Why I recommend against Brave.
-
Since when did LibreWolf stop development? First I heard of it, and concerning if accurate.
I was just reading about it in another thread that I don't remember. Not really "stopped" per se but one of the major devs left and the remaining have admitted they're not able to keep up. I'll go and see if I can find it again and I'll edit this comment if I do.
-
We've already seen many other browsers stop development, like (...) LibreWolf, due to lack of resources.
Wait, what?
Two things:
-
When did Librewolf stop development?
-
On funding, they say in their FAQ:
If we don't need funding, we won't risk becoming dependent on it. And also: no donations means no expectations. This means that people working on LibreWolf are free to move on to other projects whenever they want.
Librewolf seems to very consciously not looking for "resources" from advertising or donations, or etc. The only resource they seem to want is motivation.
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
I think that having expectations and funding to continue is important, like you say.
But I'm still confused about what you mean by the "resources" comment re: Librewolf.
I can somewhat understand the overall criticism, because Librewolf - as far as my understanding goes - would be in trouble without the work being done on the code upstream.
Personally, I know that this does not exist (yet), and to some people that put privacy above everything else with a more libertarian slant, this might sound like the worst option imaginable, but my "dream" way to handle it within the current economic system would be:
Have an open source, FOSS base, web-engine and all, developed with public funds similar to public broadcasting in many countries (Bonus if carried by international organisations instead of just national. Think a UN institution like UNESCO or WHO, but focused on making the internet accessible neutrally and to all). On top of that code, projects that want to put privacy above all else could still feasibly built projects like LibreWolf (an even Brave), relying somewhat comfortably on secure fundamentals.
I know, sounds like a dream, which it is at this point. But every other solution within the current economic status quo I personally thin of, I see no chance of enshittification not always encroaching and creating crises, if not outright taking over.
-
-
[email protected] is supporting your argument.
Oh. Okay.
-
I can somewhat understand the overall criticism, because Librewolf - as far as my understanding goes - would be in trouble without the work being done on the code upstream.
Personally, I know that this does not exist (yet), and to some people that put privacy above everything else with a more libertarian slant, this might sound like the worst option imaginable, but my "dream" way to handle it within the current economic system would be:
Have an open source, FOSS base, web-engine and all, developed with public funds similar to public broadcasting in many countries (Bonus if carried by international organisations instead of just national. Think a UN institution like UNESCO or WHO, but focused on making the internet accessible neutrally and to all). On top of that code, projects that want to put privacy above all else could still feasibly built projects like LibreWolf (an even Brave), relying somewhat comfortably on secure fundamentals.
I know, sounds like a dream, which it is at this point. But every other solution within the current economic status quo I personally thin of, I see no chance of enshittification not always encroaching and creating crises, if not outright taking over.
But that didn't answer my questions
-
We've already seen many other browsers stop development, like (...) LibreWolf, due to lack of resources.
Wait, what?
Two things:
-
When did Librewolf stop development?
-
On funding, they say in their FAQ:
If we don't need funding, we won't risk becoming dependent on it. And also: no donations means no expectations. This means that people working on LibreWolf are free to move on to other projects whenever they want.
Librewolf seems to very consciously not looking for "resources" from advertising or donations, or etc. The only resource they seem to want is motivation.
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
I think that having expectations and funding to continue is important, like you say.
But I'm still confused about what you mean by the "resources" comment re: Librewolf.
When did Librewolf stop development?
https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/issues/1906
Not sure about the health of librewolf either, this thread suggests it's 3 overworked parttimers unable to keep up
"Hey all, I'm on the LibreWolf team, and it's true that since the departure of @fxbrit the project has taken a total nosedive when it comes to keeping up to date with Arkenfox and settings in general. We're still making releases, but settings did not get updated."
"As @threadpanic said, since fxbrit left we have been in a kind of "maintenance" mode in terms of settings. Mainly because we are really only three people left"
"LW since fxbrit left/died/who-knows has gone to shit - I worked with him behind the scenes to make the right choices and while he would do his own analysis, we always agreed, and his voice influenced them. Now they don't know what they are doing, and in fact have compromised security and make really stupid decisions. Same goes for all the other forks - really dubious shit going"
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
Exactly.
But I'm still confused about what you mean by the "resources" comment re: Librewolf.
"Resources" can refer to many different things, in this case it is motivation/prioritization.
-
-
It's not about 'Google' vs 'the other sear h engines'. It's about transparency. You've probably read some news about how AI crawlers have been destroying infrastrucure and half the time does NOT declare themselves as crawlers in their UA.
Can confirm that nealy 90% (read hundred of thousands) of daily visits to several of my websites are made by crawlers from datacenters and I HATE not knowing whose who. Because when I don't know, I block and report. Website owners already have enough between AI, Page Rankings, and Research Agencies who all exploit free infra for their own business.
Do I make exception for Search Engine crawlers? Yeah, I do. I've seen Google, Bing, and Mojeek, but weirdly enough, never Brave. Now I know why. And frankly, if they can't be bothered to be transparent about their crawlings, then I won't be bothered to make exceptions for them. They're freeloading just as much as the rest. If they act like shady chinese crawlers, then they have no right to go pikachu face when they're treated like one.
Well said
-
But that didn't answer my questions
Oh, yes, it wasn't a direct answer, also, I'm not the person you answered to. Ultimately, my comment was more meant as an overall addition to the discussion, building on the idea of what a solution to:
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
might be.
But as answers to your two points. #1 - I have no idea where they got that from, myself #2 - I think you answered that one yourself rather well, and I wanted to build on that one.
Sorry if that was confusing, my brain is also good at confusing myself at times, can't imagine how that is for others at times.
-
I can somewhat understand the overall criticism, because Librewolf - as far as my understanding goes - would be in trouble without the work being done on the code upstream.
Personally, I know that this does not exist (yet), and to some people that put privacy above everything else with a more libertarian slant, this might sound like the worst option imaginable, but my "dream" way to handle it within the current economic system would be:
Have an open source, FOSS base, web-engine and all, developed with public funds similar to public broadcasting in many countries (Bonus if carried by international organisations instead of just national. Think a UN institution like UNESCO or WHO, but focused on making the internet accessible neutrally and to all). On top of that code, projects that want to put privacy above all else could still feasibly built projects like LibreWolf (an even Brave), relying somewhat comfortably on secure fundamentals.
I know, sounds like a dream, which it is at this point. But every other solution within the current economic status quo I personally thin of, I see no chance of enshittification not always encroaching and creating crises, if not outright taking over.
developed with public funds similar to public broadcasting
Personally, I'd never touch a browser funded by the gov.
-
developed with public funds similar to public broadcasting
Personally, I'd never touch a browser funded by the gov.
I think that is utlimately valid - although I think the other options are all coming with their own problems. You will then have to instead live with the interests of tech corporations (including nonprofits who ultimately need funding) and advertisers collecting your data, whose interests will ultimately not be much less malignant - or small free software projects of a sometimes quite limited scope. The latter, I think, is also a valid niché, but will leave the overall standards of the internet to corporate interests.
Considering how the CEO here acts for Brave, in my opinion, this is not simply about him being an asshole or being politically questionable. To me - everything about him screams "grifter taking advantage of people's legitimate concerns" - and he has a material interest in your data as well. Brave always felt to me like trying to sell and market privacy instead of proving to me, in their fundamentals, that they actually have my interests in mind.
Which is why I, personally, do not really understand choosing Brave above LibreWolf (or Tor Browse, occasionally), if privacy is your #1 priority.
-
What better chromium based browser is there?
I normally stick with Firefox but, when there's the need, I use degoogled Chromium.
-
This is a very well written an thorough article and I highly recommend reading it. If you don't want to however, here is a summary of the key points:
-
- Brendan Eich donated to anti-LGBT political organizations, politicians, and initiatives such as CA Prop 8 which was a proposed ban on same-sex marriages.
-
- Brave promised to replace ads with privacy friendly ads that would actually pay publishers and even users with a volatile cryptocurrency while keeping a cut for themselves. This never actually came to life and was criticized as "blatantly illegal".
-
- Brave collected donations for popular content creators without actually involving or seeking consent from said creators. In short they accepted donations in crypto for creators, but would only pay out if it reached a minimum value of $100. When called out, Brave said refunds were impossible.
-
2020 — Brave injects referral links when visiting crypto wallets
-
- Brave injected their own referral links for services such as Binance without informing users or asking permission.
-
- Brave turned their home screen image rotator into a place to serve ads, many of which were suspicious or crypto related.
-
- Brave added a Tor feature which exposed users DNS requests
-
- Brave refuses to disclose their crawler bot to websites since many websites want to block Brave Search. Brave will only chose not to crawl a website if it also blocks Google's crawler.
-
2024 - So-called "privacy browser" deprecated advanced fingerprinting protection
-
- Brave removed a the Strict, Block Fingerprinting privacy feature from their browser.
-
- Brave paid for targeted ads for users searching for Firefox in the Play Store and ran a campaign to "Forget the Fox". When called out on this the VP publicly denied it and claimed it was photo-shopped.
-
- The VP of Brave, Luke Mulks, frequently posts about all things crypto, from NFTs to FTX, and uses AI-gen images to promote them. He also frequently re-tweets right-wing activists.
-
- Brendan Eich's feed also frequently contains right-wing content and Republican propaganda despite his claims to be "independent".
Oof. It seems that most of the users simply don't care.
-
Does Adblock even work in Brave any more since Google blocked them?
Brave has their own built-in ad blocker that still works
-
What better chromium based browser is there?
Vivaldi if you really need a Chromium based browser.
-
If you are keen on personal privacy, you might have come across Brave Browser. Brave is a Chromium-based browser that promises to deliver privacy with built-in ad-blocking and content-blocking protection. It also offers several quality-of-life features and services, like a VPN and Tor access. I mean, it's even listed on the reputable PrivacyTools website. Why am I telling you to steer clear of this browser, then?
privacytools.io uses affiliate links. privacyguides.org does not.
-
I see no legitimate reason for not using a User Agent string, like all the other crawlers use, other than the desire to hide the crawler and make it difficult to block.
I don't accept his explanation. I see it as gaslighting.
They explained the reason in the comment you just replied to.
-
It's not about 'Google' vs 'the other sear h engines'. It's about transparency. You've probably read some news about how AI crawlers have been destroying infrastrucure and half the time does NOT declare themselves as crawlers in their UA.
Can confirm that nealy 90% (read hundred of thousands) of daily visits to several of my websites are made by crawlers from datacenters and I HATE not knowing whose who. Because when I don't know, I block and report. Website owners already have enough between AI, Page Rankings, and Research Agencies who all exploit free infra for their own business.
Do I make exception for Search Engine crawlers? Yeah, I do. I've seen Google, Bing, and Mojeek, but weirdly enough, never Brave. Now I know why. And frankly, if they can't be bothered to be transparent about their crawlings, then I won't be bothered to make exceptions for them. They're freeloading just as much as the rest. If they act like shady chinese crawlers, then they have no right to go pikachu face when they're treated like one.
Brave doesn't have AI crawlers, they have search index crawlers.
While you may make exceptions for them, many others may not.
-
Vivaldi if you really need a Chromium based browser.
An option, but not fully open source.
-
Here come the downvotes fro the supposedly tolerant
idiotsgood people out there, lolDude, you showed up to a post about how brave is an ad-riddled crypto scam and responded with "yeah, but fuck Firefox" with no reasoning given. Then cried about how anyone who disagreed with that assessment was an idiot.
What kind of engagement were you expecting/hoping for?
-
Thank you for posting this! I had a vague recollection there was something scummy about Brave, and I was surprised to see it recommended in so many of the "Which browser should I use?" posts. It's really handy to have a chronical of bullshit like this to point to when it comes up
You could make a similar "chronical" about any other browser. They're often recommended because in many ways they are the least shitty and most sustainable.
-
Oof. It seems that most of the users simply don't care.
Every time I mention that brave is a bad choice that is basically the response I get.
