Newish Netflix Docu-Drama on Social Networks is Actually Very Good

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (13).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Why would I be getting money to discount one product, without ever promoting another? That seems odd.

My biggest gripe with Brave is they appear to be a grift. They're using fear as their tactic to get others to use their product--and they're not honest about the truly non-private nature of browsing the clearnet with javascript enabled.

Furthermore, they're not an "open-source" project. They're open source in name, but in practice, they don't espouse such beliefs (archive.vn)

The bottom line is, since the first time I heard of Brave (during their 4chan campaign) something about them has sketched me out. I've seen alot of projects, open-source, closed-source, privacy respecting and not, and I can tell you that something is off about Brave. It acts more like a Google "open-source" project than a community driven open-source privacy browser platform.

Daily Stormer is controlled opposition, imo. It exists to delegitimize the theories/beliefs that are espoused on the platform. It's called "Daily Stormer" for fucks sake -- the title of the website alone will discredit it's content to anyone who doesn't already believe it.

I take issue with anyone who tries to push something on me, telling me that I should use it and "here's why it's such a great thing".

Brave is the kind of thing that comes about when white male Christians are allowed to operate their own companies

Pander pander pander

and you should absolutely be using it if you’re not already.

O RLY? I should be using it, huh? Wonder why that is. I'll tell you, it's not because it's secure. If you delve into the world of true cyber/network security, you'll find out DAMN fast that if you even so much as enable javascript on your browser, you're done for. So don't pretend like Brave is anything more than the chromium source, forked to include an ad-blocker. And I LAUGHT AT YOU if you think that you can safely run Tor co-located with a clearnet browser. HA. HA. HAA! Only fools do this.

True privacy focused projects are not afraid to tell you that there really isn't a way to browse the clearnet safely, unless you're willing to sacrifice many of the conveniences (javascript, for one) that we are all used to.

Why would I be getting money to discount one product, without ever promoting another? That seems odd. My biggest gripe with Brave is they appear to be a grift. They're using fear as their tactic to get others to use their product--and they're not honest about the truly non-private nature of browsing the clearnet with javascript enabled. Furthermore, they're not an "open-source" project. They're open source in name, but in practice, [they don't espouse such beliefs](https://archive.vn/NuaeI) The bottom line is, since the first time I heard of Brave (during their 4chan campaign) something about them has sketched me out. I've seen alot of projects, open-source, closed-source, privacy respecting and not, and I can tell you that something is off about Brave. It acts more like a Google "open-source" project than a community driven open-source privacy browser platform. Daily Stormer is controlled opposition, imo. It exists to delegitimize the theories/beliefs that are espoused on the platform. It's called "Daily Stormer" for fucks sake -- the title of the website alone will discredit it's content to *anyone* who doesn't already believe it. I take issue with anyone who tries to push something on me, telling me that I *should* use it and "here's why it's such a great thing". > Brave is the kind of thing that comes about when white male Christians are allowed to operate their own companies *Pander pander pander* > and you should absolutely be using it if you’re not already. O RLY? I *should* be using it, huh? Wonder why that is. I'll tell you, it's not because it's secure. If you delve into the world of true cyber/network security, you'll find out DAMN fast that if you even so much as enable javascript on your browser, you're done for. So don't pretend like Brave is anything more than the chromium source, forked to include an ad-blocker. And I LAUGHT AT YOU if you think that you can safely run Tor co-located with a clearnet browser. HA. HA. HAA! Only fools do this. True privacy focused projects are not afraid to tell you that there really isn't a way to browse the clearnet safely, unless you're willing to sacrifice many of the conveniences (javascript, for one) that we are all used to.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

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?

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?

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

My point is that accusing someone of being on payroll on the basis they made a recommendation is stupid.

And my point is: that's your opinion. You're being rather reductive. I'm not saying anyone who recommends something is on payroll. I do think that DS is shilling for Brave though, and I find that sketchy. Again, it's an opinion--I am not trying to prove this to anyone, you can do as you please.

Even if nothing is gained, you are at least able to browse the web without supporting a Google product.

Consider this: Brave is based on chromium. It's popularity still supports Google. I'm not saying this is necessarily evil, as Google owns many open-source projects--but on't think you're not supporting Google by using Brave. Supporting less so than using Chrome? Absolutely--this comment is mostly an argument of semantics.

but for other applications such as viewing a (legal) site with no clearnet address (due to blackballing, for instance) it could be useful

Here's the problem: if you use tor alongside a clearnet browser (especially if it's the same browser), you're making it a relatively simple matter of relating your "anonymous" tor traffic to your actual IP/web-fingerprint. Since you're using TOR, the traffic being routed through the network is considered far more suspicious--so good work, you've just defeated the purpose of using TOR entirely. You might as well just use your public ip--at least it'd be obfuscated by all the other noise going through your IP.

The whole controlled op piece is just like my comment on DS shilling for Brave, it's my opinion and intuition. You can believe whatever you want.

And I use ungoogled-chromium as my main browser.