So looks like Brave doesn't pay out to people who live in certain countries and the owner of archive.is is retaliating by blocking the browser from accessing the service. Why is Brave at fault here? Am I missing something?
The archiver's argument is that blocking everyone in a country based on the fraudulent activities of just a few people in that country is "nationalist" and just as unsupportable as racial discrimination.
One could apply that same argument to IP bans: in a network where IPs are assigned dynamically, blocking an IP based on the activities of one person assigned that address is similarly unsupportable.
Curious exactly what tools they expect an admin to use to prevent abuse, given that any tool uses some imperfect heuristic to discriminate.
I did. It worked well enough, but I recall having some hangups with the interface. I don't even remember specifically what now, but my impression was that they were changing things just for the sake of being different.
Unfortunately true, though the engine itself is still written by a bunch of very competent programmers, who manage to more or less keep up with Chrome despite having only half as many people.
Mozilla did just announce that they're firing 250 people because they were hit hard by the coronavirus (or maybe their support of BLM, but they probably wouldn't admit that even if they knew it to be true). With any luck most of the people they're laying off will be activists, but I'm not holding my breath.
Mozilla is, but I don't think they get a lot of funding for being progressive. The activists they're trying to appeal to don't give a shit about privacy or a free and open web, and Mozilla will never be as progressive or valuable to them as Google is.
That's why I think their progressive posturing only hurts them, financially. A lot of the people who might be interested in donating to Mozilla out of a desire to oppose Google are turned away by their political leanings. But I doubt Mozilla will change - the actual programmers might not spend a lot of time on progressive activism, but the upper echelons and HR have been completely taken over.
So looks like Brave doesn't pay out to people who live in certain countries and the owner of archive.is is retaliating by blocking the browser from accessing the service. Why is Brave at fault here? Am I missing something?
The archiver's argument is that blocking everyone in a country based on the fraudulent activities of just a few people in that country is "nationalist" and just as unsupportable as racial discrimination.
One could apply that same argument to IP bans: in a network where IPs are assigned dynamically, blocking an IP based on the activities of one person assigned that address is similarly unsupportable.
Curious exactly what tools they expect an admin to use to prevent abuse, given that any tool uses some imperfect heuristic to discriminate.
Any chance this blows over? I like Brave so far.
Has anyone tried Vivaldi?
works fine
I did. It worked well enough, but I recall having some hangups with the interface. I don't even remember specifically what now, but my impression was that they were changing things just for the sake of being different.
firefox is controlled by regressive leftists.
Then use one of the many forks not operated by Mozilla. I'm partial to Waterfox. I know some people love Pale Moon
Unfortunately true, though the engine itself is still written by a bunch of very competent programmers, who manage to more or less keep up with Chrome despite having only half as many people.
Mozilla did just announce that they're firing 250 people because they were hit hard by the coronavirus (or maybe their support of BLM, but they probably wouldn't admit that even if they knew it to be true). With any luck most of the people they're laying off will be activists, but I'm not holding my breath.
If I were a betting man, my money would rather be on "for insufficiently vocal support for BLM". Mozilla is converged as fuck.
Mozilla is, but I don't think they get a lot of funding for being progressive. The activists they're trying to appeal to don't give a shit about privacy or a free and open web, and Mozilla will never be as progressive or valuable to them as Google is.
That's why I think their progressive posturing only hurts them, financially. A lot of the people who might be interested in donating to Mozilla out of a desire to oppose Google are turned away by their political leanings. But I doubt Mozilla will change - the actual programmers might not spend a lot of time on progressive activism, but the upper echelons and HR have been completely taken over.
Pale Moon maybe?