• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle







  • I agree. There is a potential barrier to entry, and growth. I argue:

    • people part with money for a cause or belief. Culturally privacy apps are different, inconvenient and unfamiliar UX, there are usually no ‘email signups’, not run by ads, or sales of data, and the software is free but has a learning curve. People do it anyways because they believe it is right
    • Its not unusual to pay $1-$15 for an app in a mobile app store. At least they can get their money back (it’s actually free to use)
    • users can be compensated for ‘rich’ abusive actor, at the same time incentivised to report in the case of ie chat app
    • A sponsor couls risk their collatoral to allow access to a user who cannot manage the initial financial barrier

    The first point is the most important IMHO, privacy users accept the learning curve and inconvenience because they believe privacy is more important and because of this, I believe the burden is not as high as we think, that a ‘free to play’ alternative means of accessing privacy respecting apps (by this idea or something else) is as as essential to supporting and protecting privacy as E2EE vs server side encryption.




  • The points in this article have nothing to do with the actual browser. For the record I use Firefox, librewolf, and brave

    Some sites are broken with a Firefox base.

    • the founder is controversial. so what? Does the product render pages with pretty good fingerprint blocking? Yes

    • crypto exchanges are under scrutiny and brave uses crypto. so what? does the product render pages with decent cross tracking isolation? Yes

    • their crypto has little value and was a failed experiment so what? Does the browser remove ads? Yes

    If you’re going to write about how something sucks, talk about it with substance, point out code that does XYZ to confirm negative statements.