From the article:

"I know for a fact that Wikipedia operates under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which explicitly states that if you’re going to use the data, you must give attribution. As far as search engines go, they can get away with it because linking back to a Wikipedia article on the same page as the search results is considered attribution.

But in the case of Brave, not only are they disregarding the license - they’re also charging money for the data and then giving third parties “rights” to that data."

  • frequency@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    1 year ago

    I think Brave did some aggressive marketing, including social media posts and comments. I did buy their narrative at first too - a browser that already tuned to block ads and trackers. But later I’ve noticed that it constantly connects back to brave server and it looked suspicious. Firefox is the best.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemm.eeEnglish
      24·
      1 year ago

      Agreed, a lot of Reddit comments felt very shilly. Firefox is king and helps prevent Google dictate web standards.

      • oblique_strategies@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, exactly. If every browser is chromium based the web will be an unhealthy monoculture. Easy for a single player to dictate standards. Haven’t seen this mentioned as much, but its really important