Talk:Brave (web browser)

One of Tom Scott's Tweets Cannot be Found (direct link and Google)
At the end of this paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Brave_browser_collecting_donations_on_behalf_of_content_creators, the tweet itself ("These are good changes...I had!") doesn't have a citation. I checked the citation closest to that (49), but that lead to a 404. Should I delete it, since it doesn't have a valid source? (a quick search using Google doesn't show me anything useful) ObjectOriented (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It does have a valid source: . It can also be found in web archives: . Some people just delete their old tweets. —Dexxor (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested Edits to "Insertion of Referral Codes" on 12 March 2021
''Note: I am an engineer on the Brave browser. What follows is my best effort to remain neutral while suggesting well-sourced improvements for a section of this Wikipedia page.''


 * What I think should be changed:

The Insertion of Referral Codes section contains potentially misleading information, and a confusing combination of verb tense.


 * "On 6 June 2020, a Twitter user pointed out that Brave inserts affiliate referral codes when users type a URL of Binance into the address bar, which earns Brave money. Further research revealed that Brave redirects the URLs of other cryptocurrency exchange websites, too."

A suggested alternative (which will be discussed further below) is:


 * "On 6 June 2020, a Twitter user reported that Brave had been observed adding affiliate referral codes to certain URLs typed into the address bar. Further research found the impacted URLs to be binance.com, binance.us, and coinbase.com/join."


 * Why it should be changed:

This section could be updated to more accurately reflect the behavior of the feature discussed, as well as to distinguish it from the current state in the application today. Additionally, implications are being made which are not appropriately supported.


 * 1) While much of the surrounding context is in the past tense, portions referring to Brave are not.
 * 2) * "...Brave inserts...users type...Brave redirects..."
 * 3) The current wording suggests Brave "earns money" based on directing traffic to Binance.
 * 4) * According to Binance's Referral Program, earnings are based on the future trading activity (not traffic) of referred users.
 * 5) * Brave's CEO Tweeted numerous times that any affiliate revenue associated with the observed behavior had been "renounced".
 * 6) * A similar statement was made in Brave's June 09, 2020 blog post ("…we have checked with Binance to confirm that we will make no revenue from the unintended default URL auto-completions that added affiliate codes to the address typed in.").
 * 7) The current wording states "further research revealed…the URLs of other cryptocurrency exchange websites, too."
 * 8) * Binance (binance.com and binance.us) and Coinbase (coinbase.com/join, but not coinbase.com) were the only exchange URLs involved, according to the original code commit. The current wording is likely to suggest more than 2 exchanges were involved.


 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Jonathansampson (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, I’m afraid that your references are not useful. Per WP:RS and WP:IS, you need to provide sources that are independent (in other words, we cannot use Brave itself to substantiate claims about Brave, as it’s not independent) and reliable (Twitter is used-generated, and is not considered reliable). Ferkjl (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. While it is compelling to use WP:NATURAL name "Brave Browser", opponents disagree that it is common and recognizable enough. No such user (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Brave (web browser) → Brave Browser – Brave Browser is an alternative name used by Brave Software to identify this product. It may be seen as a coequal name to "Brave".

Here are instances where the name "Brave Browser" appears:


 * The program name (on macOS) is "Brave Browser". The "About Brave" section within the program uses the name "Brave".
 * The bottom navigation menu on the resource and settings pages for Brave Search, for example: (at the bottom, under "Products")
 * The Brave Browser Privacy Policy, as well as the link to the privacy policy in the bottom navigation menu on brave.com.
 * Title tags on brave.com end with "Brave Browser" (e.g.: "Secure, Fast & Private Web Browser with Adblocker | Brave Browser")

The capitalisation "Brave browser" can also be found, though only with an article ("the Brave browser"), whereas "Brave Browser" appears without an article, as a proper name.

I think that Brave Browser is more recognisable and more natural than Brave (web browser). It is equally as precise due to the distinctive nature of the name "Brave Browser". It is also a more concise title. It may be less consistent with similar article titles that end with "(web browser)". [ WP:CRITERIA] Andibrema (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Brave is the common name; "Brave browser" is using browser as a descriptive term (equivalent to a disambiguation) rather than as part of the name of the product. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 17:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Brave is the common name, however, "Brave Browser" is a more common name than "Brave (web browser)", which is not common at all. Brave Browser is a product name, as explained above. The capitalisation of "Browser", and usage without an article, in contrast to "the Brave browser", a style that can also be found, as well as the repeated usage as the product's name in the instances listed above, indicates that clearly. Andibrema (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The name of the application is "Brave", not "Brave Browser"; on its website the application is referred to exclusively as "Brave". Current title is most appropriate, and we certainly should not be inventing names for extant products. Joe.Del73 (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is wrong. As stated above, the name of the application is "Brave Browser", at least on macOS. Maybe it is different on Windows. The website refers to the browser as "Brave" as well as "Brave Browser", with examples listed above. The name is not "invented". If anything, the name "Brave (web browser)" is invented. Andibrema (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's called Brave everywhere, doesn't make sense. 80.95.217.206 (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. The sources cited are all primary sources, which doesn't help. But we do prefer natural disambiguation, and this appears to be a good one. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Reliable sources do not use the term "Brave Browser"  . Per MOS:CAPS "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" (emphasis in the original).  -- Calidum  18:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. The downloaded setup is called "BraveBrowserSetup.exe" on Windows. In my opinion, Brave Browser is now distinct from Brave Search. "Brave" is a brand, "Brave Browser" is a product like "Brave Search". - Kiry (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NATURAL.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The appropriate natural disambiguation would be Brave browser, since it's rarely capitalized in secondary sources. But, as natural disambiguation goes, I find this option pretty unnatural (for the same reason I wouldn't want to move Opera (web browser) to Opera browser). Colin M (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The official website prompts you with a giant button to "Download Brave". Maybe at some point "Brave" will no longer refer to the browser, but right now it appears as though it does. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per WP:COMMON and per WP:NATURAL. XavierItzm (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

current version
current version info lags... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Features of Brave (web browser) really necessary?
I noticed that just created the page Features of Brave (web browser). Nobody complained about the length of this page or suggested splitting. Why are we forking content? Before content was removed this page was at 36k. WP:SIZERULE guidelines say the page needs to be at least 50k before size alone should even be a consideration in forking. Elephanthunter (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it's not needed at all. : Would you mind reversing the split? MarioGom (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm really sorry, I didn't paid attention to the Size Rule. I hope you understand it wasn't intentional. And yeah I am just reversing the edit in a minute. Also, I'll empty Features of Brave (web browser) page, so that it could get deleted. Ok?  Gyan Know  contributions? 10:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand the change was well-intentioned, no problem. Thank you! MarioGom (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: Done ✅  Gyan Know  contributions? 10:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversies
I was not aware of WP:GS/Crypto when making in violation of WP:1RR, so apologies for that - I will refrain from reverting this page for the next 24 hours. I reverted identical changes by an IP user earlier today, as there was no policy reason given for removing these passages that outline well-sourced controversies. BeReasonabl (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove 'Brave browser collecting donations on behalf of content creators' and '"Private Window with Tor" DNS leaks' from Controversies Sections.
In the first topic Brave browser collecting donations on behalf of content creators, Brave historically had a bug that allowed for donating BAT to content creators that were not verified publishers. This was a bug (which is currently fixed), and shouldn't be qualified as under the word "controversy".

In the third topic "Private Window with Tor" DNS leaks, you can see it was clearly a security vulnerability, which was reported through Brave's HackerOne bug bounty platform. Security vulnerabilities aren't new and are found in different browsers (including Brave) every month. There are still some security vulnerabilities, which the Brave team is busy in fixing. Security vulnerabilities will continue to come, and also have been fixed in the past by Brave. If we continue to push this section under "Controversies", we'll just add more and more bugs under "Controversies", which will be clearly a misunderstanding. I therefore appeal the community to remove these sections.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anindependenteditor (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . It's not the fact that they were bugs in and of themselves that makes them notable, it's the discussion by reliable sources of those bugs and the fact they were controversial. I don't see how there can be misunderstanding when it's stated the bugs have been fixed in the relevant sections. However I think the "Private Window with Tor" DNS Leaks section could have better sources. There's a relevant article at ZDnet about it that's worth adding. BeReasonabl (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Brave browser collecting donations on behalf of content creators because it simply wasn't a bug (Brave knew they were collecting money from creators with no BAT reward accounts). it was clearly intentional to increase donations and get those creators to open up accounts to claim their BAT rewards.
 * I also disagree with "Private Window with Tor" DNS leaks because while it is indeed a bug and wasn't intentional, it is such a glaring bug that it would be almost disqualifying for a "privacy browser". RisingTzar (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV / excessive primary sources
The article excessively relies on primary sources for non-trivial claims. Two specific instances where the claims contradict mainstream scholarly sources or each other are: I've removed some embellishments and added an IEEE conference paper on Brave browser fingerprinting. It's probably worth noting that most of the potentially unreliable claims were added by a single editor User:Dr.KimK, who also reverted without explanation removal of some of the claims done by other editor that was done due to concerns of the sources' reliability.
 * 1) The article claims that the Brave measures exact number of unique monthly users and doesn't track its users over time. It's unclear how both statements can be true at the same time and how the number of active users is measured without tracking them. Both are only supported by the vendor's claims (the University of Dublin test tested a specific scenario of a new browser installation and not real-world usage over time). My guess is there may be opt-in for tracking at some point (such as enabling the token or ads), but I could not find a source that would elaborate on this unfortunately apart from the related materials published by Brave: 1, 2, 3, 4.
 * 2) The article uses vague "To prevent browser fingerprinting" claim, which is somewhat misleading as the current scholarly consensus is fingerprinting cannot be prevented altogether but spans a fairly wide gamut, depending on how many identifying signals browsers leak. Brave unquestionably leads in terms of limiting what fingerprinting information can be collected, but it's not the same as preventing fingerprinting altogether, whereas the article seem to use a number of primary sources and journalistic opinions to make such claim.

I would support a more stringent application of WP:PRIMARY, specifically, to limit claims by vendor and primary scholarly sources to factual statements, rather than what benefits it could provide to the user. Not least because of possible real-world consequences of misleading privacy protection claims. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The "phoning home" implementation is also described here: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Brave%E2%80%99s-Use-of-Referral-Codes: (emphasis mine) PaulT2022 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

How to purchase an ad campaign
The article currently states the following:

"'Advertisers must purchase BAT to show ads on the Brave Rewards platform. Brave facilitates USD-based ad purchases, but will then buy BAT on behalf of the advertiser.'"

This is not sourced, and is incorrect. According to https://ads-help.brave.com/account-management/billing/, "Brave Ads are available to be purchased via various different pricing models. By default, all ad campaigns globally will be billed in USD, however, other options are available."

While it is possible to purchase via BAT, this is not a requirement. In regards to using a utility token or cryptocurrency, the aforementioned resource states the following, "Please note that we currently accept Basic Attention Token (BAT), USD Coin (USDC), and Tether USD (USDT) on the Ethereum blockchain." Jonathansampson (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Controversies removal
Why were all the controversies and problems with the app mostly removed? I was linked to the page from a news article, and saw the section it described was completely missing as well as the content in the article. Such as that can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brave_(web_browser)&oldid=1038064457#Controversies Captchacatcher (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it was me, I merged them into the 'Business model' (which possibly needs to be renamed) and 'Tor windows' sections per the reasoning in Criticism: it seemed more logical to describe positive points of view alongside with the negative ones instead of tucking all negatives away in the bottom of the article. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)