[rglullis]

That's a very good example of "argument-by-Google". You know what conclusion you want to achieve, so you just go around looking for statements that are either taken out of context or misunderstood and that can be backed by a (shallow) google search.

For the record: go back to the article that you are (wrongly) alluding to [0] and see how much the author has retracted. Also, see the response from Brave's Chief of Search.

I "have" to keep advocating them because all the opposition that is presented is always based on false information, biased and prejudiced and clearly made by people who never used the browser or tried to understand the value proposition.

There are tons of things to criticize about Brave (their "partnerships" with Binance and Solana, their complete lack of interest in making BAT an actual currency for payments online, them completely losing the train of decentralized social media) but none of that ever comes up from the detractors, only this kind of bullshit like the one you bring up.

[0]: https://stackdiary.com/brave-selling-copyrighted-data-for-ai...

[ohgodplsno]

I'm just going to quote the updated, follow up article:

The Brave Search API does not respect the site's licensing, and Brave is under the assumption that 1) because they are a search engine and 2) because they attribute the URI of data - this puts them in the clear to scrape and resell data word-for-word.

Brave steals data and resells it, and is not to be considered a trustworthy entity.

[rglullis]

The article went from "selling personal data to AI companies" to "selling results in the API search with a longer summary than Google which might be a violation of fair use policy", and yet you still don't want to back down.