Microsoft's new Edge browser is 10% faster, says UL benchmarks

[WYP]

Chromium Edge is here to make browsing faster.



Read more about Microsoft's new Edge browser and its performance benefits.

 

[NeverBackDown]

It's probably due to less features and less amount of spyware...

personally using Brave. Just as fast but way more secure.

 

[grec]

Brave is nippy, but hijacking other webpages adverts so they can inject their own on top and "pirate" the ad revenue from the actual content creators is kinda messed up imo, not sustainable long term for a healthy internet and harms those that put the work in.

As far as I know they've still also not addressed the security concerns of their hard-coded whitelisting system(Over a year since the widespread discovery of its flaws), so you an make an easy argument Firefox is still more secure if that's your priority, it would be pretty easy to fingerprint someone who used Brave.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Not pirating anything. Looks like you're just going on about whatever again without actually reading it. brave pays adverts to both users and companies. As long as companies sign up with brave they can get paid.

 

[WYP]

Not pirating anything. Looks like you're just going on about whatever again without actually reading it. brave pays adverts to both users and companies. As long as companies sign up with brave they can get paid.

That sounds a lot like extortion. And most companies will not be aware of Brave as a browser, or its revenue sharing. It also adds extra complexities for everyone involved.

TBH, this sounds like a method of saving face for Brave than anything else. In cases like YouTube, I'd doubt that creators could apply for revenue individually. It also forces websites to legitimise them to get money that's rightfully theirs.

I know nothing about this browser, but I doubt that it is easy to get revenue back from them, or get as much back as a website's native ads.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Disliking the old edge options and lack of control this jew one doesn't look like much better to me but maybe I'm biased. I'll stick with Firefox.

 

[NeverBackDown]

That sounds a lot like extortion. And most companies will not be aware of Brave as a browser, or its revenue sharing. It also adds extra complexities for everyone involved.

TBH, this sounds like a method of saving face for Brave than anything else. In cases like YouTube, I'd doubt that creators could apply for revenue individually. It also forces websites to legitimise them to get money that's rightfully theirs.

I know nothing about this browser, but I doubt that it is easy to get revenue back from them, or get as much back as a website's native ads.

It's not extortion. You don't earn money to pay for things you just earn money to give back to creators. It's not like I rack up $100 a day and pocket that money.

But I won't argue. If you haven't done the research on it then there's no point arguing over "extortion" on an open source browser that anybody can look into to find pure extortionism.

 

[grec]

Come on, there's a reason why almost every major newspaper and publishing group in the US has called this stuff out and threatened legal action, it's a complete overthrow of their income source.

I meant pirating in the hijacking sense rather than a software sense, blocking publishers ads so they can put their own on top instead is definitely a hijack. Offering a backdoor so they can claw back some of their lost revenue in cryptocoins doesn't really make up for it imo, especially given it's known by so few, doesn't guarantee the same returns, and if it's a site with a large publication or part of a media group is completely unusable for legal reasons anyway. Use of Brave and the registration of new content creators with their system has started to taper off so it's likely to stay like that too.

Being open source doesn't alleviate these concerns one bit, since the complaint is about what they themselves are saying they do, this is just a small evolution on Adblock Plus' equally controversial income method, what they're essentially saying to content creators is "Work with us or you get nothing". Even then, their advert system isn't anywhere near a complete replacement for existing services from Google and the like from a creators perspective.

 

[WYP]

It's not extortion. You don't earn money to pay for things you just earn money to give back to creators. It's not like I rack up $100 a day and pocket that money.

But I won't argue. If you haven't done the research on it then there's no point arguing over "extortion" on an open source browser that anybody can look into to find pure extortionism.

All I'm saying is that if someone prevents someone else from earning money and then says something to the effect of "legitimise us (by applying for some revenue share) and we'll give you some of the money back, or you'll get nothing", that sounds a lot like extortion to me.

I'll try to look into this Brave Browser over the weekend, they could have a good model. That said, plenty of smaller sites and creators won't know about them, and therefore just lose money because of the browser. Being open source doesn't change that.

Taking away a site's ad revenue, in my honest opinion, is a form of stealing. That's the way it works in my mind. I'm not going to tell anyone not to ad-block, I believe that it's up to yourself to decide what you think is right or wrong, but I'm not going to use any ad-blockers myself.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue. Whether or not ad-blockers are immoral is not what's being debated here. Even then, morals tend to change on a person by person basis to some degree (like how many a vegetarians for moral reasons etc).

 

[NeverBackDown]

I don't think you understand the web at all dude.

Yahoo a year a year or two ago was hacked and lost 750+ million email accounts and that data. Everybody said it was the largest data breach in history. Wrong.

Google SELLS more than that in 1 day. It's the biggest data breach in history and is still ongoing. They have been under investigation since 2018. Google has a highest bidder algorithm that sells data. Google owns virtually every aspect of the Web. Google Analytics is present in 85% of all websites. Tracking your every millisecond. Where you are, where you are in the web, how long you are on a page, what you are SAYING, etc. It's endless. That is what is involved in ads. It's a data breach and a breach in privacy. Just using the web you are earning Google money. Whether they get activated or blocked you still earn both parties money. Preventing them from tracking you is important and not extortion. The web has been built to systematically serve 1 company and they know almost everything about billions of people. I've studied web development for a year now preparing for a JR developer role and knowing what I know about how sophisticated the web is for Google, it's preventing extortion. NOT making extortion. You reward creators for not selling you out. It's a tip to say thanks for caring and not selling my data to the highest bidder. That's the point of brave.

Just as further tip note. The W3C, people who are in charge of the web, don't approve of many things Google does, they try to make everything privacy focused like Brave and FF. Google is just so big they don't care. Google hardly has any physical products yet is one the richest companies in the world. Because Data. You think ad blocking/preventing tracking hurts them much? Nope. They make money off the tracking the website does anyway. They can lose more money by simply switching a checkout buttons color to a less appealing blue. And yes I personally know someone's wife who did this experiment.

 

[WYP]

I don't think you understand the web at all dude.

Yahoo a year a year or two ago was hacked and lost 750+ million email accounts and that data. Everybody said it was the largest data breach in history. Wrong.

Google SELLS more than that in 1 day. It's the biggest data breach in history and is still ongoing. They have been under investigation since 2018. Google has a highest bidder algorithm that sells data. Google owns virtually every aspect of the Web. Google Analytics is present in 85% of all websites. Tracking your every millisecond. Where you are, where you are in the web, how long you are on a page, etc. It's endless. That is what is involved in ads. It's a data breach and a breach in privacy. Just using the web you are earning Google money. Whether they get activated or blocked you still earn both parties money. Preventing them from tracking you is important and not extortion. The web has been built to systematically serve 1 company and they know almost everything about billions of people. I've studied web development for a year now preparing for a JR developer role and knowing what I know about how sophisticated the web is for Google, it's preventing extortion. NOT making extortion. You reward creators for not selling you out. It's a tip to say thanks for caring and not selling my data to the highest bidder.

Just as further tip note. The W3C, people who are in charge of the web, don't approve of many things Google does, they try to make everything privacy focused like Brave and FF. Google is just so big they don't care. Google hardly has any physical products yet is one the richest companies in the world. You think ad blocking hurts them much? Nope.

I understand the point that you are trying to make. Brave seems to have a good model and Google's control over the internet is concerning, but there are several ways to look at this.

You're looking at the internet giant Google, I'm looking at the small guy, the person that ad blockers actually hurt.

As I said above, you do whatever your morals will let you. If that means using Brave to challenge Google's data collection, then do that. I'm just saying that I wouldn't feel good taking away revenue from sites by circumventing their chosen revenue stream.

You do raise a good points with regards to alternative revenue streams. Albeit unintentionally. This may be something that I'll need to discuss with Tom.

I'm not here to argue, or to claim I understand the web, I'm just sharing my personal convictions on ad-blocking.

The creators are Brave aren't con artists, but they are circumventing the chosen revenue sources of websites without giving guarantees of revenue. Yes, there is the opportunity to generate income, but it relies on a cryptocurrency model and adds a lot of complexity to proceedings.

Anyway, this is not a productive conversation. We are both talking about different matters and this thread is supposed to be about Edge. I do not plan to post further on this.

 

[NeverBackDown]

We are talking about the same thing. Topic of extortion. I'm only explaining why it's not. 0 to do with morals dude. It's literally about how people using the internet can protect themselves without hurting anybody else, unless you use 3rd party trackers. Not ignoring the little guy at all. I actively use smaller companies over large if possible.

This still relates to Edge. It's owned by MS. Though being open source it's not as bad as others.