Because open source doesn’t mean people actually check it.
That's the biggest assumption made about open source. Open source folks scream from the roof tops of how more secure it is, because it's being "verified" by others. While not wrong, it just the assumption that every single open source project is vetted continuously, which unfortunately is not true. So really while open source is great and all, unless it's a massive project like Ubuntu or something, there's probably a good chance that it's not constantly being looked it, if at all.
Guys, why such a drama? It is only affiliate link which is harmless and your security and privacy weren't compromised.
You expect company like Brave to deliver such high quality product and don't pay their employees?
Agreed personal data was not compromised in any way, it was just they weren't very upfront about it.
As to paying employees, this is really this biggest issue IMO with free software. People want free, I get it, I do too, but there's always the expectation that you have to give it away for free, but you cannot do x, y, z. Sure there are donations, but lets cut the BS, donations don't work, not constantly anyways. Donations are not a steady source of income, so I can see why programmers want to close source there stuff and charge for it. It's one of the reason why developers are hesitant to develop for Linux. Marketshare aside, many Linux and FOSS users have this expectation that everything has to be open source and free. Sure they have donations, but like I said above it doesn't work. Personally I think this whole open source and free business needs to be re-thought out if they want it to succeed. Let them charge for it, don't cry and fork the project because the developer is asking you to pay $10.00.
The privacy movement has made everybody a paranoid these days.
Stay private, not paranoid.
I think the key to privacy these days is to just watch what you make available online these days. Always assume that someone will harvest said data, never assume it's safe.
You are absolutely right - they should add it into EULA and there will be no issue, but they didn't and that was their biggest mistake.
Agreed. I think they should also have a big pop-up during the install, because lets face it how many people actually read the EULA.
Waiting for someone to expose DuckDuckGo too. I believe company nowadays use the term "privacy friendly" as a marketing term to hook users into their service/product like how VPN providers use "NO LOGS" marketing term, but getting caught that some of VPN providers don't uphold NO LOGS at all.
It's sad, but true, "privacy" has really become the new marketing gimmick if you will. I mean Look at Google vs Apple with their phones, Apple is constantly promoting how more privacy focused they are compared to Android, yet they too collect data....
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/2243573/firefoxlogo_stock.jpg)
www.theverge.com
github.com
chromium.woolyss.com
