• lieuwex@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The affiliate link hijacking was not opt-in. How could anything remotely like this be accepted in a privacy focused browser?

    When Firefox had the mr robot extension incident everybody was (righfuly so) mad, but that was way less damaging than altering users’ intent.

    • braveone@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can someone explain how Brave siphoning some money from Amazon specifically impacts privacy? Does the affiliate get a list of accounts that bought something? Names? Addresses? Or does some money just show up in their account?

      What information does Amazon get? That the person clicking is using Brave? They already know that from the user agent.

        • braveone@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure but that sounds like liberty and autonomy, not privacy.

          I asked specifically how it infringes on privacy. Seems like the wrong word to use.

      • Ilgaz@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some OSS developers, independent review/news sites get affiliate money to stay afloat. Amazon requires them to state this clearly. Brave didn’t declare it and probably stole (replace) innocent referrals. This is level 100 spyware/malware tactic.