YSK that some internet browsers respect your privacy. Some internet browsers don't.
http://privacytests.org/Open linkView original on lemmy.zipSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.ziphttp://privacytests.org/Open linkView original on lemmy.zip
86 replies
Say it with me.
Brave 👏 owns 👏 an 👏 ad 👏 network. 👏
Also, the homophobia.
It's worse than an ad network; it started out as a crypto scam wrapped in a protection racket. "Sure would be a shame if we MITM'd your ads and didn't share a cut with you because you wouldn't help us legitimize our funny munny."
If its chromium, i dont want it.
Also, the homophobia.
I didn't know that. I heard Brave owned some crypto scam, but their browser was legit and open source. As long as you stayed away from crypto, you were okay.
Doesn't their browser include uBlock by default? How do they make money with ads?
Basically, the business model of Brave is that they want to block ads on websites so that the browser itself serves the ads instead.
They aren't blocking ads for the user's sake, they're blocking ads to kill their competition.
Brave isn't popular enough to actually disrupt the online ad industry like that yet, so they've found other ways to make money (like crypto). But the built-in ad network was their original idea. It's not exactly a pro-user organization.
Here's a good summary of some of the shady practices that they've done by way of @[email protected]. It's a summary of this article: https://thelibre.news/no-really-dont-use-brave/
Brendan Eich's anti-LGBTQ+ political involvement
2016 — Brave Browser promises to replace webpage ads
2018 — Brave runs a questionable donation campaign
2020 — Brave injects referral links when visiting crypto wallets
2020 — Brave puts ads in user's home screens
2021 - Brave ships an insecure Tor feature
2023 - Brave hides their crawlers to websites
2024 - So-called "privacy browser" deprecated advanced fingerprinting protection
And More!
They also got caught dynamically inserting their own referral codes into peoples' URLs
As far as i know, they have their own ad blocker and allow the user to allow some ads and share a part of the revenue with them
This is an ad for Brave. The creator of this site is Arthur Edelstein who is employed by Brave. 🙄
I am so sick of “privacy guides” that subtly try to push a crypto bro ad company browser.
Brave is a crypto bro run ad company whos CEO is openly anti LGBT+.
The OG poster is a 12 day old account with a lot of submissions to try to hide that. I could easily write a bot to do the same to give “credibility”.
Does this spam work on the fediverse?
I find it hilarious when people call brave, a browser by an ad company basically, a good private browser.
I followed all their shenanigans over the years. No one should touch this bloated browser.
The CEO is not openly anti LGBT+. He made a single $1000 to a prop 8 campaign back in 2008, way before Brave was even a thing.
That's it. That's the controversy. A miniscule donation at a very different time. I know a lot of people here were infants back in 2008, but the levels of LGBT support at that time were WAY less than now. It even looks like he later apologized and said he regretted his actions. I'm not going to call the guy a saint, or even a good person; it was still a shitty thing to do, but in context, that's a far fucking cry from being "openly anti LGBT+" by today's standards.
That said, there are some valid criticisms of Brave as a whole. I just wish people would focus on the valid criticisms rather than parrot bullshit they heard others say that makes them look like uninformed idiots.
What are you talking about? Donating $1000 to an anti human rights campaign was bigoted then and now. And since when is $1000 considered a “minuscule” donation? It’s like donating to the Israeli military. Don’t matter if it was in 2008 or 2026. You support genocide either way.
Being sorry is a good start. But being sorry does not excuse the action. But yes there are other critiques you can choose to do in addition to the CEO donating to an anti human rights campaign I will concede.
Again, it was a shitty thing to do. But I want you to REALLY ask yourself: given it was almost 20 years ago, he has publicly apologized, and that he has not done anything besides that one instance, do you really think he fits the definition of being "Openly anti LGBT+"?
Like shit man, Obama was against gay marriage when he first entered office. Does he get the title of being "openly anti LGBT+"?
He said he was sorry for “causing pain”, he didn’t apologize for making the donation or for being against same-sex marriage.
He has also not donated to pro-LGBTQ+ causes or expressed support for same-sex marriage since then either.
Yes.
If Obama gave a “minuscule” $1000 donation to prop 8 I would say the same. Having an opinion and being wrong, admitting it is different than giving $1000 to repress people even if you apologize.
(Obama has major issues aside this for the record but that is out of scope.)
But if you donated $1000 to repress people in 2008 or now yah you should be called out. Being sorry makes it better but does not undo the harm.
In 2008 I donated $20 to HRC to oppose people like the CEO of brave. He could have done the same or just done noting. He openly chose to repress LGBT+ people threw action.
What's prop 8 campaign? Why does it matter whether the donation was done before or after Brave was started? Why does it matter that support for LGBT was lower when he made the donation?
You're attempting to make it seem like it's fine because of all these arbitrary rules you've place and by hiding what he donated to (most people won't look up what prop 8 is, and you know it), but why not hold people accountable no matter when or how big the issue is?
You can also hold them accountable on all the issues, not just the issues you care about. Just because you care about issue x, doesn't mean someone else caring about issue y is invalid.
And they say "the levels of support were way less than now" trying to imply everyone was like that than, it was the social sentiment. Why is that stupid argument used to try and normalise vile things, everyone thought like that, bullshit bullshit bullshit.
Is this a fucking ad? Seriously?
It is. I posted elsewhere but will do so here for visibility.
On the other hand, they clearly show they aren't the best one, and they include categories that they miss almost all of. Seems like fair play.
Drink more ovaltine
Ovaltine would be a great name for a browser. Or engine, I'm not picky.
Rich chocolate ovaltine?
Would you people stop that? Ovaltine is actually tasty and I want some now, damn you all. lol
More Ovaltine please!
I like how librewolf has more green checks than brave but brave is shown first like it's the best. really shows the biases of the authors
Edit: lmao hoisted by my own petard, it's just in alphabetical order and I just hate brave. Tbf fuck Brendan Eich.
It's just in alphabetic order
But who controls the alphabet?!
Campbell's
Quality joke (not sarcastic) 👏
It's a souper joke
😄🙇♂️
oooOOOoooOOooooooooo
(this is a Spaghettios joke)
sundar pichai i think
Alphabet?
Big Alphabet
I THINK YOU MEAN UPPER CASE
;-)
BIG ALPHABET
Probably the Jews. According to my uncle they are remarkably capable.
Shhh, there has to be a secret agenda to everything!!! Let me have this, lemming! 🥺
According to the other comments, the website is by Brave (or at least a Brave employee) so kinda, yeah...
Oh I'm all for shitting on Brave, and I didn't bother to give this list a look anyway because Librewolf is my goat. But that's so fucking cringe lol. It's a shame that so many websites, including Privacy Guides where I essentially started my journey into FOSS and learning about alternatives to Big Tech, recommend brave. Like if someone TRULY had to use chromium, I'd tell them to just stick with Ungoogled, as I don't know enough about Vivaldi. But like that should be an absolute last resort choice.
But the main issues was the commentor didn't notice it was Alphabetic lol.
I've been using helium as a secondary/Chromium browser, and it's pretty neat.
Time for my Firefox clone, AAAAArdvark.
Mullvad seems to be the big winner, which I'm very torn about.
Mind educating us on this one? The Brave skepticism is well covered in the comments already but your take isn’t.
Its cofounder, Daniel Berntsson, funding far right political parties in Sweden with substantial amounts of money. So 🖕 him and 🖕 Mullvad.
I love how there's continued bias confirmation that the main people who are crazy about privacy end up being right-wing shitheads.
Almost like if you irrationally care about privacy it usually means you have something to hide.
Now don't get me wrong, I love my privacy too, but Jesus Christ people. It doesn't mean we can't ask for better but we are all using computers here. We are all on The Internet. There is no privacy. Stop lying to yourselves and saying there is.
You want privacy go in a locked room and talk to someone in person.
I would say the "cofounder"/"CEO" factors are the main contributor factors that enable the "shithead" quality in each case, rather than the "care about privacy" factor. 😅 That's my personal take.
Its basically an ad for Brave.
Perhaps they should have doctored the results so that it doesn’t seem that way.
Brave is a crypto scam disguised as a reskinned version of Google Chrome
Serious people use literally anything else. At least Google is honest about its spyware
So this is Brave’s new ad campaign then?
Librewolf
Why does Firefox have an ❌ next to "Insecure website setting"? It very much does warn you. There's even an "HTTPS-only" setting that allows you to completely block insecure websites from loading.
It's an ad for Brave. They are going to lie about their competition.
So we should be suspect about libre wolf clearly being ball handled by brave in this graph then?
But... It shows brave with an x too...
Just because it admits when Brave faulters doesn't mean it's okay to lie about when other browsers are successful. In fact, if you cared about category X and both failed instead of only one, you'd be more inclined to ignore the category all together than remember one performed better.
It's still obscuring results and obfuscating who's behind this report. ~~Given Brave is the first browser listed (unless maybe it's alphabetical) it seems pretty clear. ~~
Edit: it is, in fact, alphabetical. I rescind that criticism.
I think it's because you have to enable it first?
That's my point. It should have a green ➖ next to it instead. An ❌ implies that the feature doesn't exist.
Librewolf 😍
Mullvad's browser seems to be even better. They're the only VPN I trust, so if their browser is Gecko-based, I might just have to switch from Firefox.
Said political party support far-right policies such as so-called "ethnic cleansing".
Firefox and Safari both have insecure website warnings, don’t know why they have X’s there
Librewolf is the GOAT.
Is this an ad for Brave?
Considering the guy who runs that site is a brave empoyee, yes.
Hell nah Brave is awful
Brave had a massive bug where Tor sessions were leaked to ISPs. Ain't no way im trusting something like that in 2026
How come Brave can interfere with Tor sessions?
Brave has the functionality to access Tor sites. To ba fair,as far as I remember, Brave devs called against using this function for privacy sensitive browsing and added it more as a bonus to access a given resource.
There it is... Firefox and DuckDuckGo... unbeatable combo.
not crazy about chromium, but i'm curious where a browser like helium/cromite/bromite or vanadium on gOS stack up (i get that's not mainstream android)
ironfox, too. i just like comparison tables and as little privacy invasion as possible
Vanadium is very secure but has a weak content blocker and no fingerprinting protections.
Helium has uBlock Origin but may have canvas fingerprinting protections (inherited from ungoogled Chromium). It also inherits the security issues present in upstream ungoogled Chromium.
Cromite has an alright built-in content blocker (ABP engine) and supports adding uBlock Origin, and has decent fingerprinting protections. Cromite doesn't have good default settings for its ABP blocklists or important anti-fingerprint settings.
I just use plain Firefox, and don't use my real name for anything. What I lack in privacy, I try to make up for in anonymity.
Use the ublock origin extension for general safety
This is also about who has the most checkmarks, not whether or not the checkmark is good or bad.
What about waterfox?
Excellent.
screams Mr. Burns!
Heavy (light?) lifting done by that word there.
That's how words work.
They must be so tired, going to the gym all the time
Ah, yes, I should judge the browser by whether it strips arbitrary query parameters from links by default, because there's no way that'll break something, and if it uses encrypted DNS by default when... "connecting from Brazil", because that's definitely a good test of a browser.
I am so very happy that the header is sticky, I was prepared to need to scroll back up