My point is that accusing someone of being on payroll on the basis they made a recommendation is stupid. Especially when it comes to alt-tech where these ventures are providing alternatives to what are more or less monopoly companies. People using these alternatives gives them a reason to survive, so it makes sense to promote them if you want alternatives to exist.

As someone who's launched their own project, I'm surprised you aren't more sympathetic to this. I have recommended pic8 to others, because it is a good service and because the mainstream ones suck. Obviously you know you didn't pay me to do this, so you should be able to admit there are other motivations for recommending a tech alternative.

Brave has the ability to disable JavaScript on sites you visit (as do similar browsers like Opera). If you don't use that option, you're not protected from JavaScript. Many people simply don't care.

With regards to privacy, security, etc, it is being pitched in relation to their competitors such as chrome, Firefox, edge. I'm not an expert on this, but I am fairly certain these are going to be shitty and that Brave will be an improvement by comparison. Even if nothing is gained, you are at least able to browse the web without supporting a Google product.

As for Tor on the client, sure you can say installing the actual Tor program is better and I'm sure that's the case. Many people are not going to go to the trouble. I think it may be a bad recommendation for people to torrent stuff on the co-located Tor, but for other applications such as viewing a (legal) site with no clearnet address (due to blackballing, for instance) it could be useful.

As for the controlled opposition thing: You say the site exists to delegitimize the views it expresses, but that only makes sense if the views are presented in a way that makes them not compelling. You obviously read at least some of these articles so I'm not going to accuse you of ignorance. But I will say that I think the articles are persuasive. The facts are presented well, so even if the style and humor is suited only to young men and no one else (which is most likely the readership), it allows the readers to digest and use this information. I don't see how that amounts to discrediting -- it is the opposite. As for the name? Meh, it's the original name for a site that's changed quite a lot in its scope. Generally it's not a good idea to abandon your brand if that brand has a following, so I wouldn't advocate for Anglin to change it. He should set up a mirror site on a more modest domain name, so that the articles can be shared. He has talked about doing that but so far it hasn't come to fruition.

In closing: recommending alt tech does not make you a shill, and even if it's not exactly to your liking you should at least be able to acknowledge when it's better than the most common alternative. We'll have to agree to disagree on the DS being controlled opposition that's meant to discredit good ideas, because obviously that depends on whether you think the writing is compelling, which apparently you don't.

Anyway, now I've got to know, what browser are you using and why?

You're on Firefox or some shit aren't you?