Sigh.... Even Brave browser...
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
What you have cropped out is that this is pulling automatically from a Wikipedia page, which will happen anytime there is a Wikipedia page for the search you are doing. It isn't like Brave themselves are sitting there writing any of it. Funny how you cropped that part out though, right?
Indeed.
Still a problem that it defaults to Wikipedia. Also. The search function is ass, so there’s that.
Wikipedia regardless of its faults is still going to be one of the most if not the most revelant page for a wide majority of searches, be it people for birthdays, organization ownership, etc. Sure, there are very glaring issues with the content moderation on wikipedia, but that doesn't change the relevance of the data it does have in relation to what people search. Mind you this is a browser that openly advertises itself as producing similar results to Google. Until there is a viable alternative to Wikipedia that isn't so controlled it is tough to produce a better result than Wikipedia for a lot of search topics. Plus, what do you want them to do? Censor Wikipedia on their searches entirely? The whole reason people are switching search engines is because of censorship and privacy concerns, quite a slippery slope to start censoring sources we don't like, no?
Also, within the context of this post which I was replying to, this person has framed his post as if it was people from Brave themselves that went out of their way to label gateway pundit as fake news, when the reality of the situation is he very obviously cropped out the WIKIPEDIA logo right under it showing this was simply pulling a result from a Wikipedia page. Ironically enough, he kept in his screenshot the fact that Brave produced Gateway pundits actual website as the first result, didn't slap any extra labels on it or anything.
Wow dude... I was just sharing information. Take about 75% off there, big shoots
Put your big girl panties on and, grow some thicker skin, and cut the low effort, low quality content.
Hardly "just sharing information" when you crop something out that 100% changes the context of your post completely such that it is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I didn't even come at you in an angry way, and you are the one that so craftily cut out the fact its a Wikipedia result, right above it, indeed, the literal first result, is gateway pundits website, where surprise surprise, Brave didn't slap any fake news label or anything of the sort on the result!
I assume you didn’t intentionally leave it out to be cunning, it probably just worked out that way when you clipped the image. Normally people don’t try to deceive another , it usually happens accidentally. There are a number of people who do it on purpose, but that number in my guess is under 50%. Innocent until proven guilty people. Don’t assume the worst. Especially on an easy to prove screenshot. Twitter pics… especially saying breaking news… that’s an ulterior motive if they “happen to skip” the time stamp. You have to go out of your way to edit out the time stamps.
People routinely crop images on this site to present things in a way that manipulates context. Likewise there are a lot of people on this website that will not actually look into anything any further, so they will see this post and take it at face value, despite the fact it is hiding critical context. At absolute best this is an incredibly low effort post, which I find unlikely, since he clearly went out of his way to search for gateway pundit and trash on Brave. Infact, you can tell he went out of his way to crop the screenshot because A. Its clearly a mobile browser and B. you cant see the top section with the time and battery life of his phone, showing that at minimum he 100% cropped the photo. Context, being of utmost importance, makes it incredibly likely it was cropped on purpose with the intent to deceive. The reason for the deception could vary, I'd wager internet points is pretty high on the list, but it is deception none the less.