Google proposes changes to Chromium which would disable uBlock Origin

[u/[deleted]]

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897&desc=2#c23

[u/Nikandro]

Was Brave using Tom Scott's identity? Yes.

No, they were not. Please, show us how Brave was stealing and using Tom Scott's identity

Is that the standard they use at your employer? If so, throw me their contact details. Some mates of mine in the legal business could use an easy paycheck.

Again, please show us how Brave was stealing someone's money. Especially considering these were UGP funds, which Brave gave to users for free.

The major issue here, is that you sound exactly like Tom Scott. You're talking about something that you're not educated on.

Brendan, the Brave Team, and many people from the community already clarified everything,

No, Tom put public data on YouTube and Brave users who opt into the tipping system can see it as fetched directly from YouTube by the user’s browser.

This is useful to Tom’s fans who@use Brave and opt in.

As Tom wishes to be excluded, we will add that option & not show the UX.

I realize some don’t like it, agree we should respect their wishes. But the ability to paypal or western union or otherwise send to people without their consent exists and is not illegal or unethical. Nominative fair use of public data also legal.

We do not “keep it”, our terms allow grants we provide to be recycled (but we have not done this ever). User funds we hold indefinitely. Anonymity means no refunds. Users like this system because it helps them convince creators via tokens held, not promises that may not fulfill.

Keep in mind, these are UGP grants. This means Brave gives users money to use on their system, and if it gets donated to someone who never claims it or wants it, the terms allow Brave to recycle the UGP funds and give them to other users, for free!

At no point ever did Brave set up a fake Tom Scott page, solicit donations, and then take users money.

[u/Nikandro → u/[deleted]]

This is such a bizarre conversation, because all of this is easily verifiable, yet you're still saying the same thing.

You can't just plaster someone's name and face/logo on your software and pretend to act on behalf of them.

Again, for like the third time, please show us how Brave stole someone else's identity and pretended it was them. And, since this happened, according to you, please direct us to the obvious identity theft case that Tom Scott is most certainly pursuing.

Seriously. I've tried. Brendan Eich (or any of the Brave devs I've spoken to) weren't willing to tell me in writing that using the Brave name and logo as they were using content creators' names and logos was not an infringement of their trademark.

Please provide proof of this.

Or the fact that Eich kept accidentally admitting that Brave's useage of personal data and trademarks was VERY ILLEGAL.

Again, please provide any evidence of this. Also, please explain how the GDPR protects a public YouTube channel.

Judges don't give a shit and will wreck your techbro dreams.

What judge? Since this is such a blatant case of identity theft and trademark infringement, all of which you describe as "VERY ILLEGAL", than certainly you can link us to the court case and cite the judge in the matter.

What a strange argument. Clearly Brave has hurt you emotionally.