It was unintended. >The ideal situation would be to move these services to be installed when VPN is first USED (post purchase) and not at install time.

it's an issue opened by brave's vp noting that the current behaviour should be corrected

That doesn't mean it was an accident, it could just mean that they realized it's a problem. Especially as this issue was opened after this HN submission got posted.

They realized they were gonna get bad looks for it so they covered that shiz up as if it were a mistake. Marketing damage control.

Issue opened 3 hours ago, thread posted 2 hours ago. I look at Brave with skepticism as one should with a company that flirts with crypto, but in giving them a fair shake, it's important to keep the facts straight. That said, in keeping the facts straight, an issue opened a week ago citing this as a problem was closed in favor of the one opened by the Brave VP.

> That said, in keeping the facts straight, an issue opened a week ago citing this as a problem was closed in favor of the one opened by the Brave VP.

That seems somewhat shady, unless there was a credible explanation?

It’s a publicly viewable GitHub issue that people can still navigate to or comment on, it’s not like it was scrubbed. It’s surely a PR move to show they’re on top of it but not anything to read into in my opinion.

'Show they're on top of it' by closing their own employee's report from a week ago without explanation?

If anything, by leaving it open that would have advertised how attentive their employees are.