Ayaaa stylé, j'ai toujours utilisé le navigateur sans les récompenses mais je l'ai activé il y a pas longtemps
Actuellement j'ai 172 BAT, mais ça vaut plus rien, 24€ au total
Bah tiens :
> "Way back in 2016, Brave promised to remove banner ads from websites and replace them with their own, basically trying to extract money directly from websites without the consent of their owners"
Misleading characterization. Brave never aimed to extract money from websites. We explored solutions that protected user privacy while ensuring creators didn't lose revenue. The early model proposed replacing harmful ads with privacy-respecting alternatives that paid creators a larger percentage and shared revenue with users. As Brendan Eich stated: "Brave's model: block all, async-insert fewer/better ads, give users rev-share + user µpaywall to top sites ad-free" (
https://brave.com/brave-rewards/).
> "In the same year, CEO Brendan Eich unilaterally added a fringe, pay-to-win Wikipedia clone into the default search engine list."
Brendan opened an issue to add another search engine option at the request of a user, and the team implemented it. At that time, Brave was a lightweight shell on Electron without auto-detection of search engines (now supported via Open Search protocol). User requests for search engines were typically addressed through Issues/pull-requests.
> "In 2018, Tom Scott and other creators noticed Brave was soliciting donations in their names without their knowledge or consent."
This mischaracterizes what happened. In 2018, there was confusion about creator contributions. Our interface distinguished verified creators with checkmarks but didn't clearly mark unverified ones. Tips came from Brave's user-growth pool to encourage adoption.
Tom Scott provided valuable feedback, and we updated the design within 48 hours. Brave Rewards then clearly indicated which publishers hadn't joined and removed unverified creators' images ( https://brave.com/rewards-update/). Tom acknowledged our fixes: "A final update on the thread about Brave: they're now opt-in for creators! While it's still possible to tip folks who haven't opted in, the data is stored in-browser and the UI has been clarified. These are good changes, and they fix the complaints I had!" (
https://web.archive.org/w[...]tatus/1085238644926005248).
> "In 2020, Brave got caught injecting URLs with affiliate codes when users tried browsing to various websites."
An implementation error added affiliate codes—intended for a small set of keywords (e.g., "binance", "ledger")—to fully-qualified URLs ("binance.us", "binance.com", and "ledger.com") in the address bar. The intent was to offer affiliate options in the omnibox to support Brave's ongoing development. We promptly fixed this across all channels, and Binance confirmed no revenue was generated ( https://brave.com/blog/re[...]codes-in-suggested-sites/).
> "Also in 2020, they silently started injecting ads into their home page backgrounds, pocketing the revenue. There was a lot of pushback: 'the sponsored backgrounds give a bad first impression.'"
We announced Sponsored Images with a blog post (which you linked to). Brave is free, and finding privacy-respecting ways to support development is reasonable. Users can disable these images with two clicks or opt into Brave Rewards to earn BAT.
> "In 2021, Brave's TOR window was found leaking DNS queries, and a patch was only widely deployed after articles called them out."
There was indeed a DNS leak caused by the interaction of two privacy-enhancing features: Tor windows (added 2018) and CNAME-based ad blocking (added 2020). It's worth noting that these features aren't offered by other popular browsers, and their combination resulted in Brave functioning like the competition, and no worse. We promptly fixed this by disabling CNAME ad blocking in Tor contexts (
https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/7769/).
> "In 2022, Brave floated the idea of further discouraging users from disabling sponsored messages."
The proposal simply informed users that sponsored images support Brave's development and that opting into Rewards would mean no longer earning BAT for viewing them. What's objectionable about that? (Note: The GitHub issue should have been closed years ago, but had been forgotten. To avoid any further confusion, is it now closed.)
> "In 2023, Brave got caught installing a paid VPN service on users' computers without their consent."
The VPN service was installed for some Windows users but remained completely inactive until explicitly purchased and activated. We addressed this concern ( https://github.com/brave/[...]rave-browser/issues/33726) by ensuring the service would only be installed when users purchased it. Contrary to reports, this had no impact on user privacy/security.
> "Also in 2023, Brave got caught scraping and reselling people's data with their custom web crawler, which was designed specifically not to announce itself to website owners."
Our API service structures web content to benefit API consumers. There are limitations on API usage due to the resources invested, but the rights aren't on raw content. The crawler cloaks its user-agent string (like Brave itself) but respects googlebot crawler directives.
> "In 2024, Brave gave up on providing advanced fingerprint protection, citing flawed statistics (people who would enable the protection would likely disable Brave telemetry)."
We sunset the strict fingerprinting mode used by less than 0.5% of users to focus on enhancing our Standard protection, which is already the strongest among major browsers ( https://brave.com/privacy[...]rict-fingerprinting-mode/). This wasn't "giving up" but improving protection for all users while maintaining website compatibility. When a feature is used that infrequently, it becomes a means by which a user can more effectively be fingerprinted. Quite ironic in this case!
> "In 2025, Brave staff publish an article endorsing PrivacyTests and say they "work with legitimate testing sites" like them. This article fails to disclose PrivacyTests is run by a Brave Senior Architect."
The engineer behind PrivacyTests joined our team months after launching the platform. PrivacyTests is open-source and transparent—Brave doesn't always come out on top. There's been a disclaimer at
https://privacytests.org/about sharing the author's relationship with Brave for years.
> "They partnered with NewEgg to ship ads in boxes."
We're not allowed to advertise? 😀
> "Brave purchased and then, in 2017, terminated the alternative browser Link Bubble."
Link Bubble became "Brave for Android" and served as its foundation for some time. It's still available on GitHub: https://github.com/brave/link-bubble.
> "In 2019, Brave taunted Firefox users who visited their homepage."
That ad wasn't run by Brave or displayed on our homepage (did you read the page you linked?).
If you think the allegations in this list so far are concerning, check what other browsers have been doing:
https://www.scss.tcd.ie/D[...]/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
> "In 2025, Brave taunted people searching for Firefox on the Google Play Store. (The VP denied this occurred, but also demonstrated ignorance of multiple different screenshots.)"
I lack context here but suspect the screenshot is legitimate. It's a playful title—you wouldn't have survived the 90s browser wars (
https://www.sfgate.com/bu[...]s-browser-war-2803749.php). I just searched Bing for "brave browser" and got sponsored results for Duck Duck Go and Opera—ask me if I'm upset 😉
> "Way back in 2016, Brave promised to remove banner ads from websites and replace them with their own, basically trying to extract money directly from websites without the consent of their owners"
Misleading characterization. Brave never aimed to extract money from websites. We explored solutions that protected user privacy while ensuring creators didn't lose revenue. The early model proposed replacing harmful ads with privacy-respecting alternatives that paid creators a larger percentage and shared revenue with users. As Brendan Eich stated: "Brave's model: block all, async-insert fewer/better ads, give users rev-share + user µpaywall to top sites ad-free" (
https://x.com/BrendanEich/status/691336877111050241
). This model never launched; we developed Brave Rewards instead (> "In the same year, CEO Brendan Eich unilaterally added a fringe, pay-to-win Wikipedia clone into the default search engine list."
Brendan opened an issue to add another search engine option at the request of a user, and the team implemented it. At that time, Brave was a lightweight shell on Electron without auto-detection of search engines (now supported via Open Search protocol). User requests for search engines were typically addressed through Issues/pull-requests.
> "In 2018, Tom Scott and other creators noticed Brave was soliciting donations in their names without their knowledge or consent."
This mischaracterizes what happened. In 2018, there was confusion about creator contributions. Our interface distinguished verified creators with checkmarks but didn't clearly mark unverified ones. Tips came from Brave's user-growth pool to encourage adoption.
Tom Scott provided valuable feedback, and we updated the design within 48 hours. Brave Rewards then clearly indicated which publishers hadn't joined and removed unverified creators' images (
> "In 2020, Brave got caught injecting URLs with affiliate codes when users tried browsing to various websites."
An implementation error added affiliate codes—intended for a small set of keywords (e.g., "binance", "ledger")—to fully-qualified URLs ("binance.us", "binance.com", and "ledger.com") in the address bar. The intent was to offer affiliate options in the omnibox to support Brave's ongoing development. We promptly fixed this across all channels, and Binance confirmed no revenue was generated (
> "Also in 2020, they silently started injecting ads into their home page backgrounds, pocketing the revenue. There was a lot of pushback: 'the sponsored backgrounds give a bad first impression.'"
We announced Sponsored Images with a blog post (which you linked to). Brave is free, and finding privacy-respecting ways to support development is reasonable. Users can disable these images with two clicks or opt into Brave Rewards to earn BAT.
> "In 2021, Brave's TOR window was found leaking DNS queries, and a patch was only widely deployed after articles called them out."
There was indeed a DNS leak caused by the interaction of two privacy-enhancing features: Tor windows (added 2018) and CNAME-based ad blocking (added 2020). It's worth noting that these features aren't offered by other popular browsers, and their combination resulted in Brave functioning like the competition, and no worse. We promptly fixed this by disabling CNAME ad blocking in Tor contexts (
> "In 2022, Brave floated the idea of further discouraging users from disabling sponsored messages."
The proposal simply informed users that sponsored images support Brave's development and that opting into Rewards would mean no longer earning BAT for viewing them. What's objectionable about that? (Note: The GitHub issue should have been closed years ago, but had been forgotten. To avoid any further confusion, is it now closed.)
> "In 2023, Brave got caught installing a paid VPN service on users' computers without their consent."
The VPN service was installed for some Windows users but remained completely inactive until explicitly purchased and activated. We addressed this concern (
> "Also in 2023, Brave got caught scraping and reselling people's data with their custom web crawler, which was designed specifically not to announce itself to website owners."
Our API service structures web content to benefit API consumers. There are limitations on API usage due to the resources invested, but the rights aren't on raw content. The crawler cloaks its user-agent string (like Brave itself) but respects googlebot crawler directives.
> "In 2024, Brave gave up on providing advanced fingerprint protection, citing flawed statistics (people who would enable the protection would likely disable Brave telemetry)."
We sunset the strict fingerprinting mode used by less than 0.5% of users to focus on enhancing our Standard protection, which is already the strongest among major browsers (
> "In 2025, Brave staff publish an article endorsing PrivacyTests and say they "work with legitimate testing sites" like them. This article fails to disclose PrivacyTests is run by a Brave Senior Architect."
The engineer behind PrivacyTests joined our team months after launching the platform. PrivacyTests is open-source and transparent—Brave doesn't always come out on top. There's been a disclaimer at
> "They partnered with NewEgg to ship ads in boxes."
We're not allowed to advertise? 😀
> "Brave purchased and then, in 2017, terminated the alternative browser Link Bubble."
Link Bubble became "Brave for Android" and served as its foundation for some time. It's still available on GitHub:
> "In 2019, Brave taunted Firefox users who visited their homepage."
That ad wasn't run by Brave or displayed on our homepage (did you read the page you linked?).
If you think the allegations in this list so far are concerning, check what other browsers have been doing:
> "In 2025, Brave taunted people searching for Firefox on the Google Play Store. (The VP denied this occurred, but also demonstrated ignorance of multiple different screenshots.)"
I lack context here but suspect the screenshot is legitimate. It's a playful title—you wouldn't have survived the 90s browser wars (
copié collé hors sujet + ignore les user concerns sur les requètes qui encore a ce jour partent vers google
try again
try again
Khey INFJ sympa bien que taré, catho, anti NWO, l'hélite 100% ready. Frère de croisade de @Joshua_38
copié collé hors sujet + ignore les user concerns sur les requètes qui encore a ce jour partent vers google
try again
try again
Ça répond a beaucoup de ton post (comme les liens affilié ou le leak tor)
Google Safebrowsing aucune raison d'etre contre
https://support.brave.app[...]29-Safe-Browsing-in-Brave
Concernant les connexions a gstatic/google.com : C'est rien https://github.com/brave/[...]rave-browser/issues/38058
Google Safebrowsing aucune raison d'etre contre
Concernant les connexions a gstatic/google.com : C'est rien
Oui Librewolf est un spyware et il faut un sacré problème mental pour sérieusement penser que c'est un bon navigateur
D'accord Jean Complotiste :oepelo:
Ça répond a beaucoup de ton post (comme les liens affilié ou le leak tor)
Google Safebrowsing aucune raison d'etre contre
https://support.brave.app[...]29-Safe-Browsing-in-Brave
Concernant les connexions a gstatic/google.com : C'est rien https://github.com/brave/[...]rave-browser/issues/38058
Google Safebrowsing aucune raison d'etre contre
Concernant les connexions a gstatic/google.com : C'est rien
"c'est rien" c'est pas rien si elles sont la, sachant que ça peut être complètement retiré si on le souhaite
toujours zéro arguments les shills de (((brave)))
toujours zéro arguments les shills de (((brave)))
Khey INFJ sympa bien que taré, catho, anti NWO, l'hélite 100% ready. Frère de croisade de @Joshua_38
"c'est rien" c'est pas rien si elles sont la, sachant que ça peut être complètement retiré si on le souhaite
toujours zéro arguments les shills de (((brave)))
toujours zéro arguments les shills de (((brave)))
Tu n'ouvres aucun lien en fait
Ah et en fait, Brave n'utilise pas Google en moteur de recherche par défaut, tu mens délibérément dans ton pavé, ça fait 5 ans que c'est Brave Search
Ah et en fait, Brave n'utilise pas Google en moteur de recherche par défaut, tu mens délibérément dans ton pavé, ça fait 5 ans que c'est Brave Search
Ouais, j'comprends pô ça déf de spyware...
Et FF envoies des metrics anonyme, donc paye ton "spyware"
Et FF envoies des metrics anonyme, donc paye ton "spyware"
Tu devrais réessayer Brave, 0 site qui casse etc aujourd'hui
Evidemment Brave
Mettre Firefox et opera au même niveau tu mérites le goulag
Opera + UBlock origin
Perso rien à cirer
Sauf que les firefox based sont un gouffre pour la RAM
Sauf que les firefox based sont un gouffre pour la RAM
Ouais mais la contrepartie c'est que l'interface de YouTube ressemble aux années 2000 donc bof en vrai
Mettre Firefox et opera au même niveau tu mérites le goulag
Ils sont clairement au meme niveau
Ouais mais la contrepartie c'est que l'interface de YouTube ressemble aux années 2000 donc bof en vrai
C'est la meme interface partout de quoi tu parles