The original dev handed over development to a team and left, new cunts removed his name from project and made donation links, original dev came back and made ublock origin which is now the best adblock out there.
I learned about this years ago and the details are a bit hazy, but you may find this warning by the developers of uBlock Origin to be relevant.
There's also a "uBlock" extension available on Chrome that lists ublock.org as its website. From what I remember, AdBlock Plus and/or uBlock engaged in advertisement middlemanning. Essentially, they would let ads through to the end user as long as the advertisers gave them a cut and the ads weren't deemed "intrusive." I know ABP did this when I switched away, I'm not sure about uBlock.
uBlock Origin is a general content blocker, which puts it ahead of ad blockers anyway. You can configure it to block things like cookie popups too.
Can confirm. Started using it yesterday after another comment. It's pretty much plain FF, so works well right out of the gate. I enabled some features in the setting like Firefox sync and allow DRM media, but I'm really liking it.
I've found that it might not work on banking sites because of the fingerprinting protection. Be warned, if you try to use on banking sites, you may be locked out. I suggest you do all banking and stuff on a separate browser that saves cookies and tracks you.
I don't use banking websites, I just use the app so can't confirm. I would imagine it'll be down to the default cookie blocking which you can edit in the settings though if it causes issues for you
My bad, bought out was the wrong way to word it- I should have said "Made partnerships with-" then listed Google and Yahoo(defunct), China and Russia.
If you watch this video discussing how privacy respect firefox is by default- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr8UFJzpNls you'll see the telemetry they collect is miles long and Firefox is no better at protecting your privacy than Chrome/Chromium is whatsoever.
Definitely recommend Librewolf or Mullvad, which are actual privacy respecting browsers, even Chromium forks like Brave are better than default firefox.
Stumbled over that last week. There is a company where I buy nearly all my computer stuff from, and I'm a customer for more than 20 years.
I wanted to order parts for a high-end PC, but simply could not add the motherboard to the shopping cart. Everything else was already in there. I called them, and they asked me if I used Firefox. And they told me in no uncertain terms that Firefox was dead and would no longer be supported for "safety and security reasons", I should use Chrome or Edge instead.
If their site is too stupid to cope with Firefox, why the heck does it not tell me about this upfront, e.g. when I try to enter an item into the shopping cart?
I've had a few websites tell me to view their website in Chrome. I just leave, because no way am I putting any kind of personal data into a website run by such incompetent people.
I used to be a web developer. Back 8 years ago, you used to have to do a lot of special tricks to make your website look and function the same in all the browsers. Now, you really don't. Unless you're using some really obscure closed source codec or something, websites literally render and function properly without needing any browser specific code fixes.
There's no excuse, unless you're blocking older versions of every browser for security reasons, which is fine, because browsers update automatically these days, and it's very rare for someone to be running a really old version.
Usually the thing about the webpage not working is just codeword for "we have not tested it and we won't". If you really need to access it, there are some extensions that can change your user agent so the page thinks you are in chromium.
This is not fully true. Recently I had problems with keyboard press event propagation working differently on button elements and CSS scroll snapping behaving differently when new items are appended in the scroll container. Both are not really obscure.
While you are basically right with that, just imagine the computer shop where all the IT professionals go to get their stuff. I'm a customer there for more than 20 years because they are good. If there was any good alternative, I might be tempted to change, but so far I have not heard of such a thing.
LOL I work in IT for a rather large company and we are supposed to use FF because it's actually more secure and is more reliable than chromium browsers.
What's the source for that claim? To my understanding, Firefox first got sandboxed processes for sites in 2021, and only recently this year got features to sandbox the GPU processes as well - playing catch-up by many years to Chrome, and exposing attack vectors for sites to gain access to OS-level API's to meanwhile. And to my understanding, neither are enabled by default on Firefox for Android, because of ongoing compatibility issues for years https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1610822
My take is that Firefox or its' derivatives are better for privacy, while Chromium is better for security, due to the vastly greater development resources.
Privacy is like the least important reason I use Firefox. With Microsoft Edge and Opera being based on Chromium now there are just so many of them. With Chromium essentially becoming the de facto standard because everyone uses it that means Google can ignore web standards and just do whatever they want.
It's easier to inherit because it's less dev time spent on a part of the browser that has less evident results for the consumer. I bet they'd rather spend money on the UX provided by UI changes rather than reworking the JavaScript engine, or anything related HTML or CSS rendering.
Everything else I said, sorry if that wasn't clear!
Essentially there are organizations like W3C and IEEE that define standards for how the internet works and how websites behave. All browsers follow these so everything works properly. Let's say you have some idea you want to add to your browser you develop. You do it and tell everyone about it. You don't have many users. Maybe a few sites do it but it isn't really a problem that it doesn't work on other browsers because so few people do it.
Chromium has a massive market share because so many browsers use it as their base. Even Opera and Microsoft Edge which historically have been alternatives to Google Chrome now use Chromium as their base. The danger is that Chromium has such a large user base that they are essentially what the standard is.
As a quick aside, Chromium is the name for the open source base of Google Chrome. Chrome itself is technically not open source. This jus thust in case you or other readers haven't seen that word.
Imagine a world where everyone uses Chromium. Why would you (if you were in charge of Chromium) need to listen to what standards organizations say about how the web should work? You're literally in charge of every browser! You can just add some new features or take some out and every website would have to comply because you (in this hypothetical) truly do control every single web browser on the planet. Their websites would not work otherwise.
Sure, out of the goodness of your heart you might behave and be a good steward but there will always be reasons for you to act against the standards that you don't view as "bad" that other people might think are bad. I'm not saying all standards organizations are perfect and good or anything like that, but I believe I trust them more than Google.
Even if Google never does anything "bad" (naive thinking lol) avoiding the situation where they have that kind of power is a good thing.
To me that's the most important reason to use a non-Chromium based browser. To avoid Chromium becoming the one true browser.
And just for some context, Google has done bad things before with regards to web standards and then having the de facto standard with Chrome. The recent changes to the extension API to neuter ad blocking being a prime example. And we don't even have to speculate and sound like nutjobs. They're a public company. They've said before that ad-blocking is one of the biggest threats to their ad revenue. Not that it feels tin foil hatty to suggest even if they hadn't said it, but they actually have said it in reports.
Unfortunately, no, they don't. As Chromium gets more and more wide spread, Google is gaining the power to change the browser standards. Websites will have to comply. If your website suddenly "Breaks" because Google won't allow Chromium load any pages without tracking tags, users will complain to you and not google.
Yeah tech illiteracy is a thing thats true. Once they realize that its their browser that breaks their shit they will just pick a different one. Thats what i mean with google owning all the websites.
You know what happens if a customer complains your website doesn't work in Chrome? A bug ticket is raised, goes to a developer and they fix the "bug" so it works again.
If the developer is good they'd also make sure their "fix" doesn't break the website for Firefox and Safari. But there are plenty of developers who only test Chrome and call it a day.
Chrome is the default browser nowadays, if it doesn't work in Chrome you have a problem. The developer might blame Google, but the user and management won't care.
websites not supporting firefox is the site's fault, not the browser's. firefox is not some niche browser. almost every website i have used is fine on firefox, and when it rarely doesnt work (usually bc i have a configured librewolf), i just open brave or whatever.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I've been a Firefox user for years- at work and home. I have yet to find a website that misbehaves or under-performs.
Mayyybe a few sites here and there a fractions of a second slower or have slightly less acceleration or something that I'm just not noticing?
Without Firefox and its ??forks?? like LibreWolf, the internet would be a total Chromium monopoly at this point, wouldn't it? That would be bad..
Nah, they have a big concern on that matter. Not collecting or selling your data is one of their main selling points lol.
Also, while not completely open source, the main changes they do to the chromium base is open for everyone
There's really nothing wrong with it. The only thing that Firefox enthusiasts are concerned about is that you contribute to the Chromium monopoly by using Ungoogled Chromium.
For daily usage, and as long as you use uBlock Origin, Firefox has been perfect for me for the past 10 years. I don't understand those who complain about it.
Vivaldi uses about half the RAM of FF when I have equivalent tabs open and running/idling.
Of course I have to have an ad blocker installed on FF whereas Vivaldi just does it natively, so that might be causing the difference in memory.
Here come all the anti chromium bois with "tHeReS nO wAy vivALdi bLoCkS aDs aS gOoD as u BlOcK oRiGin!''
To that I say... Have you ever fucking tried it? Lol I've tried both side by side, don't argue unless you've actually done so as well. V's ad blocking didn't break when Manifest V3 dropped and until it stops being as good or better than UBO I'm just gonna keep using it. When that day happens, well like I said I've already got FF up and running anyways.
If by "in a coat of paint" you actually mean "has built in tracker and ad blocking that works as good as UBO, was designed from the ground up by the guy who made OG Opera for the intended use case of being a privacy focused browser. Contains a lot of the same features as Opera like fully a customizable side panel, three different styles of tab stacking, workspaces, and a built in theme editor, with features like note taking baked in." Then sure, it's "just chrome with a paint job."
Does the 34 and 20 represent the number of tabs? If so, this is not a fair comparison, what with FF having 50% more open. But even if that number doesn't represent tabs, I am sure there can be websites that would put them much closer in performance.
Right now I have Chrome on my work machine. It has a 14 (again, not sure if those are active tabs or not) and it is eating 1.17 GB on my work machine. On my home FF (24) is eating 1.60 GB of RAM. FF is clearly using more RAM in each case, but it isn't slowing my desktop down any more than Chrome is on my work machine. I'd like for it to improve, but rather use something other than Google's tools on every single machine I use, I guess.
The number in parentheses is the number of processes that the application is performing. Win's task manager groups these under the parent app so you don't have to scroll through every "sub" in order to end a task. if you hit the ">" to the left of the app it will give you the expanded view and you will see the list.
Yes, more or less. I think some other extensions can take up processes too.
I actually have enough RAM and I'm glad that the RAM is being used to load all the stuff instead of the pagefile. It's my fault that I'm not closing stuff, not the browser's for not guessing what I'm going to re-load.
If you ask people, I think they'll just say that their main browser is like that. And that'll apply to all of them, so it's a user problem.
I remember these talks from a very long time ago. Very long time, when Opera had its own engine and before. I think the gaps have shrunk a lot, especially now that Internet Exploder is gone.
I've been maining Firefox for over a year now and this has been the case for me as well - it's such a resource hog. Which is fine, I've dealt with it, but I wish it didn't use so much battery life.
For some reason, upload speeds to YouTube are atrocious. And if you read through the ticket about this issue, it's not Google slowing it down artificially, but an actual Firefox issue. I have to resort to using Vivaldi as my dedicated upload browser.
That, and they have a weird drive to make their UI shittier and shittier. Introducing tons of whitespace, turning tabs into buttons, removing compact layout...
I have 15 extensions running on my 8GB work laptop and there is little to no difference from my 16GB PC battle station at home. And I have like 4 more apps run alongside 10 tabs of FF at work, way more than what I would ever open at home
Yeah, I’m also a web developer and this person is completely up their own ass. We’ve all struggled with browsers that lag behind standards (internet explorer) or implement them in weird ways (safari). But Mozilla has never even come close to being a problem like the others.
Also I doubt they are using the newest of new web standards that would actually need to be poly filled and even then with modern JS build tooling poly filling isn’t difficult or abnormal. Oh, the bundle for your crappy SPA might be a few kb bigger but that isn’t gonna make a difference.
God, I wish there was less monopolies in the world, I hate when there is no alternative other than a product developed and maintained by evil corporation that profits off of selling my data.
Anyway, the only browser that everyone should use is Chrome, if you don't use Chrome you're dead to me.
I use firefox for obvious privacy reasons but also because I can customize the UI. Chromium's interface is oversized, ugly, and locked down while on firefox I can change any aspect of it using my own CSS.
There is no privacy on chromium, it phones home to Google a lot and those communications are encrypted so you will never really know what data is being sent but assume Google can link everything you do in Chromium to you.
Users who think they are "ungoogling chromium" are fooling themselves.
All the commercial browser reeleases like Mullvad browser, Brave or duckduckgo browsers are just window dressing.
Firefox or its children really are the only option.
If a lack of privacy is like being nude in public, Apple is an expensive bouncer at an expensive club where you take your clothes off for free in front of people who pay apple a cover charge, because Apple promised them you have the biggest tits.
I don't think u need to worry to much about ur browser when ur os is always sending info in the background.
What info? god knows, but its concerning how it increased after apple introduced his plan to do some shady Facebook like business just after u guessed, blocking Facebook for doing the same without giving him his part of the cake.
Apple’s whole marketing angle is based on privacy to differentiate themselves from Google and the others. If they get caught doing something stupid it seems like that would cost them more than they would make from the stupid stuff.
Marketing angle, sure, but starting in 2019, Apple's core MacOS product moved to selling users data to serve them better ads. They were only private for as long as they could attract new users with that. Now all they really have is "less privacy disrespecting than Windows 11 or ChromeOS"
Eh, other vendors have been known to cooperative with police and government officials and hand over user data without a warrant - any evidence that's been the case with Apple?
Look in the system preferences app. There's a whole section for opting out of Apple collecting advertising data about you. That's the preferences app of the ENTIRE OS.
Meanwhile, Apple's application APIs set advertisements as a core feature:
They may be letting you opt out for now, but this is an early phase of the enshittification cycle. First, they attracted users by promising privacy. Now they're attracting advertisers by dangling in front of them an expanded user base. It won't be long until Apple will make opting out more complicated and difficult because they think they can make more money selling more data to advertisers. They'll do it slowly. Every time saying "they're giving consumers more granular control over their privacy" when really they're just "creating opt-outs for things you didn't use to have to opt out of" or "creating opt-outs that used to be part of a larger opt out." Someday will come "we've eliminated opt-outs" and eventually "here's an advertising banner at the bottom of all default apps"
Well, at least it's apparently all in one place instead of being scattered into several different apps' settings like with Android. Android has its Privacy Dashboard, but, from what I've seen, it doesn't begin to sufficiently cover privacy.
None of what you're saying has to do with handing over user's data to police and government officials without a warrant - every other smartphone OS vendor does it, except Apple, so I'll continue to use their devices because they protect my data, and their products are well-made and integrate with each other well.
Your slippery slope fallacy is funny, though. Sure, Apple is just as guilty as every of vendor of using it's users data to enrich it's services, but they still put UI/UX at the forefront compared to others - their design system is certainly better than Android's material design. Google apps aren't even designed with one-handed bottom screen mobile navigation. Apple's modal-based system where each section's last state is preserved and maintain's it's own back gesture timeline is far more intuitive than Android's system-wide back-gesture, which throws the user all over the place.
Do you have proof of this? For example with the payment info on Apple Pay. It is all encrypted, not even the side I’m buying from sees my address or credit card info.
IMO much better. It’s Apple product. You give your data to them anyway while using macOS or iOS so that’s one argument: no need to share your data with anyone else.
Apart of that they have built in tracking blockers and I think they fiddle with cookies because I get logged out from services more frequently than on other browsers that I use for web development.
I have a vendetta against Chromium because of Valve having to cease support for older OSes. They did that because of Chromium being built into the Steam client.
Can someone make a comment on if and how chromium development changed since Edge uses it?
I often hear that Google dictates chormium dev, but what about MS? Are they doing dev work, too?
But sadly, in privacy matters their interests are likely aligned, so that we can expect to be it further hollowed.
Pleading ignorance here and genuine questions. Is anyone, within the context of browsers able to define privacy and what it is that FF does that is superior to other say, Chromium based browsers? And what the real world effects are of not using FF for the purpose of privacy? Either reply or point to sources on the Web would be much appreciated.
Chrome is run by an ad company with a vested interest in your data and has been outspoken about banning adblockers in the past.
Firefox is a completely open source project run by a non-profit organisation who accepts donations to cover costs.
Other Chromium-based browsers can generally be fine but the overuse of chromium reinforces web standards that are hard to reproduce. A web browser is a fairly complex beast these days even for the best programmers. Just see XMPP for an example of where things could lead to.
While it's true that Firefox receives some of those donations from Google for being the default search engine, they have no influence over decisions made by the Firefox team whatsoever. That's the short version of it.
As I understand it, you can make a Chromium browser just as privacy friendly as Firefox. I use Vivaldi on my home PC and mobile which is strongly privacy focused and has a ton of small QoL features neither Chrome nor Firefox has (I use both at work, prefer FF over Chrome). (Going off the tangent here) for example, it's incredibly easy to re-open recently closed tabs in Vivaldi with just two clicks—a feature I use all the time—as the recently closed tabs list is very obvious and easy to access in the tab bar itself without the need to futz around in the menus to find browsing history. The customizable speed dial, sidebar menu for things like bookmarks and downloads are really nice and the download manager in Vivaldi is IMO better than FF, too.
The bigger problem is Google having defacto monopoly over browser market and thus having too much influence over how web standards work and how the user can browse the web (I'm old enough to remember "This web page is best viewed on Internet Explorer" messages on websites). The move to manifest v3 to curb content blockers is one such example.
Thanks for your reply. I am a Vivaldi user myself currently after trying numerous browsers over the years. I was trying to reconcile in my mind what am I giving up in terms of privacy for my choice. I do tend to lean on and learn from other more knowledgeable myself. I do have a few privacy related extensions installed. But you touch on something there that extends further than personal privacy but Googles influence on web standards, good one.
I'm sure you can just Google what the benefit of using Firefox is. When "privacy" is talked about in terms of web browsers and apps, it's mainly about blocking trackers. Ad companies inject trackers into websites and apps, which collect your data. Google has their own ad company, and by using Chrome, you're supplying them with personal information without them even having to pay. Firefox doesn't sell your information. They also have many extensions available that will block any data collecting attempts from websites.
Duck Duck Go is even more secure. The whole point of their browser is for user privacy. Their app even blocks other apps from tracking you. You'd be amazed by the data collected by apps. My fucking shopping list app has trackers from multiple companies.
Yeah I could google it but sometimes I also like to converse and ask questions. Hence why we're here.
Thanks for explaining, I have prior understanding of what most you mentioned, Im just hazy how it relates to browser choice since you can block with extensions on most if not all browsers. So if someone is using any chromium based browser, you info is still going to google or is that exclusive to Chrome?
Our of curiosity I checked out the Threads app and after about 20 minutes I had 35 companies try to track me over 600 times. DDG blocked it. Hell I used my webcam app and it tried to track me as well. It's ridiculous.
Mullvad Browser is perfect for privacy. Firefox is good with the extensions too. Both of them are better options when it comes to preserving your privacy.
It’s chromium (unfortunately), but yeah it kind of does that. It can open external links in a pop up. So for browsing sites with tons of links you don’t drown in tabs.
It also has spaces, which is basically profiles but much easier to manage.
And vertical tabs is probably the best feature.
of course not, it hasn't been updated for FIFTEEN YEARS and definitely didn't even get an engine upgrade in 2017 let alone a new version half a month ago and a hotfix last week
I switched from Chrome to Firefox somewhat recently. The experience really isn't any different, except Firefox doesn't use 110% of your CPU.
I have a ton of privacy extensions which causes a few issues when creating accounts by linking to your Google account (the pop-up is blocked) or opening redirect links to apps (I think it's only Discord that I've had an issue with). I don't consider those drawbacks because the browser is doing its job. Instead, I go copy and paste the link in Chrome.
No effect, bevause youtube uses an outdated version of Shadow DOM, which only chromium based browsers have installed. It then makes browsers like Firefox and pre chromium edge start youtube terribly.
Okay, okay, I get the point! I'm a total Rip Van Winkle when it comes to Firefox. I just stopped using it at one point and never looked back. However good it is now, it was just as not good in the 2000s.
I was a die hard Firefox fan since it was Netscape navigator. But their refusal to adopt PWAs will always keep me one foot in edge/chrome.
I’ve been flirting a bit with Opera GX because of the sidebar, hard ram/cpu limits, and “my flow” feature. super handy when you’re moving between max and windows all day. But it also doesn’t do PWAs so that’s still super annoying.
On Mac I really do like safari. But they don’t have it for windows so I guess I’m just doomed to use multiple browsers.
What do you mean? Just install the plug-in PWAs for Firefox. I have a Firefox based WhatsApp PWA that runs separate from my main Firefox process. It launches on its own and uses the WhatsApp icon on the taskbar. (I was having so many issues with the official WhatsApp app).
It does have a dependency on a package you’ll have to install outside of FF but you can install it using Chocolatey so it’s pretty quick and easy.
But it doesn't though, not really. There are quite a few things which are still sent back as telemetry. One hell of alot better than chrome but it's still watching you. It's still not respecting your privacy.
There are some privacy respecting browser out there but they're quite inconvenient to use. I haven't found a real reasonable middle ground personally, but altering librewolf or the mulvad browser to keep you signed in has been nice enough for me
To clarify why this is important, this data can be de-anonymized where anonymized and be used for fingerprinting your internet usage. If you're concerned about privacy this is a pretty big red flag, especially if your government is getting this information, which many have and will be able to in the future.
Fingerprinting isn't a perfect system and can incorrectly flag innocent people. Or, if you unfortunately life in the wrong place, whether true or not being flagged as gay/trans or the wrong political party can very much harm you. Texas has asked the government for a list of trans people inside their state, which was denied, what happens when it isn't? what happens when it's not just trans people, and is instead your group? Caution is king.
Yup, you should be good if you do that. There are some tools to create a more private profile and the librewolf/mulvad browsers do just that (while removing the code which would allow a good portion of it in the first place)
To clarify why this is important, this data can be de-anonymized where anonymized and be used for fingerprinting your internet usage. If you're concerned about privacy this is a pretty big red flag, especially if your government is getting this information, which many have and will be able to in the future.
Fingerprinting isn't a perfect system and can incorrectly flag innocent people.
If you unfortunately life in the wrong place, whether true or not being flagged as gay/trans or the wrong political party can very much harm you. Texas has asked the government for a list of trans people inside their state, though the request was denied for now, what happens when it isn't? what happens when it's not just trans people, and is instead your group? Caution is king.
I've used "Firefox" since Mozilla 1995 0.x release. It's great software, but it has issues. I use Brave as primary these days, because the entire internet is QA'd with Chromium, and FIrefox just hits too many issues, even on the most recent versions. I use Firefox as secondary every day though too. I need multiple browsers to separate o365 AD creds.
and i don't just mean "because it's google and google is an ad company". what specifically is it sending to some internet server that firefox doesn't? both the firefox and address bars send what you type into them to a search provider. as near as i can tell, firefox's committment to privacy is to say "we protect your privacy" while doing all the same stuff that chrome does.
I'll keep avoiding firefox as long as they keep pushing weird decision with each update, the latest one being forcing "pocket recommendation" on the new tab page, even if the built-in (that is, you can't remove it) pocket extension is disabled.
Sure, I can go look for the new advanced parameter to disable every time, but why pull this shit in the first place.
You can, but there's a big difference : the average user (=the vast majority of people) will not see the difference. In some tech circles, or if you're actively looking for it, you'll know that it happens, and what it might (or might not) do, but 90% of people will not see a change. User interface remain the same, features remains the same, and extensions that could adapt will already have done so.
Firefox choices, for better or for worse, are very visible. The pocket extension was bundled in it, making it so that everyone have it show up one day. It being named after a (formerly) third-party service is not a good look. Then the new-tab page suggestions, which I can only see as an intrusive way to push content onto me (something I actively try to avoid, the samy way many "social network" keep pushing what their algorithms think is good for you). Add to that some decisions about actively ignoring user settings (and page content) about PDF handling, subsequently breaking tons of SPA because "they know better" (there was a long discussion, and the change was half-reverted once big enough sites showed issues).
The list could go on, ranging from "interesting" UI choices to bundling more and more advertisement for their own service, only to backpedal later with "oh, we didn't think it would annoy people to do the exact thing you're running from other browsers for".
Chrome changes might be insidious, but they have limited impact to the actual users. Mozilla keeps changing Firefox in very glaring ways and not always with a sound reasons, user-wise. One could argue that these changes are all minor, but they do act as a deterrent for people that really can't handle changes (remember, for most people changing the icon on a button is enough to make a feature "disappear" for them).
I'd argue crippling what ublock origin is caple of doing is very crippling to the end user experience. Accepting a cippled ublock is similar to accepting the change when adblock plus white listed some ads.
Again, factor in the number of people knowingly using ublock, and actively looking into what changed vs. what still works fine for now. Manifest v3 have no reach beyond techies, and as such is "accepted" by default.
Remember that most people are totally fine with these changes because the larger picture is not shown to them.
Brave + privacyBadger is about the best you can do. If you turn all the features on it anonymizes your plugins and screen res returns enough that you can't be identified by a unique configuration.
It supports TOR for private browsing natively.
I don't trust them more than Mozilla, but the do a better job at keeping my browsing habits out out the hands of my ISP and the sites I visit.
Edit: guys I know that Brave is not the best browser and I wouldn't recommend it, but I haven't seen studies or in depth articles about technical details of privacy concerns.
And I'm not being sarcastic, I wanna see them so I can make a more informed opinion.
This isn't really a "privacy concern" from a user standpoint.
It isn't user data they're selling, it's data they've scraped from websites for use in machine learning. It's more of a legal grey area in the same way that OpenAI is being sued for their use of data in training ChatGPT.
The main point people need to understand is that Chromium based browsers are heavily nerfing the ability for users to use ad-blockers. This isn't much of an issue in the case of Brave where the ad-blocking is built into the browser itself.
And personally, I would rather have some healthy privacy based competition between browsers. Having both Librewolf (Firefox) and Brave browser (chromium) lets us have options to switch between.
It also creates additional work on the advertising side in this cat and mouse game.
What are you talking about? I use brave and haven't seen a single ad in ages.
If I ever accidentally open the wrong browser, I can tell immediately.
There is a way to "opt-in" to view ads from their own pool of ads in exchange for crypto... But that's automatically disabled, and there's a toggle to hide all of the crypto stuff anyway.
I'm having deja vu. I've gotten this confused before and looked it up before and they don't. I'm misremembering something from some forum post they made but I also couldn't find that forum post last time. Regardless, their official FAQ says they don't. I've deleted the comment above now.
Google made an announcement sometime back that they wanted to improve the standards for advertising, and if there were any ads that didn't meet those standards they would have Chrome automatically block it.
It doesn't have to be Chromium, but asserting that Firefox is the only browser that respects your privacy is just untrue.
Edit: I use FF and Brave for different browsing, as some websites just don't like FF.
I don't specifically mean the goDaddy site, I mean some sites that have gotten there certs from goDaddy won't work. It will give an ssl error. I believe it is their wildcard cert specifically.
I've seen a few companies paying employees six figures a month for doing nothing too, but I can think of a single name though. That's gotta be real right?
what website? I’ve been daily driving Firefox for both work and home use since 3 years ago, the only time it doesn’t load a site properly is when I lose internet connection
Assuming you mean built-in adblock and so on, Librewolf on the Desktop and the Mull Browser on Android. The latter is the default browser for DivestOS, a custom rom based on LineageOS.
Well, Mull doesn't have a buil-in blocker, but you can use uBlock Origin
If you hate Brave that's fine, but at least be honest. It never had any mining whatsoever. It has a feature that let's you earn crypto through ads that is turned off by default. That's it. You never have to deal with it if you don't want to.
I just threw on table what I knew without any experience with Brave... I removed the mining from it so it's somewhat more accurate. I still find it concerning that it's a feature to begin with, but that's with me :)
I know it's Chromium, that's why I said it.
I didn't know they have done shady crypto stuff, I started using Brave because I needed to use Chromium in school (frontend dev) but I didn't want Crome or Edge... So Brave made sense to use.
Fair enough. I'm sure there are better Chromium based browsers when it comes to that though. I haven't looked into these though, so I can't name them :p
As a comment above mentioned, it has a feature to get cryto through ads that is disabled by default, but you can opt-in if you like. I personally find it concerning that it's a feature to begin with
I did turn it all off and have been using it for a long time. I don't feel like using Firefox, so it's gotta be chromium and I didn't like Vivaldi's UI. So by elimination I ended up at Brave.
Or even better, a fork of Firefox which disable all that telemetry crap and bundle with uBlock Origin : LibreWolf.
uBlock Origin*
uBlock is the pseudo-malware that profited off of uBO's good name.
Wow wow wow, care to explain ? This r huge news for me
The original dev handed over development to a team and left, new cunts removed his name from project and made donation links, original dev came back and made ublock origin which is now the best adblock out there.
I've only known ublock as ublock origin had no idea of this fiasco
I learned about this years ago and the details are a bit hazy, but you may find this warning by the developers of uBlock Origin to be relevant.
There's also a "uBlock" extension available on Chrome that lists ublock.org as its website. From what I remember, AdBlock Plus and/or uBlock engaged in advertisement middlemanning. Essentially, they would let ads through to the end user as long as the advertisers gave them a cut and the ads weren't deemed "intrusive." I know ABP did this when I switched away, I'm not sure about uBlock.
uBlock Origin is a general content blocker, which puts it ahead of ad blockers anyway. You can configure it to block things like cookie popups too.
but hardened firefox 😏
This!
Godless furry bot: when
Is it as simple to use out of the box as Firefox or does it require some tinkering first?
No tinkering required, technically you could achieve the same result with regular Firefox + tinkering.
It’s as simple out of the box but with a greater focus on privacy with telemetry off and the pocket integration disabled.
Can confirm. Started using it yesterday after another comment. It's pretty much plain FF, so works well right out of the gate. I enabled some features in the setting like Firefox sync and allow DRM media, but I'm really liking it.
I've found that it might not work on banking sites because of the fingerprinting protection. Be warned, if you try to use on banking sites, you may be locked out. I suggest you do all banking and stuff on a separate browser that saves cookies and tracks you.
I don't use banking websites, I just use the app so can't confirm. I would imagine it'll be down to the default cookie blocking which you can edit in the settings though if it causes issues for you
My banks app is not as feature full as the website
I don’t have issue on my banking site but I’m not surprised, privacy settings tend to break some sites.
Sounds great! Thanks for the info 🙂
LibreWolf is so clean and minimal, whenever I go back to Firefox it feels bloated in comparison.
Mullvad has a browser now? Sweet! I've been a fan of their no nonsense approach to VPN for a while now.
Fr, people need to stop the lies that firefox itself is a privacy respecting browser, which it isnt- not since it was bought out years back.
LibreWolf and Mullvad are great examples of Firefox Forks that are ACTUALLY privacy focused browsers.
Bought out? Firefox was never bought out by anyone. What are you talking about?
My bad, bought out was the wrong way to word it- I should have said "Made partnerships with-" then listed Google and Yahoo(defunct), China and Russia.
If you watch this video discussing how privacy respect firefox is by default- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr8UFJzpNls you'll see the telemetry they collect is miles long and Firefox is no better at protecting your privacy than Chrome/Chromium is whatsoever.
Definitely recommend Librewolf or Mullvad, which are actual privacy respecting browsers, even Chromium forks like Brave are better than default firefox.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Fr8UFJzpNls
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Stumbled over that last week. There is a company where I buy nearly all my computer stuff from, and I'm a customer for more than 20 years.
I wanted to order parts for a high-end PC, but simply could not add the motherboard to the shopping cart. Everything else was already in there. I called them, and they asked me if I used Firefox. And they told me in no uncertain terms that Firefox was dead and would no longer be supported for "safety and security reasons", I should use Chrome or Edge instead.
If their site is too stupid to cope with Firefox, why the heck does it not tell me about this upfront, e.g. when I try to enter an item into the shopping cart?
I've had a few websites tell me to view their website in Chrome. I just leave, because no way am I putting any kind of personal data into a website run by such incompetent people.
I used to be a web developer. Back 8 years ago, you used to have to do a lot of special tricks to make your website look and function the same in all the browsers. Now, you really don't. Unless you're using some really obscure closed source codec or something, websites literally render and function properly without needing any browser specific code fixes.
There's no excuse, unless you're blocking older versions of every browser for security reasons, which is fine, because browsers update automatically these days, and it's very rare for someone to be running a really old version.
Usually the thing about the webpage not working is just codeword for "we have not tested it and we won't". If you really need to access it, there are some extensions that can change your user agent so the page thinks you are in chromium.
This is the one I use.
Chameleon is another good plugin for this
I use an user agent switcher in those cases. Most of the time it works and I dont have to change the browser.
This is not fully true. Recently I had problems with keyboard press event propagation working differently on button elements and CSS scroll snapping behaving differently when new items are appended in the scroll container. Both are not really obscure.
While you are basically right with that, just imagine the computer shop where all the IT professionals go to get their stuff. I'm a customer there for more than 20 years because they are good. If there was any good alternative, I might be tempted to change, but so far I have not heard of such a thing.
That sucks.i am not going to not use Firefox, fuck chrome
Funnily enough, I can't log into my bank on chrome, but Firefox works just fine.
LOL I work in IT for a rather large company and we are supposed to use FF because it's actually more secure and is more reliable than chromium browsers.
I work at home in the health field and the only browser they have us use for everything is chrome. It makes me laugh honestly.
What's the source for that claim? To my understanding, Firefox first got sandboxed processes for sites in 2021, and only recently this year got features to sandbox the GPU processes as well - playing catch-up by many years to Chrome, and exposing attack vectors for sites to gain access to OS-level API's to meanwhile. And to my understanding, neither are enabled by default on Firefox for Android, because of ongoing compatibility issues for years https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1610822
My take is that Firefox or its' derivatives are better for privacy, while Chromium is better for security, due to the vastly greater development resources.
I had issues with my banking app and a few other sites that use my personal government issued 2 factor auth..
But only in firefox.
Firefox rules, people need to smarten up. Hell, Firefox on Android has an Adblock extension. Firefox is what's up.
Privacy is like the least important reason I use Firefox. With Microsoft Edge and Opera being based on Chromium now there are just so many of them. With Chromium essentially becoming the de facto standard because everyone uses it that means Google can ignore web standards and just do whatever they want.
It means Google can set the web standards, which is worse.
Competitors dont have to inherit those tho just because they are based on chromium.
It's easier to inherit because it's less dev time spent on a part of the browser that has less evident results for the consumer. I bet they'd rather spend money on the UX provided by UI changes rather than reworking the JavaScript engine, or anything related HTML or CSS rendering.
Are they doing so right now?
Come on. You're being pedantic.
What are the important reasons?
Everything else I said, sorry if that wasn't clear!
Essentially there are organizations like W3C and IEEE that define standards for how the internet works and how websites behave. All browsers follow these so everything works properly. Let's say you have some idea you want to add to your browser you develop. You do it and tell everyone about it. You don't have many users. Maybe a few sites do it but it isn't really a problem that it doesn't work on other browsers because so few people do it.
Chromium has a massive market share because so many browsers use it as their base. Even Opera and Microsoft Edge which historically have been alternatives to Google Chrome now use Chromium as their base. The danger is that Chromium has such a large user base that they are essentially what the standard is.
Imagine a world where everyone uses Chromium. Why would you (if you were in charge of Chromium) need to listen to what standards organizations say about how the web should work? You're literally in charge of every browser! You can just add some new features or take some out and every website would have to comply because you (in this hypothetical) truly do control every single web browser on the planet. Their websites would not work otherwise.
Sure, out of the goodness of your heart you might behave and be a good steward but there will always be reasons for you to act against the standards that you don't view as "bad" that other people might think are bad. I'm not saying all standards organizations are perfect and good or anything like that, but I believe I trust them more than Google.
Even if Google never does anything "bad" (naive thinking lol) avoiding the situation where they have that kind of power is a good thing.
To me that's the most important reason to use a non-Chromium based browser. To avoid Chromium becoming the one true browser.
And just for some context, Google has done bad things before with regards to web standards and then having the de facto standard with Chrome. The recent changes to the extension API to neuter ad blocking being a prime example. And we don't even have to speculate and sound like nutjobs. They're a public company. They've said before that ad-blocking is one of the biggest threats to their ad revenue. Not that it feels tin foil hatty to suggest even if they hadn't said it, but they actually have said it in reports.
That it allows Google to destroy the open internet by changing the standards until non-Chromium browsers can't engage with the web.
Oh yeah I fully get that. I think that’s very important too. The reason why I asked is because I thought there was a nifty feature I wasn’t aware of.
Im glad the websites have a saying in this. If google also owns these all then we are TRULY fucked.
Unfortunately, no, they don't. As Chromium gets more and more wide spread, Google is gaining the power to change the browser standards. Websites will have to comply. If your website suddenly "Breaks" because Google won't allow Chromium load any pages without tracking tags, users will complain to you and not google.
Yeah tech illiteracy is a thing thats true. Once they realize that its their browser that breaks their shit they will just pick a different one. Thats what i mean with google owning all the websites.
Good joke.
You know what happens if a customer complains your website doesn't work in Chrome? A bug ticket is raised, goes to a developer and they fix the "bug" so it works again.
If the developer is good they'd also make sure their "fix" doesn't break the website for Firefox and Safari. But there are plenty of developers who only test Chrome and call it a day.
Chrome is the default browser nowadays, if it doesn't work in Chrome you have a problem. The developer might blame Google, but the user and management won't care.
Thats fine. Because it means the websites are ok with what chrome is doing and it doesnt hurt them. No joke bro...
I don't think they will. I think corporations - Who make decisions the same way soulless psychopaths would - will bend.
Using Chromium supports the destruction of the open internet.
websites not supporting firefox is the site's fault, not the browser's. firefox is not some niche browser. almost every website i have used is fine on firefox, and when it rarely doesnt work (usually bc i have a configured librewolf), i just open brave or whatever.
Im really confused by this sentiment. Ive been using Firefox since like 2007 and I was just a teenager who didn't know any better.
Its been working fine for 16 years now.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I've been a Firefox user for years- at work and home. I have yet to find a website that misbehaves or under-performs. Mayyybe a few sites here and there a fractions of a second slower or have slightly less acceleration or something that I'm just not noticing?
Without Firefox and its ??forks?? like LibreWolf, the internet would be a total Chromium monopoly at this point, wouldn't it? That would be bad..
Wait, people hate Firefox? Why??
Chromium could be spying on you, as it communicates with google servers. You should use ungoogled-chromium, and hope they did a good job...
::: spoiler spoiler or just use Firefox :::
"Firefox is bad because I got a virus one time and Firefox was my default browser therefore Firefox gave my computer a virus"- my brother
If it really has to be a Chromium browser, Vivaldi will do the trick.
And if you REALLY take security seriously, LibreWolf is based on Firefox but without the annoying stuff from Mozilla attached to it.
Vivaldi a privacy respecting browser? It's closed source and barely has any concern on the matter.
Nah, they have a big concern on that matter. Not collecting or selling your data is one of their main selling points lol. Also, while not completely open source, the main changes they do to the chromium base is open for everyone
I personally trust Vivaldi because they haven't slipped up once so far. Besides the open source dispute, it's easily the least controversial company.
Not a fan of Vivaldi either but it's not closed source. https://vivaldi.com/source/
Though the source code doesn't even get a link on their website so I can see why people think that.
Edit: I was wrong, there's closed source parts (the UI).
How about ungoogled Chromium?
Isn't Chromium already ungoogled and Chrome is the googled browser?
Chromium has a lot of google stuff that's just open source. Chrome, the google browser, adds on top of that OSS google stuff proprietary google stuff.
In this context when I say "google stuff" I mean "things google uses to track you or otherwise pipeline you to google products"
You are fooling yourself if you think you can really "ungoogle" chromium.
How so? What's wrong with Ungoogled Chromium (besides it being Chromium)?
They won't respond because they just want you to use Firefox instead
I already use Firefox. I'm just confused as to what's wrong with Ungoogled Chromium. ~Cherri
There's really nothing wrong with it. The only thing that Firefox enthusiasts are concerned about is that you contribute to the Chromium monopoly by using Ungoogled Chromium.
Librewolf*
You and I, we are same
Also me. Mull + Librewolf combo, portmaster and etc/hosts to block adware, malware and nsfw. I feel free.
And a pihole for the other people on my network who can't quite let go of some apps and services.
After a weekend where the whole family was there, my pihole displayed that 57% of all connections where blocked.
57%
No one complained about anything not working.
57% of all connections were completely and utterly unnecessary to the actual services that were being used.
That is just wild.
For daily usage, and as long as you use uBlock Origin, Firefox has been perfect for me for the past 10 years. I don't understand those who complain about it.
A lot of fanboys are just gonna irrationally hate competitors. Star Wars vs. Star Trek and all that.
To my knowledge the Chrome is the worse memory hog
Worse than Chrome? By how much? I use both browsers on multiple devices on multiple OSes and neither of them are even remotely lightweight.
chrome uses less base ram but more ram per tab i think
I think it's basically a wash. Anyone that says that one is particularly better or worse than the other is not being honest.
Chrome? Sure.
Vivaldi uses about half the RAM of FF when I have equivalent tabs open and running/idling.
Of course I have to have an ad blocker installed on FF whereas Vivaldi just does it natively, so that might be causing the difference in memory.
Here come all the anti chromium bois with "tHeReS nO wAy vivALdi bLoCkS aDs aS gOoD as u BlOcK oRiGin!''
To that I say... Have you ever fucking tried it? Lol I've tried both side by side, don't argue unless you've actually done so as well. V's ad blocking didn't break when Manifest V3 dropped and until it stops being as good or better than UBO I'm just gonna keep using it. When that day happens, well like I said I've already got FF up and running anyways.
but Vivaldi is just chrome in a coat of paint??
Is every Chromium browser just Chrome in a coat of paint to you?
If by "in a coat of paint" you actually mean "has built in tracker and ad blocking that works as good as UBO, was designed from the ground up by the guy who made OG Opera for the intended use case of being a privacy focused browser. Contains a lot of the same features as Opera like fully a customizable side panel, three different styles of tab stacking, workspaces, and a built in theme editor, with features like note taking baked in." Then sure, it's "just chrome with a paint job."
All of them are memory hungry, the point is how dynamic they are in their "hunger" and "excretion".
Does the 34 and 20 represent the number of tabs? If so, this is not a fair comparison, what with FF having 50% more open. But even if that number doesn't represent tabs, I am sure there can be websites that would put them much closer in performance.
Right now I have Chrome on my work machine. It has a 14 (again, not sure if those are active tabs or not) and it is eating 1.17 GB on my work machine. On my home FF (24) is eating 1.60 GB of RAM. FF is clearly using more RAM in each case, but it isn't slowing my desktop down any more than Chrome is on my work machine. I'd like for it to improve, but rather use something other than Google's tools on every single machine I use, I guess.
The number in parentheses is the number of processes that the application is performing. Win's task manager groups these under the parent app so you don't have to scroll through every "sub" in order to end a task. if you hit the ">" to the left of the app it will give you the expanded view and you will see the list.
Yes, more or less. I think some other extensions can take up processes too.
I actually have enough RAM and I'm glad that the RAM is being used to load all the stuff instead of the pagefile. It's my fault that I'm not closing stuff, not the browser's for not guessing what I'm going to re-load.
If you ask people, I think they'll just say that their main browser is like that. And that'll apply to all of them, so it's a user problem.
I remember these talks from a very long time ago. Very long time, when Opera had its own engine and before. I think the gaps have shrunk a lot, especially now that Internet Exploder is gone.
I've been maining Firefox for over a year now and this has been the case for me as well - it's such a resource hog. Which is fine, I've dealt with it, but I wish it didn't use so much battery life.
For some reason, upload speeds to YouTube are atrocious. And if you read through the ticket about this issue, it's not Google slowing it down artificially, but an actual Firefox issue. I have to resort to using Vivaldi as my dedicated upload browser.
That, and they have a weird drive to make their UI shittier and shittier. Introducing tons of whitespace, turning tabs into buttons, removing compact layout...
I have 15 extensions running on my 8GB work laptop and there is little to no difference from my 16GB PC battle station at home. And I have like 4 more apps run alongside 10 tabs of FF at work, way more than what I would ever open at home
Of course your job would be even easier if there was only one engine left. Comparing it to what we had in the IE era though is completely bonkers.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Yeah, I’m also a web developer and this person is completely up their own ass. We’ve all struggled with browsers that lag behind standards (internet explorer) or implement them in weird ways (safari). But Mozilla has never even come close to being a problem like the others.
Also I doubt they are using the newest of new web standards that would actually need to be poly filled and even then with modern JS build tooling poly filling isn’t difficult or abnormal. Oh, the bundle for your crappy SPA might be a few kb bigger but that isn’t gonna make a difference.
To name a big one: the CSS :has() pseudo-class.
How is this still not enabled by default?
Side panel, workspaces, tab-stacking, just to name a few.
"What major standard features is Firefox missing these days?"
This was your question, nowhere did you say anything about web API's. You stupid or just forget which comment I was responding to?
Sure FF has extensions that "kinda do the same thing" except they're shit and bloat the browser beyond what it already is compared to Vivaldi.
God, I wish there was less monopolies in the world, I hate when there is no alternative other than a product developed and maintained by evil corporation that profits off of selling my data.
Anyway, the only browser that everyone should use is Chrome, if you don't use Chrome you're dead to me.
Buddy we have something called suckless you know, USE FUCKING SURF
I use firefox for obvious privacy reasons but also because I can customize the UI. Chromium's interface is oversized, ugly, and locked down while on firefox I can change any aspect of it using my own CSS.
I just prefer the UI of Firefox
It's Internet Explorer - Google edition.
such a base
Vanadium on my phone.
Vanadium is a chromium based browser.
Indeed. But privacy is good. No point in using Firefox on phone since webview is chromium based.
After the quantum update i switched to firefox, as now in performance it is almost on par with chrome or sometimes better.
I think a lot of people turned away from Firefox after that Mr Robot promotional 'stunt' they pulled.
I see furryfox, I vote up.
it kinda pisses me off that Chromium is the default browser on Raspbian.
Lynx
There is no privacy on chromium, it phones home to Google a lot and those communications are encrypted so you will never really know what data is being sent but assume Google can link everything you do in Chromium to you.
Users who think they are "ungoogling chromium" are fooling themselves.
All the commercial browser reeleases like Mullvad browser, Brave or duckduckgo browsers are just window dressing.
Firefox or its children really are the only option.
Netscape Navigator?
Just wondering as a Mac user without much experience: how is Safari in terms of privacy compared to say Firefox?
If a lack of privacy is like being nude in public, Apple is an expensive bouncer at an expensive club where you take your clothes off for free in front of people who pay apple a cover charge, because Apple promised them you have the biggest tits.
It's kinda flattering, but is it really privacy?
I don't think u need to worry to much about ur browser when ur os is always sending info in the background.
What info? god knows, but its concerning how it increased after apple introduced his plan to do some shady Facebook like business just after u guessed, blocking Facebook for doing the same without giving him his part of the cake.
Flashback to the Windows 10 launch, when typing anything while the resource manager was open revealed a small spike in internet traffic.
No clue what actually happened in the background, but it was consistent over multiple friends computers. Very fun.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/07/30/confirmed-apple-caught-in-siri-privacy-scandal-let-contractors-listen-to-private-voice-recordings/?sh=3d0448257314
Apple is faux privacy.
Also, companies like Google are doing a ton of on device ML now. pretty much every single thing on my Pixel 7 Pro never leaves my device.
You really believe that, don't you?
Marketing angle, sure, but starting in 2019, Apple's core MacOS product moved to selling users data to serve them better ads. They were only private for as long as they could attract new users with that. Now all they really have is "less privacy disrespecting than Windows 11 or ChromeOS"
Do you mean like... App Store and Apple News ads? What targeted MacOS ads are you talking about?
Eh, other vendors have been known to cooperative with police and government officials and hand over user data without a warrant - any evidence that's been the case with Apple?
https://privacyinternational.org/guide-step/4335/macos-opt-out-targeted-ads
Look in the system preferences app. There's a whole section for opting out of Apple collecting advertising data about you. That's the preferences app of the ENTIRE OS.
Meanwhile, Apple's application APIs set advertisements as a core feature:
They may be letting you opt out for now, but this is an early phase of the enshittification cycle. First, they attracted users by promising privacy. Now they're attracting advertisers by dangling in front of them an expanded user base. It won't be long until Apple will make opting out more complicated and difficult because they think they can make more money selling more data to advertisers. They'll do it slowly. Every time saying "they're giving consumers more granular control over their privacy" when really they're just "creating opt-outs for things you didn't use to have to opt out of" or "creating opt-outs that used to be part of a larger opt out." Someday will come "we've eliminated opt-outs" and eventually "here's an advertising banner at the bottom of all default apps"
Well, at least it's apparently all in one place instead of being scattered into several different apps' settings like with Android. Android has its Privacy Dashboard, but, from what I've seen, it doesn't begin to sufficiently cover privacy.
None of what you're saying has to do with handing over user's data to police and government officials without a warrant - every other smartphone OS vendor does it, except Apple, so I'll continue to use their devices because they protect my data, and their products are well-made and integrate with each other well.
Your slippery slope fallacy is funny, though. Sure, Apple is just as guilty as every of vendor of using it's users data to enrich it's services, but they still put UI/UX at the forefront compared to others - their design system is certainly better than Android's material design. Google apps aren't even designed with one-handed bottom screen mobile navigation. Apple's modal-based system where each section's last state is preserved and maintain's it's own back gesture timeline is far more intuitive than Android's system-wide back-gesture, which throws the user all over the place.
Won't get caught if it's closed source...
You're using an apple product, you didn't have any privacy in the first place. Browser choice isn't going to change that either way.
Because Google is a bastion of privacy
Wrong, Apple doesn't just hand over their user's data without a warrant like other vendors.
Do you have proof of this? For example with the payment info on Apple Pay. It is all encrypted, not even the side I’m buying from sees my address or credit card info.
It's the same with Google Wallet, too, so that doesn't really demonstrate anything.
Then what does demonstrate it?
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-privacy-dsid-analytics-personal-data-test-1849807619
Thanks, will look in to it tomorrow !
Edit: we should start a class action lawsuit, this is extremely illegal in the EU
IMO much better. It’s Apple product. You give your data to them anyway while using macOS or iOS so that’s one argument: no need to share your data with anyone else.
Apart of that they have built in tracking blockers and I think they fiddle with cookies because I get logged out from services more frequently than on other browsers that I use for web development.
Wait... Your argument is "it's good for privacy because you sent your telemetry already anyway?
I mean, it is a fair point that if you were worried about Safari's privacy, you should've been worried about MacOS first.
It'd be like being worried about privacy of IE on Windows. The OS is doing everything and more.
Ungoogled Chromium exists but it just feels 1/10 of what Firefox is capable of doing.
I have a vendetta against Chromium because of Valve having to cease support for older OSes. They did that because of Chromium being built into the Steam client.
Firefox's supremacy 😆
Can someone make a comment on if and how chromium development changed since Edge uses it? I often hear that Google dictates chormium dev, but what about MS? Are they doing dev work, too?
But sadly, in privacy matters their interests are likely aligned, so that we can expect to be it further hollowed.
Vivaldi is nice.
LibreWolf
Pleading ignorance here and genuine questions. Is anyone, within the context of browsers able to define privacy and what it is that FF does that is superior to other say, Chromium based browsers? And what the real world effects are of not using FF for the purpose of privacy? Either reply or point to sources on the Web would be much appreciated.
Chrome is run by an ad company with a vested interest in your data and has been outspoken about banning adblockers in the past.
Firefox is a completely open source project run by a non-profit organisation who accepts donations to cover costs.
Other Chromium-based browsers can generally be fine but the overuse of chromium reinforces web standards that are hard to reproduce. A web browser is a fairly complex beast these days even for the best programmers. Just see XMPP for an example of where things could lead to.
While it's true that Firefox receives some of those donations from Google for being the default search engine, they have no influence over decisions made by the Firefox team whatsoever. That's the short version of it.
As I understand it, you can make a Chromium browser just as privacy friendly as Firefox. I use Vivaldi on my home PC and mobile which is strongly privacy focused and has a ton of small QoL features neither Chrome nor Firefox has (I use both at work, prefer FF over Chrome). (Going off the tangent here) for example, it's incredibly easy to re-open recently closed tabs in Vivaldi with just two clicks—a feature I use all the time—as the recently closed tabs list is very obvious and easy to access in the tab bar itself without the need to futz around in the menus to find browsing history. The customizable speed dial, sidebar menu for things like bookmarks and downloads are really nice and the download manager in Vivaldi is IMO better than FF, too.
The bigger problem is Google having defacto monopoly over browser market and thus having too much influence over how web standards work and how the user can browse the web (I'm old enough to remember "This web page is best viewed on Internet Explorer" messages on websites). The move to manifest v3 to curb content blockers is one such example.
Thanks for your reply. I am a Vivaldi user myself currently after trying numerous browsers over the years. I was trying to reconcile in my mind what am I giving up in terms of privacy for my choice. I do tend to lean on and learn from other more knowledgeable myself. I do have a few privacy related extensions installed. But you touch on something there that extends further than personal privacy but Googles influence on web standards, good one.
I'm sure you can just Google what the benefit of using Firefox is. When "privacy" is talked about in terms of web browsers and apps, it's mainly about blocking trackers. Ad companies inject trackers into websites and apps, which collect your data. Google has their own ad company, and by using Chrome, you're supplying them with personal information without them even having to pay. Firefox doesn't sell your information. They also have many extensions available that will block any data collecting attempts from websites.
Duck Duck Go is even more secure. The whole point of their browser is for user privacy. Their app even blocks other apps from tracking you. You'd be amazed by the data collected by apps. My fucking shopping list app has trackers from multiple companies.
Yeah I could google it but sometimes I also like to converse and ask questions. Hence why we're here. Thanks for explaining, I have prior understanding of what most you mentioned, Im just hazy how it relates to browser choice since you can block with extensions on most if not all browsers. So if someone is using any chromium based browser, you info is still going to google or is that exclusive to Chrome?
Our of curiosity I checked out the Threads app and after about 20 minutes I had 35 companies try to track me over 600 times. DDG blocked it. Hell I used my webcam app and it tried to track me as well. It's ridiculous.
This is A+
Mullvad Browser is perfect for privacy. Firefox is good with the extensions too. Both of them are better options when it comes to preserving your privacy.
Librewolf is also magnificent
It is the Tor Browser fot the clearnet, I would also use it for browsing eepsites woth the i2pd server
Might need to use chrome so I can blur my video background on google meet. Firefox not a supported browser for video filters. Ungh.
Firefox is the last good browser.
I committed to opera a long time ago and now I'm too many saved passwords deep on shit websites I've not visited in 4 years to make the change.
Let me help you and from there, you can import all your passwords into Keepass or KeepassXC
Nice one, cheers for that! I've been using bitwarden, so I'll see if I can port them to that
You're welcome!
I was in the same boat many years ago with Chrome until I discovered how to migrate the passwords to Bitwarden.
Not gonna try and force you or anything, but if you want to move over to firefox try this: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/import-data-another-browser
Also, be sure to turn off telemetry in firefox. It's not as safe as people say, but it's pretty good
That's brilliant, cheers for the heads up
No way to export that stuff to Firefox or a Firefox derivate?
My man, Opera has been sold to a Chinese company years ago. It's probably the least trustworthy major browser by a large margin.
I wouldn't trust it with my pornhub account if I had one for some reason.
It’s not privacy focused but Arc is the best browser I’ve ever used once I got used to its quirks.
A single entity running the web is dangerous. Using different flavours of what is essentially Chrome is just as bad as using Chrome.
People should really switch away from chromium based browsers if they want to preserve the web. Google is really, really close to having full control.
This is the biggest reason to use Firefox.
Isn't Arc just chromium but it treats every page as it's own app?
It’s chromium (unfortunately), but yeah it kind of does that. It can open external links in a pop up. So for browsing sites with tons of links you don’t drown in tabs. It also has spaces, which is basically profiles but much easier to manage. And vertical tabs is probably the best feature.
I love Arc on my mac. It's great just looking at a site and not seeing any tabs. I just hate the fact it's chromium based.
Does it run better than it did fifteen years ago? Because that was the reason I switched to Chrome.
of course not, it hasn't been updated for FIFTEEN YEARS and definitely didn't even get an engine upgrade in 2017 let alone a new version half a month ago and a hotfix last week
Significantly
I switched from Chrome to Firefox somewhat recently. The experience really isn't any different, except Firefox doesn't use 110% of your CPU.
I have a ton of privacy extensions which causes a few issues when creating accounts by linking to your Google account (the pop-up is blocked) or opening redirect links to apps (I think it's only Discord that I've had an issue with). I don't consider those drawbacks because the browser is doing its job. Instead, I go copy and paste the link in Chrome.
Yes. In fact, I'd say that Firefox runs clearly better than Chrome does these days. An inversion of the past.
A hell of a lot smoother than chrome
2 years ago YouTube stuttered like a motherfucker whenever I moved my mouse. Doesn't do that anymore so yes.
Google products are intentionally slower on firefox
What about other chromium browsers?
No effect, bevause youtube uses an outdated version of Shadow DOM, which only chromium based browsers have installed. It then makes browsers like Firefox and pre chromium edge start youtube terribly.
Okay, okay, I get the point! I'm a total Rip Van Winkle when it comes to Firefox. I just stopped using it at one point and never looked back. However good it is now, it was just as not good in the 2000s.
I was a die hard Firefox fan since it was Netscape navigator. But their refusal to adopt PWAs will always keep me one foot in edge/chrome.
I’ve been flirting a bit with Opera GX because of the sidebar, hard ram/cpu limits, and “my flow” feature. super handy when you’re moving between max and windows all day. But it also doesn’t do PWAs so that’s still super annoying.
On Mac I really do like safari. But they don’t have it for windows so I guess I’m just doomed to use multiple browsers.
Wut. Firefox was Netscape navigator? TIL
In a manner of speaking. But basically it was Firefox’s great great grandpa.
It's true!
What do you mean? Just install the plug-in PWAs for Firefox. I have a Firefox based WhatsApp PWA that runs separate from my main Firefox process. It launches on its own and uses the WhatsApp icon on the taskbar. (I was having so many issues with the official WhatsApp app).
It does have a dependency on a package you’ll have to install outside of FF but you can install it using Chocolatey so it’s pretty quick and easy.
I would definitely not trust Opera due to its Chinese owners.
No oldies remember Camino? It was such a great browser!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino_(web_browser)
But it doesn't though, not really. There are quite a few things which are still sent back as telemetry. One hell of alot better than chrome but it's still watching you. It's still not respecting your privacy.
There are some privacy respecting browser out there but they're quite inconvenient to use. I haven't found a real reasonable middle ground personally, but altering librewolf or the mulvad browser to keep you signed in has been nice enough for me
To expand:
Here's a usefull tool: https://ffprofile.com/
Firefox based privacy browser: https://mullvad.net/en/browser
To clarify why this is important, this data can be de-anonymized where anonymized and be used for fingerprinting your internet usage. If you're concerned about privacy this is a pretty big red flag, especially if your government is getting this information, which many have and will be able to in the future.
Fingerprinting isn't a perfect system and can incorrectly flag innocent people. Or, if you unfortunately life in the wrong place, whether true or not being flagged as gay/trans or the wrong political party can very much harm you. Texas has asked the government for a list of trans people inside their state, which was denied, what happens when it isn't? what happens when it's not just trans people, and is instead your group? Caution is king.
Do you have any info on what data Firefox sends home? Have been using Firefox forever.
about:telemetry should tell you if its enabled or not and has links that go into more detail about whats collected and their policies.
This page explains a bit more about it: https://www.howtogeek.com/557929/how-to-see-and-disable-the-telemetry-data-firefox-collects-about-you/
So assuming you disable all the optional telemetry in the settings, you should be good right?
Yup, you should be good if you do that. There are some tools to create a more private profile and the librewolf/mulvad browsers do just that (while removing the code which would allow a good portion of it in the first place)
Here's that tool: https://ffprofile.com/
Firefox based privacy browser: https://mullvad.net/en/browser
To clarify why this is important, this data can be de-anonymized where anonymized and be used for fingerprinting your internet usage. If you're concerned about privacy this is a pretty big red flag, especially if your government is getting this information, which many have and will be able to in the future.
Fingerprinting isn't a perfect system and can incorrectly flag innocent people.
If you unfortunately life in the wrong place, whether true or not being flagged as gay/trans or the wrong political party can very much harm you. Texas has asked the government for a list of trans people inside their state, though the request was denied for now, what happens when it isn't? what happens when it's not just trans people, and is instead your group? Caution is king.
For privacy on iOS what is really the best one?
I recommend ungooogled chromium
I've tried a bunch of time but I feel going back to Chrome.
I'm currently trying or Oprah for the first time.
Is Brave ok?
I switched to Arc recently and kind of hate myself for it, but it has improved my browsing experience too much to go back to FF.
Stay strong out there.
For anyone considering Firefox but still reluctant for reasons check out Waterfox. It's been the best for me for years now. Honestly the best fork.
I've never used it. Is it better than Librewolf or substantially different?
I switch back and forth between Chrome and Firefox but always end up sticking with Chrome for longer:
I wish I could switch to Firefox
I've used "Firefox" since Mozilla 1995 0.x release. It's great software, but it has issues. I use Brave as primary these days, because the entire internet is QA'd with Chromium, and FIrefox just hits too many issues, even on the most recent versions. I use Firefox as secondary every day though too. I need multiple browsers to separate o365 AD creds.
Now I'm getting curious about the vivaldi browser. It's chromium based (apart from firefox, what isn't) but seems pretty security/privacy aware.
I was looking for the best all-rounder for Android and Windows and after watching some videos and checking privacytests.org I landed on Brave
Brave
how exactly does chrome not respect my privacy?
and i don't just mean "because it's google and google is an ad company". what specifically is it sending to some internet server that firefox doesn't? both the firefox and address bars send what you type into them to a search provider. as near as i can tell, firefox's committment to privacy is to say "we protect your privacy" while doing all the same stuff that chrome does.
Brave is pretty good too
Chromium is OSS so it is fine.
What about brave ????
It unironically has to be Chromium
I'll keep avoiding firefox as long as they keep pushing weird decision with each update, the latest one being forcing "pocket recommendation" on the new tab page, even if the built-in (that is, you can't remove it) pocket extension is disabled. Sure, I can go look for the new advanced parameter to disable every time, but why pull this shit in the first place.
What are those? I have never seen pocket recommendation.
It seems they're rolling this up by regions, for whatever reasons. And they're proud of it too. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/view-articles-recommended-pocket-firefox-new-tab-homepage
Cant you say that about chrome pushing weird decisions like manifest v3.
You can, but there's a big difference : the average user (=the vast majority of people) will not see the difference. In some tech circles, or if you're actively looking for it, you'll know that it happens, and what it might (or might not) do, but 90% of people will not see a change. User interface remain the same, features remains the same, and extensions that could adapt will already have done so.
Firefox choices, for better or for worse, are very visible. The pocket extension was bundled in it, making it so that everyone have it show up one day. It being named after a (formerly) third-party service is not a good look. Then the new-tab page suggestions, which I can only see as an intrusive way to push content onto me (something I actively try to avoid, the samy way many "social network" keep pushing what their algorithms think is good for you). Add to that some decisions about actively ignoring user settings (and page content) about PDF handling, subsequently breaking tons of SPA because "they know better" (there was a long discussion, and the change was half-reverted once big enough sites showed issues).
The list could go on, ranging from "interesting" UI choices to bundling more and more advertisement for their own service, only to backpedal later with "oh, we didn't think it would annoy people to do the exact thing you're running from other browsers for".
Chrome changes might be insidious, but they have limited impact to the actual users. Mozilla keeps changing Firefox in very glaring ways and not always with a sound reasons, user-wise. One could argue that these changes are all minor, but they do act as a deterrent for people that really can't handle changes (remember, for most people changing the icon on a button is enough to make a feature "disappear" for them).
I'd argue crippling what ublock origin is caple of doing is very crippling to the end user experience. Accepting a cippled ublock is similar to accepting the change when adblock plus white listed some ads.
Again, factor in the number of people knowingly using ublock, and actively looking into what changed vs. what still works fine for now. Manifest v3 have no reach beyond techies, and as such is "accepted" by default. Remember that most people are totally fine with these changes because the larger picture is not shown to them.
Brave + privacyBadger is about the best you can do. If you turn all the features on it anonymizes your plugins and screen res returns enough that you can't be identified by a unique configuration.
It supports TOR for private browsing natively.
I don't trust them more than Mozilla, but the do a better job at keeping my browsing habits out out the hands of my ISP and the sites I visit.
God this community is so pathetic
Debloated Brave
Appearently brave is the most privacy focused browser. At least according to this paper from 3y ago.
https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
Edit: guys I know that Brave is not the best browser and I wouldn't recommend it, but I haven't seen studies or in depth articles about technical details of privacy concerns.
And I'm not being sarcastic, I wanna see them so I can make a more informed opinion.
Not sure if you’re making a joke or if you’re just unaware about the recent news, but it’s amusing either way.
This isn't really a "privacy concern" from a user standpoint. It isn't user data they're selling, it's data they've scraped from websites for use in machine learning. It's more of a legal grey area in the same way that OpenAI is being sued for their use of data in training ChatGPT.
Nothings safe anymore. Everything's a lie.
So chromium. Brave is based on chromium.
No. There are tracking protection extensions in Brave that aren't in base Chromium.
I don't support Brave or Chromium but we need to be accurate about praises and criticisms of them.
The main point people need to understand is that Chromium based browsers are heavily nerfing the ability for users to use ad-blockers. This isn't much of an issue in the case of Brave where the ad-blocking is built into the browser itself.
And personally, I would rather have some healthy privacy based competition between browsers. Having both Librewolf (Firefox) and Brave browser (chromium) lets us have options to switch between.
It also creates additional work on the advertising side in this cat and mouse game.
What are you talking about? I use brave and haven't seen a single ad in ages.
If I ever accidentally open the wrong browser, I can tell immediately.
There is a way to "opt-in" to view ads from their own pool of ads in exchange for crypto... But that's automatically disabled, and there's a toggle to hide all of the crypto stuff anyway.
I'm having deja vu. I've gotten this confused before and looked it up before and they don't. I'm misremembering something from some forum post they made but I also couldn't find that forum post last time. Regardless, their official FAQ says they don't. I've deleted the comment above now.
I think you were mixing it up with Google Chrome.
Google made an announcement sometime back that they wanted to improve the standards for advertising, and if there were any ads that didn't meet those standards they would have Chrome automatically block it.
I hate PDFs of papers. I want to read like this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Not
1 3
2 4
5 7
6 8
duckduckgo browser is promising and not built on chromium
It doesn't have to be Chromium, but asserting that Firefox is the only browser that respects your privacy is just untrue. Edit: I use FF and Brave for different browsing, as some websites just don't like FF.
Brave is a poor example of a privacy oriented browser. Its a very good example of a browser lying to you about your privacy
Brave literally just got called put for selling copyrighted data for AI scraping.
Can you link a source for that?
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/brave-browser-under-fire-for-alleged-sale-of-copyrighted-data/491854/
That's the first article I found on Google, there's plenty more probably more reputable sources.
Use Vivaldi browser. Fucking fast, cross platform and lots of features
I've been using Firefox full-time since I switched to it 3 years ago and I haven't seen a single website that doesn't work with Firefox
I've found a couple, and the issue seems to stem from some type of cert from goDaddy specifically.
what are you talking about, I went to that site, clicked on everything, and nothing doesn't load, everything works fine
I don't specifically mean the goDaddy site, I mean some sites that have gotten there certs from goDaddy won't work. It will give an ssl error. I believe it is their wildcard cert specifically.
I've found a few. I can't think of examples, but I keep switching back to chromium
I've seen a few companies paying employees six figures a month for doing nothing too, but I can think of a single name though. That's gotta be real right?
What!? I'm talking about Firefox being unresponsive with some websites.
what website? I’ve been daily driving Firefox for both work and home use since 3 years ago, the only time it doesn’t load a site properly is when I lose internet connection
Is there a firefox based browser like brave? And preferably without cryptobro bullshit?
I heard mullvad is looking promising but no android app (yet?)
so fennec is literally the same as firefox, but available in f droid?
What do you mean “like brave”?
What do you mean "like brave"?
A botnet that gives you shitcoins every so often
A browser not based on Firefox with cryptobro bullshit
Assuming you mean built-in adblock and so on, Librewolf on the Desktop and the Mull Browser on Android. The latter is the default browser for DivestOS, a custom rom based on LineageOS.
Well, Mull doesn't have a buil-in blocker, but you can use uBlock Origin
Brave? 😅
Chromium. It also has done some shady shit in the past with crypto
miningand refferal links.If you hate Brave that's fine, but at least be honest. It never had any mining whatsoever. It has a feature that let's you earn crypto through ads that is turned off by default. That's it. You never have to deal with it if you don't want to.
I'll give you the referral link issue though.
I just threw on table what I knew without any experience with Brave... I removed the mining from it so it's somewhat more accurate. I still find it concerning that it's a feature to begin with, but that's with me :)
I know it's Chromium, that's why I said it.
I didn't know they have done shady crypto stuff, I started using Brave because I needed to use Chromium in school (frontend dev) but I didn't want Crome or Edge... So Brave made sense to use.
Fair enough. I'm sure there are better Chromium based browsers when it comes to that though. I haven't looked into these though, so I can't name them :p
Me neither
What has it done with mining? I know about the referral links.
As a comment above mentioned, it has a feature to get cryto through ads that is disabled by default, but you can opt-in if you like. I personally find it concerning that it's a feature to begin with
So is it mining them or not? Because rewards doesn't imply mining necessarily.
I don't think so.
smartest emojiposter
Brave is on of the few Chrome based browsers that security types will back. but still has its own issues.
C r y p t o
Tbh seems good enough for me, when I turn that stuff off
Can you opt out of it changing your links to their affiliates
All the crypto features are now opt in iirc
I did turn it all off and have been using it for a long time. I don't feel like using Firefox, so it's gotta be chromium and I didn't like Vivaldi's UI. So by elimination I ended up at Brave.