Which browsers are best for privacy?
privacytests.org
An open-source privacy audit of popular web browsers.
  • danhab99@programming.dev
    1·
    1 year ago

    Unless someone wants to disagree with me

    All the code is opensource and no one has ever raised a privacy alarm in a merged pull request. There’s nothing to fear

  • satanmat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    From the JDLR dept… notice how brave is listed first, and passes every test (except a very few)

    This report just looks biased. Even if it is totally legitimate, and many users have pointed out how it isn’t , it looks biased.

    It looks like every sales pitch for a product where they list everything their product does and how it’s better than the other things.

    I vote librewolf

  • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    People don’t like the creator of Brave because he’s supposedly anti-trans. He donated to some anti-trans political group iirc.

    The browser also has some crypto stuff (web advertisment replacement, block chain based decentralized browser sync), and a lot of people hate crypto these days.

    Personally I think it’s a good browser, the web needs advertising revenue to function and it’s solution to replacing web ads with optional browser ads that still pay the websites you visit seems like a decent solution. I respect the push to use a non-chromium browser, but personally I rely too much on browser tab groups to use anything Firefox based.

  • nxn@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    Follow up question.  I’ve been using ff since probably 20 years or so but for some sites (usually work related) that demands chromium based browser I use brave since I don’t know what the “least bad” chromium browser is. Any insights?

  • Knusper@feddit.de
    0·
    1 year ago

    What hasn’t been said as explicitly yet: It being Chromium-based means there’s tons of implementation details that are bad, which will not be listed in any such comparison table.

    For example, the Battery Status web standard was being abused, so Mozilla removed their implementation: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/battery-status-api-being-removed-from-firefox-due-to-privacy-concerns/
    Chromium-based browsers continue to be standards-compliant in this regard.

    And this is still quite a high-level decision. As a software engineer, I can attest that we make tiny design decisions every single day. I’d much rather have those design decisions made under the helm of a non-profit, with privacy as one of their explicit goals, than under an ad corporation.

    And Brave shipping that ad corp implementation with just a few superficial patches + privacy-extensions is what us experts call: Lipstick on a pig.

  • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
    01·
    1 year ago

    I don’t run Brave because Brave runs a crypto scam right in the browser.

    I don’t care that you can disable it, I don’t care that it might be the only way they found to make a buck out of free software: anyone who dabbles in crypto is instantly sketchy. And I don’t want to run a piece of software as critical as a browser made by someone who’s not 100% trustworthy.

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        0·
        1 year ago

        Mullvad accepts crypto as payment; there aren’t many other options for anonymous online payment methods today. What Mullvad aren’t doing us creating and running their own cryptocoin in support of their advertising wing. The two are not equivalent.

            • Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              0·
              1 year ago

              How did I make a false equivalency when the op literally called any project that “dabbles in crypto” a possible scam? That includes Signal as well as Mullvad. Op’s comment does not in any way indicate the use of one’s own currency, simply abolishing all services using crypto.

              • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
                1·
                1 year ago

                Don’t you recognise a difference between creating a cryptocurrency to use it to encourage people to watch ads, and allowing people to pay with for a service with an existing cryptocurrency in the cause of anonymity? There’s a fundamental difference, right? If not, then fair enough - them taking exception to Brave but supporting Mullvad is hypocracy in your eyes.

                FWIW, I believe no defender of !privacy should be opposed to cryptocurrencies; for better or worse, they’re the only option for online anonymous payments. But I also object to the proliferation of bespoke shitcoins, most of which are truly pyramid schemes in intention amd execution. But it’s a fine line, I’ll admit.