3 ms·
Honestly can't make up my mind between Brave or Firefox. There isn't much discussion that happens before diving into the same arguments on both sides. Past two
by GNOMES 4y ago
Honestly can't make up my mind between Brave or Firefox. There isn't much discussion that happens before diving into the same arguments on both sides.
Past two years I have been happy on Firefox again (switched to Chrome early on). I switched back when Ublock Origin started advertising that it worked best on Firefox.
I have experimented with Brave a few times here and there, and it definitely feels faster on Android, not so much on desktop.
I just want Mozilla to start focusing on performance instead of themes/ui changes (I am not in the camp that gets angry over the UI changes).
For being an opt in feature, Brave's release notes are always filled with crypto focused changes. I get that crypto is their main source of income, but would be nice to see more features being developed.
- jacooper 4y agoFor me what convinced me to switch to brave is that actually do privacy by default, not just empty talk like mozilla. - they have their own independent search engine - and their own privacy respecting AD network. - they block ADs and trackers BY DEFAULT And many other things, I personally lost hope Mozilla is going to do anything meaningful, and I found brave to be actually trying to to change things. I can give brave to my grandma and she would be instantly more private, yet its designed to not break anything by default.
- BeefWellington 4y ago> For me what convinced me to switch to brave is that actually do privacy by default, not just empty talk like mozilla. That's one hell of a take. - they have their own independent search engine - and their own privacy respecting AD network. - they block ADs and trackers BY DEFAULT What is a "privacy respecting AD network"? How are points #1 and #2 at all pro-privacy? If they are embedding their own ad system, how is them blocking ads and trackers actually relevant? If all telemetry is not off by default it undermines the relevance of point #3 substantially.
- yucky 4y ago>How are points #1 and #2 at all pro-privacy? #1 - The search engine works based off of what you actually query, not who you are, other sites you've visited, where you're located etc. #2 - Ads are off by default, you can opt in to see ads and if you do you can opt in to collect a token that you can then either keep or donate to content providers that you support (ie tipping). I have never opted in so I never see it.
- jacooper 4y ago1. Actual competition to Google with no trackers, unlike DDG and start page and many others, which are basically new UIs for bing and google respectively. 2. https://brave.com/brave-ads/ https://brave.com/brave-ads/
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- GNOMES 4y agoThe opt in by default in Brave vs Firefox's opt-out by default does speak value. While a feature can be good/suggested to be enabled, a user won't know to look for it unless advertised or in settings. Most of the features in Firefox seem to be behind about:config changes. I imagine most users just install software and go on with their life instead of configuring. Can be a double edged sword though. No sites that are memorable off hand, but I have had site that Brave with Shields w/defaults would not load vs stock firefox + stock Ublock would. Note sure if this is due to the "opt in" by default breaking a site. Edit: Brave is opt out, Firefox is opt-in. I had them backwards.