a small update on Bold. The project is no longer based on Brave. It now exists as an unmodified clone of Ungoogled Chromium, with a single issue. It has been in this state for a week now. I don't think it merits any mention on the page. Jonathansampson (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cointelegraph isn't the best source, but it appears to be the only one available one at the moment, and it does seem to be directly quoting participants in the Bolder project. (The RS board notes that the main issues with that source is that it's not good for establishing notability). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Braver" changed to "Bold"

Resolved

 – I removed the section —Dexxor (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The name "Braver" was apparently changed to "Bold". Perhaps reflect that in the article?

--Mortense (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any reason to keep references to Bold (formerly "Braver") on this page. The intention was announced well over a month ago, and today their repo has no commits or even custom branches; it's simply a fresh fork of the Ungoogled Chromium project. Further, their Discord shows no serious development effort underway. Forks aren't worth mentioning unless they make a notable community impact, IMHO. Brave Employee, Jonathansampson (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

One of Tom Scott's Tweets Cannot be Found (direct link and Google)

At the end of this paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Brave_browser_collecting_donations_on_behalf_of_content_creators, the tweet itself ("These are good changes...I had!") doesn't have a citation. I checked the citation closest to that (49), but that lead to a 404. Should I delete it, since it doesn't have a valid source? (a quick search using Google doesn't show me anything useful) ObjectOriented (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It does have a valid source: [8]. It can also be found in web archives: [9]. Some people just delete their old tweets. —Dexxor (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)