[mattlondon]

+1

On android it is essentially identical to Chrome in every way apart from the Brave icon next to the address bar that controls the blocking.

I really like it.

I tried the desktop version though and did not like the look and feel of the UI - tabs under the address bar etc. Felt like it was a slavish copy of Safari and I did not like it. Much prefer Firefox on desktop.

I have also learnt of Brave's plans to replace a sites ads with its own ads which I do not like. Will move off of Brave on mobile when Firefox is workable on android (last time I tried it was awful, clunky and slow on android).

[BrendanEich]

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18155960. No ads via Brave unless you opt in. Consent required by all parties involved in any of the optional token economics.

Try https://brave.com/download-dev for better desktop browser that is coming to stable very soon. Almost all chromium extensions work - any using Google accounts/sync do not.

[HBlix]

Opting-in by default is refreshing to see, and offering to share some portion of the spoils more equitably is too. Still, I fundamentally dislike advertising and find that content supported by it is often grossly inferior to other content. I’m not convinced that the middle path here is the right one, rather than evangelizing ad-blocking and forcing the internet to adopt alternative revenue streams. Slapping an ICO on the problem is certainly a good way to get people invested in defending Brave, but I’m not convinced that it has any lasting value.

Cutting advertisers off at the knees does, and as a stance it isn’t subject to being degraded through its relationship to advertisers and their money.

[BrendanEich]

If you dislike ads, then don't opt in. You are welcome to use baseline Brave and just block. But why comment as if you mean to tell others what to do?

If you think the web can do without $100B in US on digital this year, ~$250B globally that goes through ads, then please demonstrate replacement funding models, or just show some evidence of any that could scale that big.

We can't count ads out, but by lifting 3rd party to 1st ad context (avoids brand safety and reverse: bad ads on good content), aligning interests, and cutting out all the trackers and other intermediaries that evolved because browsers were passive slaves to the system, we hope to more than replace the value of our users to publishers that was "lost" via our users blocking by default.

[HBlix]

I think the web as it exists today is bloated with “content” that could never survive without that money, and the loss of that “content” would be a gain for the web. I’m hard-presses to think of many worthwhile examples of ad-supported content; certainly HN here doesn’t take that path.

[skinnymuch]

You could argue HN being an advertising platform for YC and certain YC posts being inserted early on like hiring posts are ads. So using HN isn’t a good example at all.

[onyva]

Absolutely. And the idea that he’s trying to convince us that as users we would like to support this “economy”, is preposterous. I want it to go away. If it needs ad revenue to exist, it’s very unlikely to be of value to me.

I’ll stick with Firefox, as Mozilla is the only organization users can truly trust today for their privacy

[BrendanEich]

First point, to separate concerns.

I am among the founders of Mozilla, and I'll speak only about what is public and happened or at least started while I was there:

1. We rejected 3rd party cookie blocking patches, three times. Safari has had a blocker from birth.

2. We got too dependent on Google revenue shares while Google turned from search (1st party ads) to full surveillance (1st and 3rd) superpower.

3. Tracking protection work that started while I was there was delayed for years, then allowed only in private tabs, then a pref was added. Now, after Safari and Brave have taken the lead, Mozilla is turning on tracking protection in some form by default (which is good).

The claim that Mozilla is the only organization users can truly trust for privacy is belied by these facts.

[BrendanEich]

Second point: I don't have to convince anyone that ads are necessary to fund most of the visible web. They obviously are doing it, poorly, and if the hundreds of billions gross spend per annum globally (rising to a trillion in a few years) went away, many sites would shut down -- including newspapers and other homes for journalists.

You may not care; I care about some but not others so do not take this as me twisting your arm. But "I'm all right Jack" is a bad attitude in view of the fact that ad-funding is required for millions of sites today.

[matthberg]

I've been using Firefox on mobile and have no issues with it. I'd try it out again now, with quantum under the hood it's purring along smoothly for me.

Also (to anyone who doesn't know) you can install Firefox addons on Firefox mobile, so uBlock Origin works (can personally confirm it) to block ads.

[Sytten]

I have a low budget smartphone and its simply not usable. I switched to firefox focus which runs very smoothly, but it has its disadvantages too.

[BrendanEich]

Interested in whether Brave works well for you. Also phone details if you can share. Thanks.

[Sytten]

Idol 3 5.5, it works well.