[asadotzler]

"You can turn off the evil feature that evil people added" isn't really an argument that's gonna convince me that evil people are trustworthy.

Tell me I can turn off the evil intent, and not just one of its manifestations, and we're in business. But you can't tell me that.

[esskay]

By that logic you'd have to extend the same argument to Firefox, Chrome and Edge. All have a bunch of "evil" (which by your own definition evil = thing that makes a business money) things that can be disabled.

Once you've done that you're back to the same old question - why is <other browser> any better/safe/trustworth than Brave, which is arguably the only one that's gone out of their way to make sure its sustainable and not reliant on farming user data to the highest broker.

[asadotzler]

I'm gonna follow your lead on goal post moving for my response.

I'm sure no user data is shared with Brave's search partners (and don't pretend they don't get paid by Google and others for all the users who abandon the not-great Brave Search for a more capable service.) Google just pays them whatever they pinky swear to Google was their traffic, no reporting at all, no search telemetry, none of that. Right?

And I'm sure zero user data makes it to big advertisers who pay for full new tab takeovers. I mean, why wouldn't big advertisers throw tens of thousands of dollars a day on ads with no proof of reach or return.

Oh, it's anonymized, you say? So, just like all the other browsers?

Also, a quarter of a billion VC dollars have to be paid back at some point. You can't claim anything is truly sustainable when VCs still own a quarter of its value and it's taken VC money 7 of the last 10 years.