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.
Libre Wolf for sensible defaults
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.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.
brave article finds only good things about brave and only bad things about Firefox
Color me surprised /s
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.
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 😮💨
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.
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.
It’s well know that FF defaults aren’t exactly the best for privacy.
When you look for comparisons between products, look for one that is done by a non-biased neutral organization, third party at minimum. Not from the company making the product hence have an incentive to paint them better than its competitor.
You can make a stronger point if you go and verify each claim in the comparsion chart and proving Brave is actually better than Firefox. Instead of just linking a comparison blog from Brave. Don’t trust, verify.
And a matter of fact, privacy is only a part of what a browser should have. Not a complete feature set. I can make an extra private browser that only accepts my custom protocol and only with my websites but that would be not useful as a general browser one wants to daily drive, which is what Firefox aiming to do.
Buy an adspace
Imagine trusting a sharepic made by the company itself.
For real though - its a chromium, those are there as long as google let’s them (still provides the source code for the newest version). There are obvious concerns regarding manifest v3 and the possibility (being discussed/implemented right now) to remove of adblockers, tracking blockers etc. In the matter of one update - the company deciding to roll out the update being the same making most money from advertising with google AdSense.
Also they build a monopoly and will slowly transform it I to a cash cow once all competition is whipped (same what is happening with YouTube at the moment).
Don’t use chrome or chrome clones boys.
As a wise german saying goes: Egal ob die tütensuppe von Maggi oder die tütensuppe von Knorr, am Ende is eh alles nestle
