The idea idea of a private, anti finger printing, ad blocking browser is great.
But then effing it up with your own ads, useless sh!tcoin, pointless vpn, news that no one wants, ai garbage 
, even a totally unnecessary torrent hijacker. Get rid of it please!
At least make a Brave Lite version that nist has the browser and shields. If i wanted a bunch of useless bloat id use vivaldi!
It’s important to remember that the way you feel does not reflect the way everyone feels. Every feature you just listed is being used and enjoyed by many other users.
Further, every feature you just listed is not required to use the browser and can be removed, hidden or disabled so you do not have to see or interact with it.
BAT/Rewards/Brave Ads: Simply don’t enroll in Brave Rewards to avoid using any of these features. If you’re already enrolled, go to brave://rewards, click the ...More button on the bottom-left of the page and select Disable and Reset Rewards. You can also use Group Policy to fully disable Brave Rewards.
Hide Brave Rewards icon.VPN: Simply don’t use the service. It will not run or install unless the user elects to do so. If you want to ensure the component is fully disabled anyway, you can do this via Group Policy (using BraveVPNDisabled key name), as instructed on our Help Center.
Hide Brave VPN icon in ToolbarBrave News: Again, simply don’t use it. You can ensure it’s disabled by going to the New Tab Page, clicking Customize --> Brave News then toggle the feature off.
brave://settings/appearanceBrave Leo: Don’t click on our use the feature. This can also be fully disabled via Group Policy.
Hide Brave Leo icon in toolbar.Webtorrent: Don’t use it. You can fully disable the built-in WebTorrent extension in brave://settings/extensions and toggling WebTorrent “off”.
That is how they make their money, so it stays.
Meanwhile, you can freeload like me and just turn it off.
Yes I do turn it all off.
The request is that they should release a lite version that doesn’t include this stuff in first place.
Its not only annoying/ frustrating - it also gives off the impression of being a scam.
Take a look on reddit - lots of people mistakenly think Brave is a literal crypto scam.
There was a forked versions a few years ago which sadly dot abandoned - we need this again please !
Oh yeah - I do that - but I’d be far happier with a Brave Lite version - that just had the browser and privacy options, and none of the stuff.
I use Linux and don’t know of ANY other FOSS project that embeds ads and adware into its product. If I did, I wouldn’t use it.
As Chrome removes MV2 ad blockers, there is an opportunity to recommend Brave, but its hard when you have to follow it up with a list of things they need to do to turn off unwanted features.
I like Brave - I just hate all the crap that ships with it.
Interesting there have been attempts to fork it in the past, which got shut down.
https://old.reddit.com/r/brave/comments/1hsuy5k/when_will_someone_fork_a_version_of_brave_without/
I bet they are being turned off by far more.
I wouldn’t say “lots.” It’s mostly just trolls and people looking to stir things up. A very small subset actually believe it’s a scam when looking at Brave as a whole.
Some of it comes from loyalty to Firefox and Google, leading people to criticize the competition. Others just want changes to the UI and think pushing negative narratives will pressure Brave into making adjustments. There are various motivations at play.
Since Brave is open source, anyone who truly wants a lite version can fork the code and build one. But the reality is that no one has stepped up to do it, likely because of the time and resources involved.
Brave itself has considered the idea multiple times. However, as a relatively small development team, they have to prioritize their efforts. More importantly, any project they take on needs to be financially viable.
A while back, Brendan Eich tested the waters to see if people would pay for a lite version. I’m not sure what his final takeaway was, but there didn’t seem to be much interest overall. You can see where I brought this up at Would you pay for simplified version of Brave?
At the end of the day, Brave is a business. They have to focus on sustainability and profitability, not just fulfilling every feature request.
TL:DR - A lot less than you might think. Otherwise Brave wouldn’t dedicate time and money to it.
Some users do disable a lot of features, and there is definitely a small subset that provides feedback asking for fewer built-in functionalities. Brave does track monthly and daily active users, runs analytics to see which features are enabled or disabled, and pays attention to feedback here on Community and other platforms.
They use this data to guide their growth and long-term goals. While it would be ideal to cater to every preference, that’s rarely practical. I understand you have strong opinions on what you’d like to see, but there are many moving parts that might not be as apparent. Your opinion does matter and is taken into account, but the way it was phrased comes across as aggressive and dismissive rather than constructive.
It’s also important to recognize that opinions vary widely. While you may engage with many people who share your perspective, that represents only a small portion of the overall user base. The fact that Brave continues investing in these features suggests that a significant number of users are engaging with them. If that weren’t the case, it wouldn’t make sense for them to allocate time and resources to maintaining and expanding them.
I’m fine with turning off the stuff I don’t like. That includes popular non-controversial features as well as the crypto stuff.
As for dopes on Reddit thinking that makes me the victim of a scam … I’m OK with that.
Thanks for engaging.
Actually there have been a couple of forks in thr past - but sadly they either got shut down or abandoned…
The reason I think a lite version is important even more now is becasue the mv2 cha ges in chromium mean the built in shields is the best solution.
But its hard to recommend to someone if you have to follow it up with a lost of things to dig through the settings.
And no. I would not pay for a lite version. No one would. But if brave truly thought their bloat were worth while, then by your reconning people would stick with the adware one anyway.
Ask yourself - given the choice to have a clean / lite version vs the one filled with adware and other cruft, which would you choose?
Most open source software doesnt bundle ads. Why should brave?
@therealbadawo curious to see which reply you’ll like better. I have this one below where I asked ChatGPT to revise this into a shorter reply. Just a KISS/ELI5 thing. Then I’ll post below this the original.
Brave’s ads are optional. Brave News, ad notifications, Wallet, and VPN are all disabled by default—users have to opt in. The only exception is New Tab Page ads, but they’re easy to turn off.
Features like Leo and Wallet aren’t bad because they’re optional—just like how cars come with USB, CD players, and satellite radio. You don’t have to use them, but they’re there if you want them.
As for a “cleaner” browser, Chrome and others may seem lightweight, but they come at the cost of privacy and ad-blocking. I’ve stuck with Brave because it blocks ads better than anything else while offering great performance. Rewards were just a bonus.
Open-source software often includes ads, paywalls, or data collection. Running a browser takes real investment, and the failed forks only prove how hard it is.
Brave has room for UI improvement, but it’s still my best option. In the end, it’s about choice—Brave is upfront about what they offer, and users can decide what works for them.
I think you love Brave too, you just want a cleaner UI. That’s fair!
@therealbadawo Keep in mind ads are optional for the most part. Brave News is disabled by default. It is fully opt in and they make it clear in the process that they will show ads in it. So this is something a person has to decide on.
Ad notifications also are disabled by default and a person has to turn on Rewards and opt to see into them. New Tab Page ads are the one exception where they kind of sneak it in, but at least have it capable of easily being disabled.
Wallet is another thing that’s disabled by default and requires people to enable. VPN is another thing that requires activation and a subscription. All of these buttons can easily be hidden in settings. Sure, the settings will always exist so people can easily find it and enable when/if they want, but that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
I don’t see having features like Leo, Wallet, etc as anything bad. It’s all optional. It’s like how a car might come with a CD player, USB, Aux, etc. I don’t have to use any of those but they are there for when or if I want to listen to music. And many cars have been and are being made with satellite radio, internet, etc as options which you have to subscribe.
Maybe it’s not the best analogy, but that’s how it registers in my mind. If I have to choose, I’d rather have the capability for something to be available rather than be limited myself. Maybe it’s partly due to my age and seeing how technology transitions over time, like being stuck with a cassette player when I need a CD player, having a DVD but not a Blu-ray, or realizing my newer computer has no CD/DVD drive at all. Then there’s the PS5 not allowing game saves to a USB and countless other restrictions. Experiences like these make me appreciate devices or software/apps that offer everything upfront rather than forcing me to buy extra accessories or go through the hassle of modifications to enable functionality, especially when those workarounds don’t function as well as built-in features would have.
I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. Sure, we could use browsers like Chrome for a “lighter” and “cleaner” experience, but at what cost? We sacrifice our privacy in exchange. Not to mention the overall experience is significantly worse as we have to worry about ads and trackers.
I don’t know about you, but I switched to Brave because they have been able to prevent ads on almost all websites I visit. In addition, the performance has been fantastic. I have stuck with Brave because of those two things only. I have tried Vivaldi, Firefox, Chrome, Edge, and a few other browsers but none have been able to come even close to the browsing experience I get with Brave.
Rewards has been the “icing on the cake” as I was able to earn some money. When I first started on it, I was actually homeless and in the midst of fighting for disability. The BAT earnings I had was able to get me a few meals a month, especially as I combined with some awesome app offers from Wendy’s (but that’s a different story for another time)
This is a really vague argument and kind of ignores any other factors. Open source software typically has ads, paywalls to most of the features you want/need, or they are able to provide everything to you in exchange for your data.
That only reinforces the point. It takes a significant investment of time and money to build and maintain a browser. I think they all hit the limits of what’s possible. It’s a great idea of having something ultra slim and capable, but there are limits.
Well, I obviously have chosen Brave. That isn’t to say I don’t dislike a lot of things about the UI. I definitely think they need to make a lot of modifications for the overall user experience (UX). But I know it’s been a constant work in progress. As I indicated earlier, I just don’t have as good of a browsing experience elsewhere and that is what keeps me on Brave.
But in the end, it comes down to personal choice. At least Brave is open and transparent about their design and the experience. People just have to make the decision if that’s wha they want or if they would prefer one of the competing browsers.
And I get it. I think you’re trying to say you love Brave too. You just want more options to have a cleaner UI. There’s just a lot of complexities on being able to offer that. Perhaps they’ll figure something out one day.
Fair enough.
I do disagree about your claim that open source software has ads and paywalls. It almost never has, and when it does, people hate it. In fact people go to open source to get away from those things.
But yes I do like brave - and yes you can turn off or ignore the extra stuff. But it is pretty off putting there is no denying it.
Funnily enough it seems Firefox has made some unpleasant ToS changes which seem to be very anti privacy including removing a peomise to never sell data - so there is an opportunity there for brave. Its a shame to scare people off with unnecessary extras that give the impression of being some kind of scam / blag.
The closest thing to what I mean is something like Librewolf - its FF minus all telemtry and tracking and with unblock origin built in. ThYs what id like to see - a stripped down brave that JUST does the privacy stuff and none of the other stuff.
Yeah, I think it’s just people making plans. With something like 80% of Firefox’s money coming from Google, they are kind of screwed if the antitrust remedy they proposed moves forward. I know Google is contesting and I think we’re supposed to see more in April. But if they really do say Google can no longer pay to have their search listed as a default, that would pull the plug for Firefox.
I can see them looking at alternatives and preparing for it now. Like you said, FAQ they had and their Terms have changed. They no longer have any mention or promise that they won’t sell data.
