Privacy-centered browser Brave launching 'Brave Search' engine
Brave aims to provide users with an alternative to data-harvesting search engines with its upcoming tracker-free search engine, Brave Search.
Privacy continues to be at the forefront of nearly every discussion surrounding Big Tech, with more users growing concerned over what is being done with their data. After all, its hardly a secret that companies like Google and Facebook go through great lengths to cultivate extensive data profiles on their users.
Brave, a free, open-source browser available for MacOS, iOS, Windows, Android, and Linux, hopes to change that with its newest project, Brave Search.
Brave Search will be a privacy-centered search that will not harvest users' data when used. Instead of using collected data to show search results, Brave Search relies on anonymized community contributions.
The project isn't starting from scratch, either. Brave has purchased Tailcat, the team that was formerly responsible for the privacy search and browser at Cliqz. Tailcat will become the foundation of Brave Search.
The developers have worked to make Brave Search transparent, seamless, and open. Brave users will be given the option to participate in index building and alternative ranking models to ensure search diversity and prevent censorship.
Brave Search will utilize options for ad-free paid searches, as well as ad-supported free search. The ads will be part of Brave's privacy-preserving ad platform, Brave Ads.
The new search engine will work both within the Brave Browser and other browsers like Chrome and Safari via a web interface. The company also plans on adding open APIs for non-commercial projects, such as open-source operating system distributions
Additionally, those who use Brave Browser will still be able to use other search engines should they choose to.
Brave Search isn't available yet, but Brave allows people to sign up for early access on their website.
Privacy continues to be at the forefront of nearly every discussion surrounding Big Tech, with more users growing concerned over what is being done with their data. After all, its hardly a secret that companies like Google and Facebook go through great lengths to cultivate extensive data profiles on their users.
Brave, a free, open-source browser available for MacOS, iOS, Windows, Android, and Linux, hopes to change that with its newest project, Brave Search.
Brave Search will be a privacy-centered search that will not harvest users' data when used. Instead of using collected data to show search results, Brave Search relies on anonymized community contributions.
The project isn't starting from scratch, either. Brave has purchased Tailcat, the team that was formerly responsible for the privacy search and browser at Cliqz. Tailcat will become the foundation of Brave Search.
The developers have worked to make Brave Search transparent, seamless, and open. Brave users will be given the option to participate in index building and alternative ranking models to ensure search diversity and prevent censorship.
Brave Search will utilize options for ad-free paid searches, as well as ad-supported free search. The ads will be part of Brave's privacy-preserving ad platform, Brave Ads.
The new search engine will work both within the Brave Browser and other browsers like Chrome and Safari via a web interface. The company also plans on adding open APIs for non-commercial projects, such as open-source operating system distributions
Additionally, those who use Brave Browser will still be able to use other search engines should they choose to.
Brave Search isn't available yet, but Brave allows people to sign up for early access on their website.
Comments
A private browser and a private search engine for free? What’s the business model here?
Your attention is valuable. Earn by viewing privacy-respecting ads and pay it forward to support content creators you love.
With your old browser, you paid to browse the web by viewing ads with your valuable attention. You spent your valuable time downloading invasive ad technology that transmitted your precious private data to advertisers — without your consent.
Today, Brave welcomes you to the new Internet. One where your time is valued, your personal data is kept private, and you actually get rewarded for your attention.
If you don't accept "Brave Rewards" or click any of their "free tokens" then they don't make much money. Their hope seems to be pinned on people willing to be shown ads and stay all the way through the trailers.
https://brave.com/brave-rewards/#:~:text=Brave Ads are enabled by,time you view an ad.&text=You'll earn 70% of,accumulate tokens as you browse.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/220421/google-chrome-to-emulate-apples-safari-ad-tracking-privacy-ethos#latest
You understand the irony of someone like you saying gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry and have families, but also complaining about cultures being canceled, right? You’re literally advocating to cancel families of married gays because you’re grossed out by it. Flippin’ donut hole.
A lot of podcasts are starting to push towards the 'value for value' model. Advertisers who do the research will also realize that you get the most effective returns if you pick mediums where the audience is targeted by the nature of the content, or even better, with the right kind of advertising (ie. sponsorship or influencer).
Something I've been watching recently VERY closely is what Adam Curry and Dave Jones have been up to at https://podcastindex.org They are even building block-chain funding models into the spec. I've donated to podcasts I enjoy, and some percentage of people will do that, especially if it improves the content (it does!) and gets rid of the lame ads.
Why is it always ad-hominem and straw-man responses I see to this kind of stuff? One can hold such views for a LOT of different reasons, including a position that is completely secular, and focused on public policy, or religious, etc. It doesn't mean anyone is scared of anything, or grossed out, etc. It's also not contradictory, ironic, or hypocritical.
It's also kind of interesting how everyone is going back in history to seek out anything from the past to cancel with, yet it seems pretty one-sided (in terms of political leanings) to which it is applied.
Why is this the first thing you think to post?
The problem is more in the judging of good/bad and the methods/extent. It's one thing to say, I think FB is doing bad things so I won't use their service or support them, etc. It's quite another attack Zuck's family, or cut-off his funding down every avenue so he can't feed his family, or put pressure on every company to never hire him... like what is being done to many who are resisting The Official Narrative™ these days. (BTW, you'll also notice that they *have* to use those tactics, because they have no other way moving people to their position. They have no reasonable, consistent arguments. They won't debate. etc.)
You might have some ground to stand on here if you would recognize that one side of your “both sides” has been taken over by people who want to cancel democracy and who lie constantly to achieve that end. They aren’t conservatives and they have long since abandoned the core, founding values of the Republican Party. We are sitting on a knife’s edge, and you seem to think this is a dinner party.
Brendan Eich thinks his views on social issues are special because he’s a technological genius, but they’re really, really not, and he is no more qualified to make pronouncements on mask-wearing and COVID-19 than Dr. Fauci is to criticize JavaScript.
If you believe the mainstream-media narrative and lies, of course. It's kind of funny that both sides are accusing the other of the same thing. And, in some sense, they are both correct, just in different ways and to different extents. The difference, from my observation, is that on one side, it is a small extremist 'wing' of the movement for which the whole thing is being labeled, while the other side, it seems to be fairly widespread standard practice.
Well, then it seems neither is Fauci. I suppose he knows a bit more about mask wearing than JavaScript, but I wouldn't trust him on either. And, while Eich is certainly no expert in epidemiology (nor am I), you've got a better chance of us being right when we're doing actual research and explaining what we find to the best of our ability, than outright lying.