Skip Navigation

What Manifest V3 means for Brave Shields and the use of extensions in the Brave browser

brave.com What Manifest V3 means for Brave Shields and the use of extensions in the Brave browser | Brave

Brave is committed to maintaining Manifest V2 support, allowing users to keep their favorite extensions functioning beyond the industry-wide deprecation.

What Manifest V3 means for Brave Shields and the use of extensions in the Brave browser | Brave
22

You're viewing a single thread.

22 comments
  • Fuck brave, built on chromium

    • CEO is a homophobic shithead. Even if "politics" have nothing to do with the quality of software (I dont think donating to legislatures to block gay marriage is a case of "having a different political opinion"), people who care that much about how other people live their lives should NOT be trusted for a privacy respecting browser. The browser is decent, but it is stained by his presense, contributes to the chromium monoculture, and is filled with crypto bullshit.

      • The first point makes no sense and that's why privacy is so important - not to lose trust in this stupid and toxic society because of different opinions.

        • I find it rather repulsive, that people would label “being against gay marriage” as “only holding an opinion”. It makes it seem so harmless. It is depriving people of the same rights that heterosexuals have. And that is why it might matter to people. It’s not just “any” opinion, like a view on how the economy should be regulated, where one could definitely argue about. But a view, which would deprive people of the same rights that others have, is not a valid opinion to have. There is no way that it can be respected. It’s the paradox of tolerance

          In a comment further down you write the following: (Edit: the comment has since been removed by a mod)

          You have the right to have a liberal opinion so why not let people have their own? It's like discrimination of black people at this point.

          Which is quite ironic. You try to defend holding an opinion, which would discriminate against a certain group by not giving them the same rights. You argue that it’s discrimination to not respect their discrimination. In essence you ask the tolerant to respect the views of intolerant.

        • I don't really understand what you mean, and I am sorry if I misunderstand you.

          Privacy is important because we have a right to not have everything broadcast, tracked, and sold. Privacy is both good for our personal health and safety, especially because of how useful collected info is for even amateur threat actors. Society is toxic, but calling out people who specifically want to legally control how others (harmlessly) live their lives is not itself toxic.

          His opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I think this is rather invasive. My point is that someone who is willing to donate thousands to homophobic lobbyists doesn't seem to care about gay people's rights to Privacy or freedom, and therefore I wouldn't want to use a browser that he leads. It takes a real POS to spend money towards homophobic legislation.

          Regardless of that though, Brave is still worse at protecting fingerprintable metrics than hardened Firefox. Brave browser is decent, maybe the best chromium based privacy browser, but not close to Firefox. There really isn't such things as blending in with a crowd of other Brave users, like what is possible with Tor and Mullvad browsers.

      • Fuck all CEOs. Stop giving them platforms & celebrity where they get to be the symbol of products/services—which discounts all the labor done into something by the real folks building & making decisions.

        • I do agree with this. I dont want to discount Brave (just) because of their CEO. Fuck CEOs. Brave has done some iffy things in the past, but their Chromium patches are general decent for privacy.

          Ramblings about Firefox

          Firefox resistFingerprinting does more to preserve user privacy (through normalizing of many metrics) and allow for the possibility of a crowd of fingerprint-identical users, the only legitimate way to protect against advanced deanonimizing scripts. Maybe if Mozilla enshittification of Firefox makes a worse, unfixable, and inferior product to Chromium, these patches could lay groundwork for more thorough protections. The reason we have strong protections in Firefox is because of upstreamed code from the Tor Uplift Project, with their code designed for a stricter threat model (in my opinion) than what Brave intends (aka out of scope).

22 comments