From the article:

"I know for a fact that Wikipedia operates under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which explicitly states that if you’re going to use the data, you must give attribution. As far as search engines go, they can get away with it because linking back to a Wikipedia article on the same page as the search results is considered attribution.

But in the case of Brave, not only are they disregarding the license - they’re also charging money for the data and then giving third parties “rights” to that data."

  • Matt@lemmy.oneEnglish
    20·
    1 year ago

    Brave is great for less techy people because it’s defaults are good enough. It’s not necessary to tweak settings and install add-ons to get basic privacy. I definitely prefer Firefox, but it takes some knowledge to get it to surpass Brave’s defaults.

      • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        23·
        1 year ago

        Add-ons give you a lot more choice and control than baked in options.

        What’s stopping Brave’s blocker from just allowing ads from Brave’s services? Can you see under the hood to tell if it’s blocking everything or just surface level stuff?

        A proprietary built in blocker is only as trustworthy as the people that made it, and as the links in this discussion suggest, Brave isn’t earning much trust.

        • Melpomene@kbin.social
          2·
          1 year ago

          Of course, using add-ons also requires diligence, as each add-on from each source requires one to both trust the source and vet each source regularly. An add-on is also as trustworthy as the people that made it, and one must be willing to do the work the verify that those add-ons continue to be safe.