No, it's not possible to see what Amazon does with this information but it's clear they can do way too much. And, they can change the behaviour at any moment without the user getting notified within these existing wide permissions. At the very least it's very poor design.
There are numerous accusations of dubious activity such as:
- Inserting affiliate links[1]
- They tried blocking ads, but then injecting their own[2]
- Taking tips for people without consent[3]
- Including Tor, but Leaking DNS[4] which is now fixed but a false sense of security is a dangerous thing
Not to say I don't have some respect for what they are doing, and for Brendan Eich's work, but I wouldn't say 100% blindly trust Brave either. It's had a sort of complex relationship with many people.
You seem fairly biased, and have included those links and accusations without any counter or responses from Brave.
#2, for example, is just false. Brave doesn't block ads and then inject their own; they block 3rd-party ads, and have an opt-in ad network. Doesn't replace or inject anything.
#1 gets brought up a lot on HN it seems, but sounds like it was an oversight and was fixed quickly. Same with #4. Every product has its issues, and as long as they're fixed quickly, it's understandable in my opinion.
I apologise if only posting negative links seemed unreasonable, but not out of any deeply held bias, the question asked was "Can we trust Brave?", so praise about the good things they do didn't specifically seem relevant. It is true that they try and improve privacy (which is a USP as far as Tor and anti-tracking stuff go). If asked can I trust chrome, I'd not expect downvote for only sharing links about the various embedded tracking - and glossing over the good stuff they do (which is admittedly not even close to Brave as far as trust is concerned).
If #2 is patently false, then apologies for spreading it further.
> as long as they're fixed quickly, it's understandable in my opinion
That's generally true, and I did mention the Tor thing had been fixed, but at the same time - it is very relevant to the trust question because for example people might well have visited sites that are illegal to do so within their countries under the premise of anonymous browsing via Brave, only to have their trust broken. I guess that's the risk you take if you do things like that, but it has an impact on trust of Brave.
Certainly many would see a certain double standard of blocking ads, and then showing them in any form (whether opt-in or not), even if it is indirect.
Personally I'm more interesting in Coil and to some extent Scroll in terms of replacing ads with micropayments, than Brave's BAT - but I'm glad they are at least trying to do something that could act as an alternative to ad funding.
What about segmented digital subscription products?
Micropayments have failed, digital subscription conversion is a lowly 1-3% even at publishers like NYT and WSJ, ad markets are owned by Google and Facebook...
The Atlantic took off like a rocket with this approach. Why don't other publishers follow suit and reduce their reliance on digital advertising? Why even consider micropayments then?
Interesting. Well The Atlantic do accept Scroll to remove ads too (although there is still article limit).
I'm not sure yet whether we can say that micropayments have failed because there is still a lot of innovation in the space, and I think it is only beginning to see any seriously mature offerings. The interledger protocol, used by Coil, being one of the tools that might actually be workable and international.
Segmented subscription products might well be a better avenue, but I think we have not seen the end of innovation here and I think micropayments are preferable to things like the Australia Facebook(and others) solution.
