cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/68754751
There was a time I chose Firefox over the Chromium browser without a second thought. But nowadays, installing and opening Firefox seems like a time-consuming, very bloated experience.
Too many unnecessary features, promotions, sponsored links, and widgets are filled on the homepage. All the settings are now more complex, and there is a lot to set up after a fresh install.
When I compare modern Firefox with Firefox ESR, I feel like I am using browsers like Vivaldi or Opera instead of Firefox. Seriously, Firefox must consider releasing a browser like Brave Origin (Firefox Origin or something).
Isn’t anybody else frustrated with the new Firefox changes? If yes, what practical solutions exist? Debloat using any script or install any forks (no forks seem to be good; some are outdated, some are too much hardened, some are just not for daily browsing, etc.).
I’m just looking for a browser like Ungoogled Chromium but for Firefox (Unmozillaed Firefox).
Recommending mullvad, in this economy ? That’s a bold strategy , if nothing else.
I suppose if you’re going to do that then following up with handwaving brave’s historic shenanigans and current CEO is consistent.
“They previous did and continue to do some shit i don’t care about , i like their products” at least shows some backbone.
The corporate defense version of the narcissists prayer is weaksauce.
What a strange comment. Can’t say I’ve ever been called a narcissist for recommending privacy browsers before.
Mullvad is pretty much the most trusted VPN provider. If you don’t want to pay for a VPN, don’t. I explicitly mentioned it is still a good privacy by default Firefox based browser without the bloat of Firefox.
Sure, let’s go through your list, why not.
2016: Brave announces a feature, then are laughed at because it’s a bad idea. They don’t do it. Ok then?
2018: for some reason they allow users to donate in someone else’s name that Brave is not affiliated with. They give them the money after $100 is reached, which is clearly stated. They don’t clearly state which is affiliated and who isnt, confusing the website owners into thinking someone impersonated them. They then label it after someone contacts them about this, and don’t use a dumb ass fundraising system like this again. At no point are they being misleading about where money is going, and this does not affect Brave users in any way.
2020: injecting affiliate links. According to Brave, this was a coding mistake, and it was fixed before they made any money from it. Even if I don’t believe them, from what I can tell, this is not like the Honey scandal where it stripped out other people’s affiliate links to steal their money, but rather only put an affiliate link into a clean link to make Brave money when there would have been no money involved. Not a privacy issue either from what I can tell. It’s an “if x then y” thing during the search process. There’s not someone sitting in Brave HQ reading everyone’s searches and pressing a button, nor is it recorded. Is it scummy and possibly illegal to get money from a company who is thinking someone advertised on their behalf but are effectively not gaining anything? Yeah, and if they did in fact do it on purpose, that is bad. But I can see their logic of it not hurting anyone. Sorta…and if I’m being honest I’m not going to cry for corpos that heavily push ads.
2020: ads on home screen. Like every browser, including Firefox. OK. I forgot this happened because I turned it off. Like I do for every browser, or at least every browser that allows you to do so. Except in Brave’s case, they will literally pay you to not turn it off.
2021: Brave makes a Tor plugin that they didn’t realize conflicts with their ad blocking in such a way that causes DNS leaks. They fixed it as soon as this was found out. Unlike the affiliate link thing, I don’t believe for a second that this would be intentional. Brave does not stand to benefit from this on any way, unless they are fully a fed psy-op.
2023: certainly the most worrying on the list that they’re even approaching this as a feature. However, Web Discovery Program is opt in. Your data is not being sold or used for Brave’s index unless you tell them to. I think their idea here was to build their own index based on consensually given data rather than solely scraping the internet without consent. However I’d really prefer they just didn’t be a part of data selling at all, obviously. Needless to say, this is a big problem with browsers in general. Firefox has stated that they don’t sell data, but they have definitely been in bed with Ai lately and their telemetry is opt out.
Now far be it from me to even approach being a corporate defender. I am. not here to suck Brave’s dick, I keep up to date with what Brave is doing because I don’t fully trust them. But then again, I don’t trust pretty much any browser creators more than I am forced to. I just think it’s really weird that Brave gets so much hate when it isn’t warranted when compared to what other browsers do.
Ungoogled Chromium, for example, removes some key security features from the Chromium project for absolutely no reason, and relies on a bizarre build system that lacks transparency, relying on third parties binaries instead of just, you know, building from source. Helium is a fork of Ungoogled Chromium, and doesn’t fix either of those issues. Vivaldi is closed source. Why are we even entertaining them being a privacy browser if we don’t know what code they’re running? They could be worse than Google for all we know. Firefox refuses to fix a security flaw on Android where they don’t sandbox by site, which has been known about for years. Every Android Firefox fork has the same issue. As good as it is on desktop, that’s why I ultimately moved away from Firefox, because I need to sync tabs from my PC to my phone.
No one was calling you a narcissist, read it again.
And my comment had nothing to do with its technical competence.
Have you really not seen any stories related to mullvad recently?
Not my list, a list.
And all of those explanations are the handwaving I mentioned.
Your take on them all seems reasonable if not exactly the same as mine.
In aggregate though they indicate a potential pattern.
My response was specifically to your implication that because their many shenanigans were in the past and nothing was a current problem that they we should only judge them on their current technical competence.
I also noticed you didn’t mention the current CEO and why someone might have an issue with them.
Then you probably aren’t hearing all of what people are actually complaining about.
hint : they aren’t usually complaining about the technical competence.
Also other browsers get plenty of shit, a lot of it justifiable.
All valid, and I agree.
I could list some you haven’t mentioned as well.
I personally use a variant of Firefox that has a whole bunch of questionable shit turned off or removed.
Despite almost all of their recent moves having been to announce some bullshit that actively makes them a worse option for me they are still currently , barely, the least worst option (for my preferences)
And only then it’s mostly because of the variants.
What I was getting at is that playing down the continuous bullshit from these companies weakens your arguments.
It also genuinely seems you don’t see why the non-technical aspects of these companies might be a point of contention for some people.
I wasn’t sure if you were referring to either or both interpretations for Mullvad, so I responded to both versions of what you could mean by that. Based in your last comment I have a feeling I didn’t hear something recent about them, as far as I know everyone still likes them.
I reread the narcissist thing and I’m really not sure what you mean then. Are you calling the Brave CEO a narcissist?
I do see a pattern, which is why I said I don’t fully trust them and why I noted they were controversial in my original comment. The way I see it is basically this: if you are a dyed in the wool tinfoil hat wearing privacy advocate, and actively part of the privacy community, you are probably a little bit crazy. Privacy should be default, but unfortunately we are in the wild west of information exploitation, that’s why you and I have to go out of our way to find private options. For a privacy focused dev, its them vs the world, and in a capitalist economy, you have to find a way to make your product make money, or it has to be a small enough project to not need much. GrapheneOS’s lead dev, for example, is a bit nuts. Do I trust he is competent and trying to do the thing he says he is trying to do, and do I trust putting his OS on my phone over Google? Definitely. Would I be friends with him? No. Brave I trust a little less, but I see them in a similar way: often trying to find a crackpot method to make money off their product so they can stick around.
I can’t say I’m a fan of their CEO. Then again, I can’t say I particularly like any CEO of any company, so I try to support open source projects with the Unix/Linux philosophy of doing one thing good, so I can support small projects that don’t need a CEO. Unfortunately maintaining a browser is not one of the things that can be done the Unix way. It is basically its own OS in some ways, a lot of work, even more so if it is your own engine like Firefox. For companies that I’m forced to choose between, their personal viewpoints are a concern, just not my biggest one, unless they’re like Satan themselves like Larry Ellison or Elon Musk. I’m forced to pay Microsoft for licenses and support at work, and that bothers my conscience more than using a free browser by a guy who didn’t support gay marriage in 2014 before it went through federally, like just about everyone I grew up with, most of whom have since gotten over themselves. Not saying it’s OK or right, just noting that was at least half of Americans back then.
I agree with your assessment that Firefox used to be the default good option and get steadily worse every day. They got have too big of a team so they’re trying to expand, but that goes against their core audience because we just don’t want extra “features”. They aren’t doubling down on what got them here: being a privacy focused browser. They’re trying to be Google, but can’t be because 1. Google exists, And Chromium is still is the best browser engine functionally, which most people care about most, and 2. It will alienate core audience even more. So their strategy is to go slow enough that hopefully we don’t notice or they don’t go bankrupt because they make most of their money from. Google being the default search engine.
Does this make Firefox a stupid option that I’d criticize people for using? No. It is still one of the best options we have, in a world where most of them are bad because a browser project has to have a certain amount of devs and money behind it to keep up with security and maintenance. And I recommended 2 Firefox forks to OP in my original comment. Firefox vs Brave is really just a predictable trending down of “Stop Firefox we don’t like this minor bad change!” “I’m gonna do it anyway” VS “Hey guys what about this?” “WTAF were you thinking Brave?” “Oh, sorry…”