I've just tried brave search and it does seem to be a good product actually - my only concern with all these providers is what is the monetisation strategy will be (Brave has called out ads, but it's not in their product at the moment). Looking at Brave's monetisation strategy for their browser it seems pretty shady (effectively steal the revenue from site owners for referral links and replace the websites ads with their own ads). They haven't tried monetising search yet so - Brave if you are reading this - please please please choose a different monetisation strategy and use the opportunity to be different to Google!

I would love a company like DuckDuckGo or Brave to offer a paid tier where I can just subscribe to an ad-free search engine (I would love Google to offer a 'Google Premium' with this, but let's be real that's not happening!).

i.e. If you are competing with Google by releasing a free search engine with Ads, you have to provide better search results with Ads mixed in than Google which will be tough. If you found a monetisation strategy that didn't involve Ads, theoretically it should be easier to offer a better quality search result and better quality product than Google (because you are actually focussing on delivering the best quality results rather than the right mix of good-results and Ads to optimise revenue).

Why do you post false stuff like "replace the website ads with their own ads"? We never did that and would not unless website were partnered and getting 70% of the gross.

The affiliate link autocomplete for finance.{us, com} was a bug and fixed immediately.

Browsers other than Brave have a hard time surviving without being captured by a search or other big-tech power. We're the only user-first, private browser with opt-in revenue sharing.

I might be confused, but was the below article just false? If so you should probably ask them to put a correction on it.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-...

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3292619/the-brave-brow...

These seem pretty cut-and-dry, but if they are false they should definitely retract.

> We're the only user-first, private browser with opt-in revenue sharing.

I personally don't want revenue sharing - I just want the first browser that is user-first and private. The issue with me being advertised to isnt that I want a cut of the revenue, it's that I don't want to be advertised to. That's the whole point of my post - if you need revenue just charge me for it. Why can't we just have a search company that will just let me pay them money in a straightforward 1950's-style transaction.

All I'm saying is - Please don't try to beat Google Search at being Google Search with the same ads-in-search model - you have such a great opportunity, and clearly the experience, to do something different! I personally hope you choose a different path that allows you to have a better ad-free product. Maybe you will succeed going down the ad-route, but I personally want a different option to having my results stuffed with ads, rather than just a new (either better or worse) Google.

As soon as you do a paid version of search I'll be a subscriber, as long as there is a guarantee that it is privacy-preserving, will never have ads, is a sensible price and isn't linked to some weird crypto stuff.

Binance (spellcorrekt turned it into “finance”).

So would I. I'd gladly and voluntarily pay, say, $10/mo for a family subscription, paid with crypto. I'm not sure why they aren't offering that.

Yeah, I don't see what the downside is either.

For companies - It doesn't sound too hard to implement and seems like it would be a good source of revenue. Plus paying subscribers will be more 'loyal' in terms of moving their searches across.

For users - you get more of a guarantee that the companies statements about privacy and impartiality are true, because there is less incentive for them to break that.

Especially considering that crypto is already built into their browser.

The founder of Brave was canceled by the left for his religious opposition to calling gay unions "marriage". FWIW, I voted to call it that in my state, but I have no problem with someone holding a different opinion. That's sorta how democracy works. People get to have different opinions and then duke it out by voting. The authoritarian left can't have that, you must prostrate yourself before the one true dogma completely.

> The founder of Brave was canceled by the left for his religious opposition to calling gay unions “marriage”.

Insofar as he was opposed by “the Left”, it was for his political actions in opposition to equal rights. The religious basis of that action was probably important to Eich, but it was immaterial to the opposition.

> FWIW, I voted to call it that in my state, but I have no problem with someone holding a different opinion.

Good for you.

> That’s sorta how democracy works.

In a liberal (in the classical, Enlightment-derived sense, not either of the narrower senses it is used for factional positions within the US political system) democracy, you are absolutely permitted to have a problem with, and (peacably) take action based on such a problem, with unwelcome political actions, including actual or threatened refusal to participate in economic exchanges with the perpetrator.

This kind of thinking can go quite far if taken to its logical conclusion. The question therefore is, do _you_ want to live in a world where everyone is fighting everyone else over the most irrelevant of actions or even wrongthink? I know I don't.

I much prefer to be persuaded to vote for or against something than have to state my opinions under the barrel of a proverbial gun. After a free and fair election, I accept the results and move on, even if things do not go my way. Seems more civilized and less painful than all known alternatives.

> This kind of thinking can go quite far if taken to its logical conclusion

The logical conclusion of it being permitted is...that it will be done when the utility of the impact it is perceived as likely to have outweighs the perceived disutility of the protest action, including any beneficial exchange foregone. Which is, all in all, not very much, which matches pretty well with observed behavior.

> After a free and fair election, I accept the results and move on, even if things do not go my way

Well, when there is a free and fair election to strip you of fundamental liberties, and you lose, try to keep that attitude in mind.

Bet it looks like that if your "protest action" is confined to Twitter and TikTok. From where I sit, your "protest action" over the past year achieved NEGATIVE results. Murders and crime are UP. Segregation is UP. Racial strife is UP. I fail to see the "impact" other than several billions in damage, rising crime, and a senile octogenarian in the White House, who is the direct cause of incarceration of hundreds of thousands of African Americans due to his own misguided "legislation" from the 80s. Wonderful, wonderful "impact".

Any mention of Eich gets downvoted to hell, it's part of the "cancelling".

Parent is 100% correct.