Even before this I was suspicious about Mozilla and their google

Brave.

Ungoogled-Chromium
IRIDIUM CAN'T BE TRUSTED

>>61875468
>browser made by an ad company, just a different ad company than usual

>>61876891
does it have an auto-updater?

>>61876971
unfortunately Bravewill be the only mainstream option to Chrome in very near future
That's the sad truth. Unless someone start to make Ungoogled-Chromium binaries and release them like woolys chromium

>>61877050
Pale Moon > Chromium > Brave

>>61876891
placebo

>>61877042
The state of Windows

>>61877264
>Remove ping, tracking,etc
>placebo

inox

>>61877267
no im not going to sudo dist-upgrade every fucking day you sperg

>>61877330
yeah it's too much work
Little poor you can't afford to lift your fingers to type "sudo dist-upgrade"

>>61877363
>he breaks the system everytime to install a new package

How do you know someone is a linuxsperg on /g/? Don't worry they'll barge in the thread and force their viewpoints down your throat.

>>61875431
Any and all telemetry data is accessible by you. Mozilla is pretty transparent about it

about:telemetry

will show you everything you wanna know. The extended telemetry "pings" can be disabled by changing 1, I repeat 1, setting in about:config

toolkit.telemetry.server

Just blank it out. This shit ain't hard guys.

File: dooble.png (21KB, 145x145px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 145x145px

how about dooble?

File: IceCat.png (52KB, 1579x1377px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1579x1377px

BASED ICECAT

>>61875468
Brave is not viable at the present, at least not on the desktop. It has potential, but it's a long way off from realizing it.

>>61877456
Isn't this a trust issue? How do you know mozilla is being transparent, have you gone through the code to confirm they aren't doing something secretly? That's the problem.

>>61877456
>The extended telemetry "pings" can be disabled by changing 1, I repeat 1
There are bugs you have to disable these:

datareporting.healthreport.service.enabled set to false
datareporting.healthreport.uploadEnabled set to false
toolkit.telemetry.archive.enabled set to false
toolkit.telemetry.enabled set to false
toolkit.telemetry.unified set to false

File: IMG_2591.png (173KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1920x1080px

>>61876971
You have no idea what you're talking about. You can completely disable ads if you want.

>>61877575
Too bad the Adblocker is shit, script control is all-or-nothing, and you can't add extensions from the Chrome store to make it worth a shit.

>>61877565
literally monitor your network!
Chromium phones home to google IPs even if you disable everything possible (not counting ungoogled chromium)
Firefox does not connect to any IP you dont want with proper configuration

>>61877565
Don't reply to mozilla pajeets
Mozilla collects data and enables google garbage by default
They are the other side of the same google coin

>>61877569
>datareporting.healthreport.service.enabled set to false

Weird, I don't have this config entry.

>>61877569
>telemetry reports are still successfully sent even though the destination server is no longer in the configuration

I find this hard to believe. Can you provide proof?

>>61877625
maybe you are using waterfox, icecat or palemoon?

>>61877608
>monitor your network
That'd be great if everything wasn't TLS. Kinda hard to see what's happening.

>>61877626
die pajeet scum

File: Screenshot from 2017-08-12 23-50-20.png (136KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1366x768px

>>61877633
Not who you were responding to, but I'm using FF, and don't have it.

>>61877624
I don't agree with that stuff being enabled by default, but this is /g/ and we all know every setting can be disabled easily. Also dude...we get it. You're a contrarian software hipster who only uses obscure browsers, and you're cool. We get it.

File: fuck.jpg (293KB, 1577x1320px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1577x1320px

Mozilla = Botnet

File: Untitled1.png (72KB, 1053x621px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1053x621px

>>61877633
no

>>61877648
>ask for proof
>told to die

Anndddd I win this little exchange. Take this L and go home kid, unless you can provide evidence like I asked.

>>61877657
they removed then. Weird they keep adding those obscure telemetry options and then remove later on.
Healthreport was on my firefox 53/54 I had to disable it by hand.

>>61877679
sometimes they are hidden. you can create new ones just to be safe.

>>61877679
Obviously not FF54, looking at >>61877670

I'm not trying to cause waves or anything, just wanted to keep you current on what's going on. FF can't stop tinkering with their about:config.

Anyways, thanks for the tips, I didn't have one of those settings changed, despite doing some research into privacy via about:config myself.

File: BraveUser.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

>>61875468

Pretty much this.

File: 1502551465635.png (1MB, 1028x1066px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1028x1066px

>>61877672
>Anndddd I win this little exchange
hi rebbit
bye rebbit

>>61877715
NO EXTENSIONS

>>61877718
>posting pedophile images
Just... why? The fuck is wrong with you

>>61877541
this desu

>>61877718
You're only helping the other anon. Learn about the subject before trying to argue.

>>61877730

I'm not even using Brave right now. It's very early in development.

But my extensions are just uBlock + https everywhere + violent monkey + mouse gestures. What minimum functionality of extensions do you even need?

>>61877715
I remember checking out that chick. She's weird, and pretty obviously a leftist, looking at her twitter.

Also, Brave's adblock is shit, there's no fine-tuned script controls, and you can't add extensions like decentraleyes to the browser. Brave is a fine mobile browser (and my main mobile browser), but it's is a shit-tier desktop browser at the moment, and will be until they start bringing real extensions to the platform, rather than password managers that nobody in their right mind should use.

>>61877575
I'd have no objection if they made a browser with integrated ad blocking that blocked all ads for all users all the time. But the very presence of Brave's own advertising and revenue-sharing model gives them a direct incentive to go back on all their stated commitments to privacy and the like. That's the model a lot of surveillance outfits have followed - start with strong or at least decent privacy protections, and then, once you have a user base, start walking them back, knowing that most users will at most make a brief fuss but not leave. You share/sell more data, run more ads, and bam, you're the next Facebook.

Also lets be explicit here, there's no such thing as "acceptable advertising". The goal here is to make advertising a nonviable business model on the web. We want the sites that are there to give people information to stick around (and conveniently dumping all the JS and ads and tracking garbage in the bin will keep their hosting costs to the level that an individual or small organization can afford) On the other hand sites that only have """content""" at all because you need a lure to get some goyim's eyeballs in front of ads for the advertisers to pay you, we want to ensure that those sites are money-losers, by making advertisers unwilling to pay sites to run ads, since so few of them will ever be seen or lead to sales.

>>61877715
>asian qt
>EFF fellow
>codes for based Brendan Eich

wouldmarry.jpg

>>61877751
>he wants me to find on google about the bugs and data collecting that firefox sends even with telemetry disabled
LAZY BASTARD
One small example: https://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/09/how-to-disable-the-firefox-saved-telemetry-pings-and-archive-folder/

>>61877786
Her twitter is a mix of autism regarding bunnies and anti-Trump rhetoric on par with antifa.

I don't really have an issue with people's politics, but when they sperg that hard, it's a pretty big turn-off.

>>61877799
>and anti-Trump rhetoric on par with antifa.
Giving internet to the masses was a mistake.
Women specially can't be allowed to access internet because jews can manipulate them very easily

>>61875431
OSX and Safari....

>>61877776
>>61877786
I don't know anything about her past the photo on https://brave.com/about/

>>61877776
I don't disagree with you that the desktop version isn't ready. Basically most of /g/ just wish they had a privacy fork of chrome with an actual development team behind it, which is what Brave looks to be. It still has to work on catching up.

>>61877780
>The goal here is to make advertising a nonviable business model on the web.

You can't stop the marketing floodgates. Do you know who you're dealing with? Profit-seeking entities. If they can't explicitly advertise, they will infiltrate news publications and shill on a level never before seen.

>>61877787
Wrong. You are very confused. So confused that I hesitate to even keep talking to you.

re-read this post >>61877626

Blanking out the about:config setting

toolkit.telemetry.server

will remove the remote server from the config. Another anon (you?) said the telemetry pings are still successfully sent even with the remote server's address removed from hhe config. I asked for proof of this, and you told me to die.

As this anon said >>61877751 lurk moar and learn because you're making yourself look stupid.

>>61877787
this tells you how to disable it...

>>61877837
the site is showing that ping telemetry was collected even with that shit disabled
Stop lying you pajeet
Mozilla shills are literally the marxists of technology

>>61877824
>I don't disagree with you that the desktop version isn't ready. Basically most of /g/ just wish they had a privacy fork of chrome with an actual development team behind it, which is what Brave looks to be. It still has to work on catching up.

Agreed. I DO have Brave installed, and use it whenever my autistic FF settings are tripping up a webpage that I have to use (like a job application site), and I see it's potential. Truth be told, if they replaced their Adblock with Ublock Origin, made the Script control on par with NoScript (which is still less than ideal in comparison to Umatrix), and made Disconnect and Decentraleyes an option, I would use it over FF, even though it would still be missing things I want (like an Agent Spoofer, flash/HTML5 control, DNSSEC/TLSA Validator, and the like).

>>61877776
>>61877799
So I visited her twitter.

>actually funny tech jokes
>pictures of her cute bunny
>closest thing to antifa posts was a video of Trump saying billions a lot

I think I'm in love.

>>61877634
Even if the content is encrypted, you still know the IP its communicating with. You may not even have to reverse-DNS it if there's a server-name indication.

>>61877830
>Do you know who you're dealing with? Profit-seeking entities. If they can't explicitly advertise, they will infiltrate news publications and shill on a level never before seen.
Like they have already, driving trust in media to all-time lows? Fine, let them make the vast wasteland of television that much more of a dump, booting them off the internet would still be big progress. Besides, you already identified their weakness: they're profit-seeking. All you have to do to beat them is to make their business unprofitable.

>>61875431
Alt-right in my /g/. Troll harder faggot.

>>61877937
She must have toned down her rhetoric. I only checked the once, and it was at the beginning of the year, before Trump took office.

File: 1501708696822.jpg (152KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 500x700px

>>61875431
I've used qutebrowser and really like it but can't into vim sorcery atm, been using palememe almost for two years and is the less shitty I know desu senpai

also someone with reviews for surf from suckless?

File: Screenshot_2017-08-13-00-16-06-1.png (144KB, 1920x993px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1920x993px

>>61877850
keep reading

>>61877715
legendary queen

File: 1381579125993.jpg (448KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 3840x2160px

>>61875431
>wahh wahh someone's finally doing something against the far right propaganda spam

/pol/ BTFO

>>61877949
>All you have to do to beat them is to make their business unprofitable.

How in the hell do you propose that? Brave literally subverts advertising by allowing users to give money directly to publishers that they care about. You could give all the money is made off you to Stallman if you wanted.

>>61876891
The only reason you would say this is probably some stupid political reason of your bullshit ideology. Iridium manually approves chromium patches. Ungoogled-chromium can't be trusted.

>>61877970
>>61878008
(You)
tell that to yourselves

File: palemeh.png (103KB, 1280x781px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1280x781px

>>61877456

>>61878040
/g/ (including me) is leftist/communist as fuck.

>>61878008
I'm not political, but let's be real here, both sides are pushing a shit ton of propaganda. I still have yet to see any real proof of Russia tampering with the voting machines, but a huge chunk of the population believes it actually happened.

And I get the vibe that targeting "fake news" will be selective targeting. CNN won't get called out for constantly focusing on Trump and Russia, despite the link being pretty tenuous at best (from what I can tell - again, not overly political), but Brietbart will likely get should down for mistranslating a German "could," into "should."

>>61878070
In your dreams faggot, now stop derailing

>>61878040
Good point. There is only one person that disagrees with the alt right. You caught me.

>>61878014
And where does that money come from, if it's not coming straight from the users pocket? Advertisers. People who are paying money to someone to try and distract me, place my eyeballs on some lies, and con me into buying something I otherwise wouldn't have. (of course, if the money is coming from the users pocket, there's no need for Brave or for the advertisers, they can just give the site money)

So no, Brave is perpetuating the ad business, with is associated problems, like clickbait and content mills. The world I'd like to see is one where the vast majority of advertising is blocked, and the vast majority of the small sliver that isn't is just fraudulent clicks. The goal of this being to persuade companies that at present spend a lot of money on ad campaigns to say "You know, this is just pissing money straight down the toilet", and having the ad market dry up, and companies (including but not limited to Brave) founded on taking a cut of that spending going out of business.

I'm sure a scummy underbelly of spam and ad fraud and the like will remain. Which is okay, if all the advertising people see online is obviously disreputable, that'll help cement in their minds something they should know intuitively but that many presently don't seem to: that advertising in general is disreputable.

>>61878070
kek. no wonder you hate /our browser/ so much.

>>61878099
>>61878128
Sorry you're a piece of shit.

File: 1497303108475.jpg (26KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 613x533px

>>61878070
Um... no, sweetie. This is a fascist board. But nice try hunnie.

>>61878128
I don't like Brave on the desktop, but the dude you're responding to doesn't represent me. I'm one of the most capitalistic people you'll ever meet. Just because I prefer Linux to Windows doesn't mean that I'm communist.

>>61878148
What country that calls themselves communist hasn't gone fascist at some point?

>>61878148
pooh in loo

>>61878148
>>61878149
Die Nazi

>>61878127
>(of course, if the money is coming from the users pocket, there's no need for Brave or for the advertisers, they can just give the site money)

Case in point. Brave seeks to completely wipe out advertising. You can disable ads and will be able to fund projects directly when Mercury comes out.

The money has to come from somewhere. Very few entities can exist with zero source of funding. And if you think they're doing things for free, you're an idiot. Nothing is free.

File: youu.png (96KB, 512x539px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 512x539px

>>61878137
>>61878180

>>61878212
I'm actually Christian. Blond hair, blue eyes. Hitler would have loved me. But nice try.

>>61878204
>block all ads, wipe out the advertisers
then there's no reason for Brave's ad-replacement crap.
>pay money to sites
There's also no reason for a browser to be doing this, given that people have been putting PayPal donate links on their sites for a long time, and if you want to do it with cryptocurrency like Brave does then instead of building a whole browser infrastructure for paying sites, the sites could just post a [Bit,Lite,Doge,Whatever]coin address on their site that people could, if they choose, send coins to.

If Mozilla introduced browser infrastructure for payments you'd be screaming about how awful it was, like the ruckus over Pocket.

>The money has to come from somewhere. Very few entities can exist with zero source of funding. And if you think they're doing things for free, you're an idiot. Nothing is free.
The sites that are worth having are. I have no objection if you're an online storefront that's actually selling products and making money that way. And the informative websites are text, and cheap to host. Renting a VPS and putting up a blog is something you can do for trivial entertainment money.

The sites that are in trouble are the ones that don't care about saying something or about providing an actual product, they just care about whatever will get eyeballs in front of a page, what it is is irrelevant. The Buzzfeeds and Gawkers of the world. Those sites are the vast majority of the internet these days and you bet your ass it'd be a good thing if they had zero source of funding.

>>61878285
>bronies are better than SJWs

File: smh tbh fam.jpg (144KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1280x720px

>>61878304
>getting triggered by a random picture on the internet

File: 1502603021514.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>61878285
Neck yourself ponyfag

/g/ is right wing and our browser of choice is Brave. Deal with it.

>>61878293
>PayPal donations
Ask the millions of scrubs who already do that how much they make from that.
>the sites could just post a [Bit,Lite,Doge,Whatever]coin address on their site that people could, if they choose, send coins to.
You think a normalfag knows how to do that?

>Renting a VPS and putting up a blog is something you can do for trivial entertainment money.
Who wants to read a blog with no funding? It's basically just opinion pieces at that point. I want objective news, and that requires more resources than some random tech blogger can afford to spend with "entertainment money."

Brave seeks to eliminate click baiting ads that consumers don't consent to viewing in the first place. If you can give me an alternative besides PayPal donations, I'd love to hear it.

If PayPal donations truly worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. The current system is broken and needs radical changes.

File: 1496567432750.jpg (75KB, 640x687px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x687px

>>61878359
Fuck off /pol/. Nobody likes you.

>>61877937
I believe she's either married or engaged to a very far-left bloke.

>>61878384
>>>/reddit/

>>61878399
I take back what I said earlier.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bcrypt/status/896608827037974528

>>61875431
GNU IceCat, cunt.

>>61878378
>>Ask the millions of scrubs who already do that how much they make from that.
So your objection is that sites aren't making enough money? Why is their business model our problem? For that matter, who says you have a right to a certain amount of income from the kind of stuff you want to put on the web? (witness the squealing of youtubers who want five figures to umm and ahh into a webcam)

>You think a normalfag knows how to do that?
"send a token to this address" isn't a hard concept to grasp. Normalfags can copy-paste address strings. If you want to design a normie-friendly crypto wallet, well and good, a lot of other people have had ideas like that too. No real reason to put it in a Chrome-knockoff web browser though.

>Who wants to read a blog with no funding?
I do. The people that are interesting to read are the people who write about shit because they think its interesting, as opposed to because someone's paying them to write it. A blog by some sysadmin somewhere is always going to be more interesting and educational than some consumerist drivel on Wired.

>I want objective news, and that requires more resources
And there will continue to be news outlets for you. Government-sponsored outfits like the BBC aren't going away, and news-that-you-pay-for isn't either, it just has a much higher bar now. Forbes and the Wall Street Journal do pretty well with paywalled news. The news organizations that are dying are the lowest-common-denominator ones, and the local podunk papers that are just a few pages about what the local high school did and a few obituaries.

>Brave seeks to eliminate click baiting ads that consumers don't consent to viewing in the first place. If you can give me an alternative besides PayPal donations, I'd love to hear it.
I gave it to you already: the alternative is "the site running the clickbait goes out of business and dies". Good riddance to bad rubbish. We don't need quantity of content, we need quality of content.

>>61878401
>>>/pol/

>>61878513
Yes, that's our sister board. Your point?

>>61878378
>Ask the millions of scrubs who already do that how much they make from that.
I'm not sure how this is a valid point. I pay for what I use, and I pay what I deem is a fair one-time price. The dude that does NoScript, for example, got 50 dollars from me, as that's what I valued the add-on at. I also pay for shit like my email, even though there is a free option, both because I appreciate the product and because I want the additional features that are locked behind a paywall. Hell, I even buy a 4chan Pass during Black Friday, when they have their sale.

I don't mind funding the shit that I use. The fact that other people don't isn't really my problem.

File: 1499336062311.jpg (191KB, 695x715px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 695x715px

>>61878524
>/pol/tards are this delusional

>>61878493
>So your objection is that sites aren't making enough money? Why is their business model our problem?

My objection is that the traditional donation model does not work. If the business model isn't our problem right now, they'll make it our problem. Ad-blockers simply buy time until they find out how to advertise through other means.

>people write things for free
This is a myth. No one writes anything if they don't have something to gain. It may just be intellectual stimulation from others, but the large majority of people do not want that.

>implying I want to watch government propaganda
You're obviously a britbong with zero awareness of media manipulation on the part of governments.

>the news organizations that are dying are the lowest-common-denominator ones
No, the ones that are dying are ones that don't know how to fuck you in the ass. There's a difference. Also what's wrong with local papers? I'm sorry that some people want to read about relevant events in their lives rather than the stock market or the Kardashians.

>we don't want quantity of content
I certainly do. I don't want to be fed all of my news by the BBC and the shitty megacorporations that can survive regardless of the quality of their reporting.

Give me solutions rather than identifying the problems.

>>61878548
troll harder

>>61878658
Harder than you? Not possible.

>>61878637
>My objection is that the traditional donation model does not work. If the business model isn't our problem right now, they'll make it our problem. Ad-blockers simply buy time until they find out how to advertise through other means.
At which point, the people who were unwilling to fund alternatives will likely wind up dealing with the ads. Meanwhile, people who fund things will either not have to deal with ads (if they fund the site directly), or will be able to use archive sites to strip the ads. The number of people who are both tech literate and unwilling to give in exchange for something is actually pretty low in comparison to the number of people who just try to take, but buckle under the first difficulty they encounter.

>>61878674
t. buttmad

>>61878704
See, how can we compete with this level of trolling?

>>61878729

i don't know man

>>61878180
>>61878137
>>61878008
>>61878384
>>61878513

>>61877591
Script blocking is the saddest part of Brave.
You have to choose between not even allowing 1st-party, which breaks most sites, or allow everything, including ads and tracking.

>>61878753
Agreed. I can forgive a lot of Brave's flaws, but the browser is unusable until this is fixed.

>>61878743
me neither

>>61878681
Brave presents a simple solution for normies to block ads with little effort and fund the websites they enjoy. I think focusing only on the technologically literate is viable in the short term but harmful in the long run. The net gain in people's sovereignty over where their money goes will greatly benefit people on all sides (and both the technologically literate and illiterate alike) regardless of political affiliation. In fact, people will be able to fund only political causes or news sources that support their ways of life rather than giving value (through ads) to corporations and advertisers that don't give a shit about them at all.

Donations will never be a viable business model. The model actually harms wealth equality because it allows only people with dispensable income to influence projects they like. I want a more equitable system that is self-sustaining and provides the largest benefit for all consumers. Just because you can properly configure your browser through autistic wizardry doesn't mean you're helping anyone but yourself.

>>61878774
I had no idea we were talking about Brave (I jumped into the middle of the conversation). I actually see a lot of potential in the browser itself, but the desktop version is worthless to me at the moment. If they would bring in a small handful of extensions, that would radically change, but they keep focusing on password managers for some reason.

>>61878803
I don't give a fuck about password managers either. I agree that it needs further development on a lot of fronts.

It just pains me to see people supporting companies like Google (and now Mozilla with their fake news censorship crap) who will shaft them without solving the issues that inherently put consumers at a disadvantage.

>>61878637
>If the business model isn't our problem right now, they'll make it our problem.
So we have to accept being exploited because if we don't they'll exploit us some other way? How subservient.

>This is a myth. No one writes anything if they don't have something to gain.
Talking about stuff you do and find interesting is a pretty innate human drive. Shit, what are you getting from this conversation, other than talking to someone about something?

>You're obviously a britbong with zero awareness of media manipulation on the part of governments.
If you're so distrustful of governments why are you so eager to trust commercial operations that, by your own admission, are "out to fuck you in the ass" and who will "make it our problem"? Because remember, someone being paid to write content doesn't have an incentive to tell you the truth, he has an incentive to say what will make him more money.

>>61878774
It's like politics, the gain would come from draining the money out of the system altogether, not just from a slightly tweaked method of spreading it around with a different middleman (Brave) taking a cut.

File: Screenshot from 2017-08-13 01-51-34.png (175KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1366x768px

>>61878851
I'd start using them today, and uninstall FF if their adblocker was powered by Ublock Origin, and they had the extensions in pic related available for use.

This is all they need, and I'm sure it will happen in time, but it sure as shit isn't ready to meet my needs at the moment. Doesn't stop me from keeping an eye on them, and using them as a "vanilla" browser on the rare occasion that I need one.

>>61878889
Are you a Mozilla employee?

>>61878955
No. Are you a Brave employee?

>>61878927

Most of your addons can be replaced with uMatrix, just sayin

>>61879049
Neat. If they offered Umatrix, that would be a viable argument.

>>61878774
I may be way out of my league for tech stuff in this thread ( I barely understand what telemetry is), but you have the most distorted view of economics I have ever seen.

>I think focusing only on the technologically literate is viable in the short term but harmful in the long run.
Google : early adoption curve/diffusion of innovation/network externalities

>The net gain in people's sovereignty over where their money goes will greatly benefit people on all sides

This differs from donation how? All you have done is added a middle man who for a optional(read: default on + 90% of users wont change) fee will make it more "convenient".

Ok, but how does brave know who to give my money to or what my settings even are? How do i verify that brave is sending MY money where it says?
How do I as a site owner know what settings my visitors are using in order to make sure brave is giving me my cut? How can brave be pro freedom and pro privacy if it literally requires tracking in its business model?

On brave:
>In fact, people will be able to fund only political causes or news sources that support their ways of life
On donations:
>The model actually harms wealth equality because it allows only people with dispensable income to influence projects they like.
You do know how adds work right? Purchase>click through>impression.

Advertisers dont care about how many fucking poor slobs click their adds. They want you to buy something. Only sites that can attract paying customers make money. So content is always aimed towards wealthier people.

Example: how many $500+ phone reviews/unboxings/sponsored content do you think were produced in the last month?

How many for shitty flip phones? guess which has bigger market share world wide.


I really hope that you learn from this. Shilling for things based on political feels alone is usually a good way too look foolish.

>>61875431
Try Palemoon and check their about config ("http" or safebrowsing shit). No botnet.

GNU is slowly getting overtaken by faggots.

>>61878927
>using that much addon
you firefox cucks are the worst

>>>/pol/

ITT: mozilla pajeets spreading disinformation
daily reminder that most of mozilla resources are spent in India

>>61875468
>B-B-But it is from an ad company
Um, Sweetie, actually the founder of Brave is the inventor of Java Script and co-founder of Mozilla and Firefox. He got the pink slip after some SJW cringe of Firecucks
>Y-Y-Yeah okay. B-B-But you know, they display ads to you as well ;_;
Um no? You can disable them fully. If you chose not to, you get paid. You even can disable all ads and chose to make micropayments to sites you like but dont want to see their ads.
>Oh, but yeah. The adblocker they use is shit nevertheless
Um, no? And even if so, it will just take a few weeks to get more extensions which will allow to activate an other adblocker.
>B-B-But *autistic screeching*

Thats what we go through every damn thread.
Brave is superior and in some cases it will just take a little time until it is for some fancy personal prefferences.

BE BRAVE /g/.

De-Google yourself today.
Step in for freedom of speech.
Step in for a free internert. Rise against mass surveillance.

BRAVE+VPN+PROTONMAIL+STARTPAGE

>>61881683
this

File: 1343228201772.jpg (35KB, 478x343px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 478x343px

>>61878070
>is leftist/communist as fuck.
Nah, there's plenty of Slavs in here who take a shit on the failed and destructiv4e experiment called Communism, plenty enough to sway the percentage from your delusions.

Oh, and by the way, China isn't Communist;
it conjoins ethnic homogeneity (98% Han) with
conservative nationalist values on the social aspect, uses hybrid Capitalism for economic and industrial purposes, and only uses some governing aspects of Communism to hold control over balancing the countryside population and cityside populations from mixing too much where Communism is merely a symbolic smokescreen.

It's a nation which uses systems as tools rather than religious substitutes to blindly believe in like you do.

Seems like /g/ has nothing to say if shitposting gets shut down immediately.

over/under on google crashing self-driving vehicles into telephone poles for crimethink

>>61875431
KHTML, a.k.a., Konqueror

>>61885229
Konqueror is dead: https://community.kde.org/Incubator/Projects/QupZilla

>>61885335
>QupZilla
sad.
anyway, there you go, we have this.