Nicer strawman arguments there.
“let’s add a feature because I say it, it doesn’t matter if the experience is terrible, we don’t have do talk about the issues, because anyone can turn it off and don’t use it”
Do you think a Browser development to make money should be ran by that logic?
Instead of getting irrational for my opinion, what about answering the simple questions? you did everything and complained about even about Brave’s translate feature but you didn’t touch about the downsides I brought up.
I mean, let’s not even talk about the risks of redirecting URLs to random services. But about the issues with instances and services and all that, it’s not just 'not trusting, it is also about thinking about the future… and why do you want to add something you have to tweak because it keeps breaking? Are you suggestion Brave should audit every single server for every single service?
Why would be the gain for Brave to do that? unless they hosted the services, do you really think brave wants to redirect people to random servers?
And seeing Jitsi being hosted by Brave, and then being monetized by Brave, and Brendan saying they are not charity on twitter. well… you get your conclusions.
But for example, what about when services just stop working? like with Bibliogram? a change on the way Instagram worked and it was gone, or what happens to piped and invidious when Youtube changes something and instances don’t even update to latest version to fix anything for weeks or ever.
Running libredirect is already a terrible experience for the most part, unless you spend (waste) time unchecking almost every instance then well, not much to say.
Since Brave already has extension’s support on Desktop (it’s not like Brave muon), then this issue is about supporting redirect in Android.
The problem is you don’t understand Brave would have to implement the whole feature natively because Brave doesn’t support extensions on Android.
When they added Adblock cosmetics to Android, they had to change the way it was done on desktop, to do it natively and stop being an extension. So that also weights on the “is it worth it?, would a developer spend time and resources in this type of feature that redirects to random out of control instances that could be insecure, not private and malicious?”
For example (so you can understand more about worth it or not cases) something easier and faster to implement in Brave, the VAFT scriptlet to get rid of Twitch ads, there was a PR about it months ago, it never got added to the resources because Brave team knew it was it was obvious VAFT would end up eventually breaking. That’s exactly what happened after a while.
Now the only way to ‘get rid of ads’ it’s not even getting rid of ads, it’s through extensions that will connect to proxy servers in countries where Twitch ads don’t run yet.
In your logic, Brave should just go ahead and add support for Twitch proxy ads because if they are insecure, who cares, as long as it mostly works, it is fine.
Do you think that’s how a browser development which is meant to make money should be ran?
That’s why I said Android extensions could fix the issue, but it is realistic to think about this, they only said they will revisit the decision to see if they add the extensions this year, but it is still the same case than 4 years ago, seems more like a waste of money and time, and huge work for a small team like Brave, when people just want to run the most nonsense lamest extensions that could be done through a scriptlet injection.
That’s why I said that scriptlets injections would be the best way since it is already in Brave.
Apparently you didn’t get the memo where I said I already redirect Twitter to Nitter this way, without using any extension, Brave’s adblocker can inject scriptlets just like uBlock does, what Brave doesn’t have is the UI for users to ‘officially do it’, so I found my way until they officially support it.
The issue to let users add their own scriptlet injection was made by Anton, the one who pretty much develops Brave adblocker, so with 3 cells left in the brain, it’s easy to understand it is going to happen because it is something made by the person who develops the Adblocker (2+2=4), of course, it will be meant for advanced users so they also have to plan the UI since simpleton users shouldn’t just do anything like that, so it will take time because there are more important features in the roadmap like Procedural Cosmetics.
And like I said, it can be unofficially done.
So, even adding an userscript manager that will work in both Desktop and Android, would be better and smarter and better than extensions support (in Android). Of course this is my opinion, but it is the one that makes more sense.
But you don’t even believe Brave would add the features, you are pretty much complaining in your last paragraph, and then you get weird because I talked (asked) about the downsides of libredirect.
I don’t even know what’s your point on acting irrationally here for my opinions, saying something that already exists in Brave like scriptlets injection is better than making a single feature from zero for Android (since it can be loaded in Desktop) that is not even stable or good.
What features have Brave promised that haven’t hit Brave? I will wait until the day I die because I am sure apart from Android extensions, which were only overhyped by Brendan Eich who shouldn’t have, there is no promised features that I have heard that are important to say “wow they haven’t added it back? Brave team sucks”.
About auto translate, which has NOTHING to do with this topic (again, nice strawman argument) if you searched in Github (because Brave Browser is fully open source) you would have found out that it was removed because Brave Team removed it.
I actually wrote a long comment giving links and explaining how to enable it for Desktop, here on the forums.
So it ‘doesn’t work’ because it is not meant to work, if they added it back or they give the flag to people to control it or whatever, I don’t care, I don’t use it, I only know they disabled it but also talked about giving a flag to control it and I even gave the CMD command to enable it back on desktop.
It’s so weird you “Brave just like Chrome but with an adblocker” so is Brave going to become better because they are a terrible experience to brave like Libredirect? or is it because you are suggesting it? so if they don’t add it the browser sucks?
Also, Brave has Vertical tabs, building a playlist manager like iOS has, with a VPN in the works, with Tor, with IPFS and all those web3 features, wallet and rewards that I don’t care much about.
But sure! Chrome with just an adblocker, what is the logic here? It’s confusing why anyone would request a feature and then complain about Brave as a browser as being “chrome with adblocker”, when I pretty much told you Brave already can do redirections and anything since simple scriptlets would do it, no extension that will require more development or maintenance needed.
Anyway, you already added a ‘vote’ why do you complain about my comment? why the strawman arguments? why the hyperbolic BS “many features not delived by Brave”? Why are you not putting some logic to your Feature Request and then get weird for being challenged about the downsides?
You could have asked Brendan Eich on twitter about this, instead of adding it to a forum where anyone, like me, can technically say whatever we want. Seems like you should have just ignored my comment and move on.
But just so you know…
Yes, Brave can inject bad code into websites, that’s why it is important it is open source, so you can check the code, they could also be injection buggy JS code or something.
They use uBlock resources/scriptlets and they could also be buggy and security risk (since they aren’t controlling them).
But just to let you know, every website you probably visit will inject a script for Ethereum wallet and Solana Wallet, unless you set it to disabled in settings, it happens. Did you know that?
If you turn WDP it will then use an extension that will see searches you make in other search engines, and even websites you visit to improve brave search indexer.
I mean… seems like you don’t know how things work in Brave, but by using Brave you are actually trusting Brave for a lot of things, including the fact they proxy the connections to Safe Browsing and Extension updates.
It’s like trusting Vivaldi with your phone number to use their email system, and your email and IPs to make an account or every 24h when they send information to their servers.
Yes, you always have to trust anyone, it is obvious. But the point is libredirect is not just one service with one instance, and in the end you never explained how to develop a feature where 90% of instances are trash “turning it off” seems like the dumb idea, then what about don’t waste time and give priority to features that already exist in Brave like again, scriptlets injections and let us do it with just 3 lines of JS code? I already do it, it works.
So I don’t understand what is the whole “but I want what I requested” when all I said is that there were better ways to accomplish this, that are already possible and Brave only needs to improve them to make it easier for users interested to do it.
But then, maybe Brave team will implement it tomorrow, just for you, even if you didn’t really explained how and just threw a link and say “do it, because I say do it” and I will clap and say congratulations to prove me wrong!
So have a good day!