Firefox over everything. use Vivaldi if you insists on rendering blink
I donât understand when and why Brave became such a household name. It seems so many people use it and swear by it, but its reputation is âsuspiciousâ at best.
Just use Firefox. Itâs been around way, way longer and it doesnât use the Chromium engine. Google doesnât need more of a monopoly on the internet.
I think if Firefox can find a way to have full parity with chrome extensions, that might be a big shift. Iâve talked to more than one person that has a specific extension they rely on that they canât duplicate with Firefox options. They have many of the big names, but also some holes
Genuinely curious. What extensions are stopping people from moving to Firefox?
Not OP, (and Firefox is still my main), but I keep Chromium-based browsers around for Ichigo, an addon which automatically translates raw manga - which is a godsend for avid manga readers like myself who frequently run out of existing translated manga to read. Thereâs also Scan Translator which works in a similar way, but sadly Firefox has nothing like them.
I use it as my YouTube/spotify browser because the ad block just works. Firefox is janky because I have other extensions running that screw up playback on some sites (this has gotten a lot better but I still just use brave out of habit)
The only real problem I ever had with Firefox was this privacy option that would disable auto playback on sites like Twitch and TikTok but that was a setting I wasnât even aware of. Other than that, I rarely ever have an issue with FF outside of web dev when it doesnât yet support some cutting-edge web API feature.
Yea, it was something with various extensions I had going. Iâm not blaming Firefox at all. I love Firefox. Just easier to use the other browser on the occasions when my configuration causes issues than try to troubleshoot it.
But whatâs wrong with non Chrome Chromium based browsers?
(Just give me downvotes, I donât care if my question is stupid)
Itâs not a stupid question, some people just donât know.
Mainly itâs because:
- Chromium holds too much market share which is bad for the health of the Web.
- Chromium is controlled by Google which is concerning because they have been known to plant trackers even in software that shouldnât have them.
- Chromium is inherently less secure, it contains features that might seem nice but are extremely risk to give access to websites i.e. letting websites access Bluetooth.
There are probably plenty more reasons but these are the big ones, and of coarse this is a simplification, in reality things are always a bit more complicated.
Well Chrome(ium) has almost all of the browser market share and google is trying to push something called web environment integrity which would implement a sort of certification system where web servers evaluate the authenticity of the client. If you extrapolate that idea a bit further it boils down to âwe wonât serve you content if we donât like your browser, device, OS, etcâ. Which I would consider as hostile to the open but rapidly closing internet as we know it.
Edit: I forgot to make my point lol. Firefox is a completely different browser engine from the chromium based browsers which is why you see a lot of people recommending firefox because they donât comply with web integrity. I donât think itâs working though because this is something only the techbros and the cybersisters care about while everyone else just goes about their day.
Chromium is still controlled by Google, so having an overwhelming market share of Chromium-based browsers reduces competition and increases Googleâs control of the marketâs position and future. Using Firefox (and Safari, if it were not locked to a single ecosystem) reduces that threat.
When we say âcontrolledâ, thatâs still only accounting for the primary fork, right?
As long as itâs open source, it feels like the idea is that the day Google pushes âfeat(): Users now automatically have $1 sent to Google a dayâ commit, someone creates a âchromium-nongooglefuckedâ fork repository from the prior commit, and everyone uses that.
Itâs also enabled by default.
Edit: Apparently itâs not enabled by default. I tried brave some time ago and remembered that it was enabled, which promoted me to uninstall it immediately. Maybe it was enabled by default then, maybe I misremembered.
Having a VPN basically just means sending your traffic (albeit encrypted) to someone elseâs server, before sending it to the wider internet.
That means if you donât specifically disable it, everything you do in the brave browser could theoretically be logged, processed and analyzed by the owners of brave.
Even if the traffic itself is still encrypted, like with online banking, just knowing how many people in a certain city use which bank for example, could be very interesting to advertisers.
Depending on how evil they are, they could also log extensive amounts of user data, just waiting for the day it becomes legal to sift through it (just like a lot of governments do).
Or maybe they just log and sell your data even though itâs illegal. Like a lot of companies do all the time (see Cambridge Analytical scandal etc.).
Or maybe they donât. But if I was a browser company Iâd sure enjoy having all my users route all their traffic through servers I control.
the toggle shows up by default, but without a paid subscription the vpn is unusable. even then you need to enable it. you can disable it completely in brave://flags and set âenable experimental brave VPNâ to disabled. itâs shitty that they include it by default, but itâs disingenuous to say theyâre rerouting traffic of all brave users through their own vpn servers.
The Brave team are basically a bunch of dodgy wankers at this point.
Not surprised. Brave is dodgy af.
Use Vivaldi or Firefox if you care about privacy
I tried ff yesterday⊠it slowed my laptop like crazy. It was a clean install, not sure what was rhe issue, it was eunnin from an ssd
I have issues with FireFox running YouTube on windows 10 - it gets super laggy - the issue is nonexistent if I used the Piped frontend. I think it depends a lot on what website you are using - some donât play well with FireFox.
That being said, I did not have issues with FireFox on Mac when I used that, or on Linux, though I donât use my Linux laptop a lot for web heavy stuff
Itâs believed to be that Google will serve different websites to non-Chrome (maybe non-Chromium) browsers, or they specifically use features that only they implement to ensure that it performs worse on other browsers. And I donât mean they add a new feature and itâs only them, but that . Honestly, fuck Google.
Maybe I need to change to Linux, this one is Windows 10 and I am tired of getting errors because of things that Windows change. Last week I had the search bar activated with thr last update. Thanks for the tip
Bro said Firefox đ Firefoxâ been Google bitch for a good while now, itâs either Librewolf or Mullvad now
Google is paying Mozilla to keep their search engine the default in Firefox. Period. There is no Google spyware (or any spyware in general) in Firefox. Just because Google is the default search engine in Firefox doesnât mean Firefox is Google-controlled spyware.
Also Librewolfâs privacy is in some ways selfish on their part. It strips out Firefoxâs troubleshooting data collection so Mozilla loses a good chunk of clues on how well the browser works. Lack of any data would lead to lower browser quality, ends up as a worse Firefox release, and Librewolf gets to be affected directly as a downstream of Firefox. By removing troubleshooting or usage data (which practically doesnât affect privacy in any way), Librewolf is just hurting itself in the long run. If theyâre really aggressive against directly contributing data back to Mozilla, then they should just run their own collection server and contribute the final data back to Mozilla.
