I understand firefox is free software and greatly customisable. I think forks like LibreWolf are fantastic. But I believe the FOSS community needs to be more critical of mozilla. They haven’t been the sharpest tool in the drawer for a while…
Full article: https://brave.com/compare/firefox-vs-brave/
so a competitor claims they’re better, color me shocked. /s
Just an ad. It even has mistakes, such as GPC support and auto-redirect to HTTPS.
The legend says “doesn’t exist or off by default”, and I believe gpc and auto https needs to be switched on manually. Same for anti fingerprinting. Still misleading.
I think it is not misleading as the vast majority of non-techy users never tinker with such settings, so what the developer has configured out-of-the-box is what matters.
Yeah I’ll be dead before I use a chromium based browser especially one that has built-in web3 shit.
That’s fair enough but most of the web3 stuff is opt-in so you don’t even have it on after first install.
Firefox having an empty check box on Blocks cross-site trackers is a lie.
Docs Enhanced Tracking Protection in Firefox for desktop
Ignoring isolation is misleading - in this marketing context a plain lie.
They could have made a differentiation between all-blocked vs some-blocked, but empty indicates none are blocked, which is a lie.
Nice try by Brave. But they only can fool their fanboys.
Brave sells ads, so they block the ads of their competitors by default.
Firefox is not an ad company to block the ads of other ad companies out-of-the-box.
We have ublock origin for that.Brave rewards are opt-in. You don’t have to use it
Until they decide its opt-out or remove the option to choose altogether.
a Chromium browser trying to throw shade …
Chromium is free software. Google’s control over it is the problem.
This is not a fair comparison.
Instead you should compare Chrome with FireFox.
And Brave (privacy focused Chrome fork)
with LibreWolf (privacy focused FireFox fork).I’ll stick with LibreWolf,
no way I’ll drive anything Chromium based as my main browser.Exactly, could easily land on similar conclusions comparing google chrome with brave
Libre Wolf for sensible defaults
I think those of us who care enough about privacy issues to even be aware that Brave exists are well aware that out of the box FFox is a starting point, not an end point. FFox vs Chrome is a valid basis for comparison in a way that this simply isn’t. Comparing Brave with LibreWolf or Mullvad is a more valid comparison.
Firefox markets itself as a privacy browser. Its their go to shtick. So the comparison is fair.
Right, but what I said was that those of us who care about privacy know is that FFox is a starting point, not an end point. FFox is a more private browser than Chrome. But Brave is a privacy hardened fork of Chrome, therefore a more valid comparison is between Brave and a privacy hardened fork of FFox.
Those who care for privacy aren’t the ones most harmed by Mozilla’s complacency. As good as LibreWolf is I wonder if it has even 1% of the users Firefox has.
I don’t disagree with you that Mozilla are not exactly on the ball, all I’m saying is that Brave comparing their privacy hardened fork of Chrome with a non privacy hardened mainline browser is, at best, disingenuous.
Yeah I understand. FF don’t call themselves a “mainline” normie browser though. They mislead people by marketing themselves as privacy and users interests first.
Sure, but even the most ‘normie’ of my friends have heard of FFox. I think it’s fair to say it’s pretty mainstream even if its not widely adopted. You’re right that they do claim to be privacy respecting and I think they are when compared to the immediate competition. It’s a matter of degree. Are they more private than Chrome? Yes. And that’s a step in the right direction whilst at the same time people like you and I know they could do a lot more.
It’s hard to take serious somebody whose entire Lemmy history is about supporting Brave (except maybe 3 posts?). Surely the name is even a reference to the icon.
Everyone looks good in their own comparison.
For those who know, they probably already have the right browser or extensions to have equivalent privacy. And for those who don’t, it’s easier to recommend a couple of extensions than a new browser.
For those who prefer Brave, it’s alright, but not something I would recommend.
Now that you said it the name is kinda fitting haha. But its actually not intentional. All of my posts are brave related, but its just because I like the software.
brave article finds only good things about brave and only bad things about Firefox
Color me surprised /s
In addition to all of the arguments brought up by the other commenters against Brave’s blatant lies in this ad, Firefox is deployed in school/corporate environments where compatibility is critical - especially for a web engine that isn’t popular, so they can’t be going around enabling stuff that would break websites on people’s computers in a critical setting, for example during a lesson at school and in front of students.
Mozilla is flawed, but Brave Software is at best just as bad. At least Mozilla isn’t going around spreading absolute lies about competitors.
Out of the box, Firefox is good enough for those who have “nothing to hide” normies. Just turn some visible button on/off and look at them go 🤷🏼.
But if you value your privacy, there are some hidden tweaks you have to apply that most lemmy users are aware off (about:config, resistsFingerPrint, webRTC, ipv6, whatever …)
If you want to go a step further, go through arkenfox’s well documented user.js or just install arkenfox or any of the Firefox/Chromium derivatives.
Then comes TOR and other hidden services like I2P, which are probably over kill for most lemmy users except if you’re Edward Snowden or if you really, really care for your privacy/anonimity.
In the end if your really want to go of the radar, the only real solution is to never touch any connected device, burner phone, burn your house, your wife (no don’t do that !!) and go live in the woods :) feel the real wireless connection with nature ! Damn if we only could value more that connection 😮💨
Mullvad browser is basically Tor browser without the Tor part.
I disagree. Even those who don’t care about privacy should have maximum privacy from their browser out of the box. People have a right not to be mistreated by nefarious actors.
Maximum privacy many times comes with compatibility issues and pages which don’t properly.
Brave is an ad company, so they are interested in blocking the ads of other ad companies, that’s their business and that’s why they do it.
Firefox is not a browser from an ad company, so what they offer out of the box is a browser with the less compatibility issues possible, and that’s not an easy task when they use their own engine.
The job to block ads etc is done by extensions in Firefox and since Firefox is not an ad company it makes sense for them.
They have ublock origin as a recommended featured extension.They are funded almost exclusively by the worlds biggest ad company
Correct, but so is linux itself as seen here, likewise, Microsoft also helps the development of the linux kernel as seen on this Linux Foundation webpage. Sometimes ad services sponsor non ad related projects.
In the case of firefox however, they are funded by google to have it be the default search engine, and not because Firefox itself sells ad spaces. So I dont quite get the point you are making
Brave is not funded by an ad company like Google.
Because they are an ad company themselves, no ad company is going to fund them, they are competitors.
Apart from that Brave is dependant to Google way more. More than 90% of their browser’s code is by Google developers. They don’t even have their own store lol and distribute extensions in Brave through Google’s chrome store!
That’s independence? Calling Google for something basic like installing extensions to your browser?
I prefer Mozilla’s and Vivaldi’s model. They both get money from their search deals (Mozilla with Google, Vivaldi with Microsoft) but they are not ad companies themselves.
Yes, I wouldn’t use a browser from an ad company, no matter the size of the company.
They wouldn’t go to snapchat, X, facebook, google, tiktok, whatever, in the first place if they really care about privacy.
OOTB Firefox is meant for those kind of people, who just care enough to not be bothered by “conspiracy theorist”.
Those who really care/value privacy/anonimity are in the 5% range globally (I don’t have real numbers to back of my claim, it’s just to empahsize the number here).
Give it a try by yourself, go out into the streets and talk to strangers how much they value privacy and what effort they put into to have their privacy. Talk to them about tiktok, youtube, instagram, X, see of far their believe in privacy would go.
Do you have a guide you can recommend for Lemmy users who are not that aware of the settings mentioned in the second paragraph but would like to be?
Not exactly a guide but there is this wonderful github repo.
Some advice to give it a try: Open firefox (desktop only) in the search box type
about:profilesand create a new profile to put theuser.jsin without affecting your main profile.This github repo is rather complex and there is alot to read and grasp, but it’s a very good starting point to harden your firefox.
You can also give a look at the arkenfox user.js.
Those are complex user.js but you can produce your own with the tweaks you need, in case you need video confercence or what else.
Thanks a lot! I’ll take a look and learn something new
Imagine believing something a corporation says about its open source competition.
Privacy browser and chromium (ie Google) is an oxymoron.
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/144289/privacy-with-chromiumIf you choose chromium, you are trusting google with your data. Brave remains nothing but a UI for API calls to google services.
It’s well know that FF defaults aren’t exactly the best for privacy.
