Exclude Google, Amazon, Facebook, .gov and similar minded entities from about:preferences#payments


Do you think it would be a bad omen to permanently block Google, Amazon, Facebook and similar minded corporations from about:preferences#payments?

I think we can agree that youtube content providers should be excluded from this topics title despite it being a subsidiary of Google.

I thought this was an essential topic to be discussed because of the level of megalomania-cal behavior and attitudes of such corporations and how despicably they act in the internet-of-things, not forgetting their abuse of users/customers trust/data, the environment and societies around the world.

It is without a shadow of doubt that these and similar corporations alike will always consistently profit 10’s of billions and very heinously won’t spread their legal obligations for want of a better expression to the the larger, desperate and destitute society at hand and I personally don’t think Brave should do anything to encourage their behavior.

The reason I titled it as ‘a bad omen’ was also to understand whether it would affect any part of your overall browser functionality because of Googles predominant management of Chromium and a previous discrepancy which arose surrounding Widevine.

Here’s a couple of brilliant economists speaking in detail of some of the gross negligence of a corporation titled above and their immorality spreading like maggots, their heinous behavior and its affect on the larger society, it’s worth a watch - https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/412236-episode-max-keiser-1159/

Brave payments not working properly - 02.04.18

While I think you may be onto something, this becomes a slippery slope rather quickly. Except for Facebook, Google and Amazon offer a host of services that some users may find invaluable to their user experience on the “internet of things”.

If BRAVE did something like this, I can see these corporations taking it negatively. Ask yourself, what other browser blocks services or content from the aforementioned companies? Secondarily, if BRAVE behaves in the manner they have explained and many of us can see in action, why would they need to go a step further and block these companies?

Can you be more specific regarding what services/data/trust you see them violating if one is using the BRAVE browser?


It has nothing to with using their services per say but essentially preventing them from gaining automatic access to the ledger system. Need I stress again how deplorably and immorally they have acted in various situations and circumstances pertaining to users they supposedly give away their “free software” to and I’m not specifically restricting this issue to user privacy.

As for slippery slopes, fact of the matter is, close to three-quarters of a billion users are actively using ad-blockers which automatically and permanently block Ads & Trackers from those services and corporations I mentioned and possibly with the exception of Fair Adblocker and Privacy Badger of which their are significantly fewer users compared to the others, not a single one offers a contribution of any kind, so not to sound rude but I think your slippery slope argument coherently speaking is a little futile because there are literally dozens of applications and software dedicated to the question you posed.

Another thing I’d like to point out is despite being an avid user of the Brave Browser, to be honest I don’t think they’re trying to mimic the major browsers at all, quite possibly the only thing thing they’d mimic is the level of security which without a shadow of doubt all of them take seriously, secondly, selected extensions surrounding user feedback or unless a better version can be built-in and that is all, not forgetting the block-chain based payment/ledger system of course.

As for your last question, I was speaking of preserving trust as a principal and the fact that it’s laughable when speaking about privacy and trust when speaking of the aforementioned corporations. To be honest I’m taken a back by the fact you’d ask for specifics considering what users have known now for half a decade about their negligence and deceitful behavior when storing private and confidential data/analytics of practically every single one their users/customers for questionably AI purposes but that’s whole different argument.

Maybe it was the manner in which I typed it that came off a bit brash but I just didn’t think it was befitting for corporations to continuously receive funds from a dedicated privacy browser which is sort of contrary to their services on top of their literal hoarding of hundreds of billions of dollars, I means honestly, is that right?

Brave Payments should not include .gov websites

I don’t know yet how the Brave payment system works, but Brave is a browser which is a piece of technology. Technology on its own should be apolitical as being apolitical means its useful to most. The configuration of a browser is a different matter. Brave should be flexible enough so that political intentions of its users can be easily transformed into a configuration that, say, blocks certain websites from gaining their funds. This makes sense even in much less contentious situations where, for example, i visit my favourite news site a lot, but as i’m already paying a subscription to their weekly edition, the amount of money they get from me via brave should be possible to influence.


Hi @yetanothernick

I think how it looks right now in about:preferences#payments given it’s at it’s early stages, it looks rather reasonable and pertaining to the topic at hand I think the necessary configurations Brave allows are quite just.

I’m sure you’re already aware of the Menu - Shields - Brave Payments or Settings - Payments (about:preferences#payments) payments section so using your news subscription as an example you can very easily toggle to include and exclude it as a publisher and after pinning a particular publisher you can enter you’re desired amount/percentage you wish to spread out, if you didn’t know already.


@frowntiger suggested ‘.gov and .mil websites obviously are financed by the US government. I think by default brave shouldn’t include sending BAT to those websites since they well. Are public resources.’


When Apple introduced Intelligent Tracking Prevention in June, the ad industry had a hissy fit. Even though it doesn’t go as far as Brave does regarding blocking, it does use machine learning to keep 3rd-party cookies from being used to track users on the web.

Now, Apple has over 1.2 billion devices that have been sold, the vast majority of them that will be running iOS 11 and macOS 10.13 which supports ITP—that’s a lot of potential web views.

What we don’t want is for Google and Facebook to somehow co-opt Brave and BAT for their own purposes, which undoubtedly won’t be for users’ benefit or worse—undermine it.

One small example: Google controls search on the web; the fact that someone is a verified Brave publisher is public information—it’s in a server’s .well-known directory or in their DNS records. Here’s mine:

$ dig communityflow.info TXT | grep brave
communityflow.info.	3582	IN	TXT	"brave-ledger-verification=2deeb9393686022e239023906b66b040dddf59712690af8cbbbc0717b576d022”

If Brave and BAT takes off and they start to impact Google and Facebook’s revenue in a meaningful way, they could retaliate in some way. Google could change their search algorithm to lower the rank of verified Brave publishers, for example. Facebook crawls the web too; maybe they could not allow Brave verified publishers to share content on Facebook or whatever.

Neither Brave or BAT is impactful enough to be worth worrying about right now, but that may not always be the case.


This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.