CHEFKOCH

It’s the other way around. Which browser you use is what directly determines whether monopoly and private companies develop the standard you use.

No it is not, this is a myth. As you also can use free software on closed OS, which happens to be the standard. Keyword Microsoft and Windows. You also can choose to not support this, it is you and not the monopoly. If there is no alternative that is usable, people continue to use what they got. It is the underlying problem, Firefox is so bad and so unusable by default, so people switch or use something else. Nothing to do with Monopoly. The standards itself are created and dictated by monopolies, so it plays no role what you use if it anyway ends up that you must support such standards.

You could write a standard independently of those companies, but then if everyone chooses to use browser engines from companies that don’t follow it, what’s the point?

The point is that user generated or govt establish frameworks can b used as basis.Its useless if you build a browser surrounded by standards created by Microsoft, IBM etc alone.

If everyone uses a particular browser then whatever that browser implements becomes the standard. It’s all about what browser you use.

This is already the case, you can choose not to use FLoC. Nothing changes here.

If what you want is everyone using the same basis, then what you need is to get everyone to use the same browser engine (which is what is happening already).

Please learn the difference between Browser engine and web standards, nonsense you talk here. Your Browser engine can adopt, implement or reject standards. Irrelevant in dyding discussion anyway since you provide absolute no solutions yourself in the discussion here, like everyone else people feeding off my ideas, practical in every thread. That you cannot continue is clear, web gives a shit about Mozilla, clearly the case. Some people hold together by hopes and delusions do not represent the web. Never did.

The discussion here is not about Browser you use, as people use whatever works best for them, and not what implements xyz, this is clearly shown in practical every thread. So enforcing your ideas will not work for the mass, better way around is to create open frameworks, documents that are actually usable and directly easily reviewable because at the end of the day your Browser runs pretty much on Android and iOS and not a open system. There exist open alternatives but they are not well funded, future unclear and the web - the main user - does not use it, they trust big corpos, they rely on their eco-system. Like Mozilla relies on money from yahoo, google etc in the past. Corpos you shit-talk.

Nonsense video, underlying problem is monopolies and private companies who develop the standards, not what browser you use.

If the standards are fully open, transparent and not concerning then it would make no difference if you use chrome and firefox because everyone would use same basis.

Also chromium team is not purchased or owned by Google, most volunteers are normal people, developers or security researchers that code on it in their free time. You can fork, modify the source as you please but that does not change the argumentation about web standards and how build or control them.

Are there plans to support BAT for donations, I already asked in chat but got no answer. I would like to use BAT because the system is trusted, and I can contribute monthly very easily trough my Browser.

Right now the domain is not verified, so I am asking in the hope to see more people auto-contributing.

THX for your answer.

It was made by a free speech company that supported neo-nazis and white supremacists. They also wanted to replace the coin system.

• https://micky.com.au/gab-parasites-fork-brave-browser-replace-bat-with-btc/
• https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-removal-of-the-dissenter-extention/38140/70
• https://old.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/ptaau2/what_happened_to_dissenter/
• https://www.customerservant.com/no-one-disputes-the-fact-that-gabs-founder-has-the-right-to-fork-brave-we-just-dont-think-nazis-add-value-to-anything-including-code-bases/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
• https://old.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/bgmgi5/the_dissenter_browser_will_have/
• https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/dissenter-web-browser

In April 2019, Dissenter was removed from the Firefox Add-ons website and the Chrome Web Store for violation of their policies that causes the creation of the Dissenter web browser.

Brave never threatened anyone.

It is about the principle, you replace hard cash. Also this is not entirely right since there are plans to integrate a blockchain but right-now there are not much green alternatives.

One way or another it supports my point because centralized systems are even less efficient, as explained.

Cryptocurrencies is the future, one way or another.

We need to get rid of traditional banking, improve the blockchain process and find a way to block mining, then we are much more efficient than traditional banking because you can easily do thousand transactions within milliseconds without depending on external middle mans.

My idea is that Govt. takes over cryptocurrencies and that traditional banks monitor and improve the system. So you still have your bank, the govt is happy because they can monitor potential fraud and we get a more privacy respecting system.

The entire ponzi scheme discussion only stands and falls with mining. If that is out of the equation then we are pretty much ready to go, China uses their app, so there is no hard cash anymore and it works pretty well for them.

I already did and most of it are opinions from others. Why value their opinions over mine or your own... As already linked via wikipedia the movie can be interpreted differently and there are more opinions on that. Your link does not change the fact here.

But okay, let’s agree on disagreeing.

Yop. 🙏

My key argument simply is that the whole argumentation for fags and other now mentioned stuff was mentioned AFTER years. The things is most people just did not see it that way even if the author intended something different because afterwards I also can claim xyz but the audience, and most people I talked about saw it clearly as anarchy. It is similar with my Matrix example, at that time NO ONE saw any connection to transgender but now after Hollywood got a shit-blast they make it as an argument and suddenly all was about that, which is also not the case and not what most people saw.

Maybe watch the movie and not a video about random people that watched the movie and give their opinion on that, the destruction clearly symbolizes fall of social structures which is clearly anarchy not fascism.

Giroux and Szeman identify Tyler Durden as a failed icon of the revolution whose public appeal is more due to his cult personality than any "strengths of an articulated, democratic notion of political reform." Durden acts instead of thinking and thereby fails to envision democratic movements; he is described as "a holdover of early-twentieth-century fascism". While the narrator represents the crisis of capitalism as a crisis of masculinity, Tyler Durden represents "redemption of masculinity repackaged as the promise of violence in the interests of social and political anarchy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Fight_Club

There is also an opinion or interpretation of fascism but no one I know interprets it that way. Most people see destruction - anarchy, which also was my first impression when I saw the movie.

Not sure what LGBTO, homosexuality has something to do with anarchy. Absolute nothing.

Not according to this discussion.

They are on the opposite ends of the Politcal spectrum. One, Anarchy, is the belief that there should be no government at all while the other, fascism, is the belief that the government should control Everything.

Tyler want to control it himself, not give it up. So anarchist is correct.

I understand that you are upset, because annoying ads are always bad. However, I think if that is optional via opt-in it maybe, maybe can help smaller developers assuming the ads are well placed.

I use Brave + ads enabled and I do not mind a small mini popup. Sometimes I see some news because of that which I reshare, so it actually helps me. What I want to say is, that when ads are well placed and not annoying or malwaretised I see not much issue to place them in an app as long it is not privacy invasive, I think that is the real challenge here. Because ads have a history of malwaretising. Brave fights this by filtering ads trough their proxy, there is a review for every new ad provider. I see here the issue with a normal unfiltered app, imagine your 8 years old kid gets a XXX ad or clicks on malware stuff.

THAT is what I am worried about.

Why, even FOSS needs support. See OBS Studio, Wikipedia etc. Without supports good projects go to waste.

• Developers can decide to introduce it in their apps or not. I am sure not every QT developer will adopt this.
• People will be able to opt-in, opt-out. I am pretty sure they provide us with an option.
• Most people do not donate, so an additional income thing could help.
• The other option would be crypto.

We are not talking about MS who introduce ads in Explorer which need some ad-blocking, hosts or registry hacks. Linux is more transparent and there will be options to control this.

Do I like it, nope. But it is better than alternatives to shutdown project because lack of funding or struggling to expand because only few people are willingly to donate.