I have seen many people in this community either talking about switching to Brave, or people who are actively using Brave. I would like to remind people that Brave browser (and by extension their search engine) is not privacy-centric whatsoever.
Brave was already ousted as spyware in the past and the company has made many decisions that are questionable at best. For example, Brave made a cryptocurrency which they then added to a rewards program that is built into the browser to encourage you to enable ads that are controlled by Brave.
Edit: Please be aware that the spyware article on Brave (and the rest of the browsers on the site) is outdated and may not reflect the browser as it is today.
After creating this cryptocurrency and rewards program, they started inserting affiliate codes into URL's. Prior to this they had faked fundraising for popular social media creators.
Do these decisions seem like ones a company that cares about their users (and by extension their privacy) would make? I'd say the answer is a very clear no.
One last thing, Brave illegally promoted an eToro affiliate program making a fortune from its users who will likely lose their money.
Edit: To the people commenting saying how Brave has a good out-of-the-box experience compared to other browsers, yes, it does. However, this is not a warning for your average person, this is a warning for people who actively care about their privacy and don't mind configuring their browser to maximize said privacy.
Being chromium based it
Don't get me wrong, I am using Firefox, but your entire post is pretty disingenuous. Criticizing Brave over privacy concerns and then suggesting Firefox instead requires disingenuity or a special kind of ignorance and/or stupidity. Firefox has had 10 times as many privacy "mishaps" as Brave with all the "experiments" of corporate affiliates they shipped to users unannounced. There's a reason there are so many forks of Firefox.
Pretty much everything you criticize about Brave is entirely optional.
Then you title a link as Brave "getting ousted as spyware", and the linked to page does not oust Brave as spyware at all. You would do good to adopt some of the more neutral/factual tone of that page.
And in parts that page is pretty ridiculous, too: complaining about what is set as the default search engine (the same as Firefox, btw). Who the fuck cares what search engine is set by default? Just change it. Opt out of everything you do not like. If there's stuff you cannot opt out of which is bad, we can talk about that. But arguing about optional features is ridiculous.
Edit: little add-on: Brave factually has better out of the box (no plugins) privacy protection than Firefox: https://privacytests.org/
None of those three are true.
Some web sites are optimized for chrome.
Not remotely accurate, https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list
Not to any relevant degree. 515 VS 528 is at best a slight difference that in all likely hood is from Googlie using their position to strong arm things that benefit only them into the standards and very likely undetectable by the end user. https://html5test.com/
I stated "and it’s forks" in the comment, and I did not mention Firefox (or any other browser) in the actual main post itself. Firefox can be easily de-spyware'd with something like arkenfox's user.js (as I mentioned in another comment). There are also plenty of privacy-centric Chromium based browsers such as Ungoogled Chromium and Vivaldi.
Regarding optional features, I more used them as a segue into the last three links showcasing Brave's malicious and downright illegal activities. Personally, the fact those features are integrated into the browser at all is a deal breaker for me.
Edit: For the record, I'm aware Vivaldi is proprietary but I don't necessarily think that makes it bad. I haven't done enough research on it to personally recommend it, but I've been told that it's good.
Funny how you do not address most of what I said ... so, disingenuous it is.
ftfy
Nothing good will come of this conversation, so I'll stop it right here. Have a nice day.
I don't address most of what you said because it's referring to one of the six links I have in that post, and I don't really have anything to say regarding it.
I don't see how it is misleading to tell people that Brave created a cryptocurrency, they then added a rewards program to the browser with that cryptocurrency, and then they inserted affiliate links into URL's when people were browsing. All of this happened, it's not misleading, it's just a fact.
That website you link is literally run by a Brave employee. Sure, they might have tried very hard to be independent, but when you literally work on the codebase of one browser you're probably going to write your tests to focus on the things you already know (plus it's not like Brave would allow their employee to run a site that says it's shit, would they?)
Considering how many tests Brave does not pass, I'd say that page looks pretty balanced and fair. Also it is consistent with independent studies where Brave came out on top of the list.
My impression is that most opposition against Brave is largely political. And then people try to find technical reasons after the fact, which simply isn't justified in comparison with other browsers.
By "political" do you mean that the boss is a knob? Because that's pretty irrelevant to the quality of the browser as you say, though all the dodgy things they do like lying about donation money and injecting affiliate links are not.