this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
1054 points (85.1% liked)

Firefox

17899 readers
62 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lafuma300@lemmy.world 90 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No. Couldn't care less what the founder did or didn't do. We need as many non-Google browsers as possible. The problem with Brave is that it is a chromium browser.

[–] shotgun_crab@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd say being chromium makes it a Google browser...

[–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, does that mean Edge is a Google browser, too?

Chromium is open-source. Even if Google adds something malicious to the source code (such as that Web Environment Integrity stuff), it can be removed by someone else creating their own browser based on Chromium. That's the very definition of open-source.

Related side-note: Lemmy itself is open-source, too. If the creator of Lemmy added something to the software that someone running an instance didn't agree with, they could simply fork the original software and remove the unwanted addition. Some people do disagree with that person's views, and yet they're still here. Many of them joined .world and other instances instead of .ml because they disagreed with the creator's views.

While Google, the creator of Chromium, isn't a good company for the consumer, I personally think Chromium itself isn't a bad idea. It's just that Google and some other companies modify it for their own means, and those means aren't always consumer-friendly.

All that to say: while the company that originally created Chromium is bad, the software isn't. And while some of the companies and people using that software are bad (including Brave, IMO), some of them are looking out for their users' interests, and those forks of Chromium are generally ok. (You should still actually do research and not pick a fork because the company developing it said it's okay, though. Take a look at what others are saying and verify it.)

[–] escapesamsara 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, does that mean Edge is a Google browser, too?

Yes.

All that to say: while the company that originally created Chromium is bad, the software isn’t.

Only to the extent that websites are built for chromium compatibility, due to its monopoly on the internet. It's great software because it's the most popular software so all other smaller providers that serve that software have to focus their resources into ensuring compatibility. Chromium(Blink) itself is pretty mid, and definitely equal to WebKit or Gecko, not better or significantly worse.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Brave works for what I need it to do. I don't like lending credence to bigots(secret or otherwise) but if someone is gonna say "don't use this browser" they need to list a replacement that has the same functionality. And it can't be "just use duckduckgo" because we all fucking have that on our phones and none of us can use it as our primary browser and we all know exactly why. 😒

[–] daq@lemmy.sdf.org 62 points 1 year ago (6 children)
[–] bastion@feddit.nl 10 points 1 year ago

Nothing. I use it all the time.

[–] ShooBoo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

A little slower, but nothing. Mullvad is pretty good. A mix of Firefox and Tor.

[–] Tinks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For me personally, the one and only reason I don't main Firefox is because it doesn't work with Chromecast and I use that a LOT. I would switch to FF tomorrow if I could easily and reliably cast with it.

[–] sederx@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago

getting addicted to proprietary software is a terrible idea. this is just the first of many losses you will have if you stick to that tech

[–] bug@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

On Android, Firefox is still less secure than Chromium-based alternatives: Mozilla's engine, GeckoView, has yet to support site isolation or enable isolatedProcess.

From Privacy Guides. Firefox on desktop though!

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

It works almost exactly the same as Chrome.

[–] kaj@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] KroninJ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As far as I'm aware, the ddg browser collects data and they sell it to Microsoft. The search by itself is fine though.

[–] RIP_Apollo@feddit.ch 18 points 1 year ago

Do you have a source for the claim that DuckDuckGo browser is selling user data to Microsoft?

You might be referring to the time when the DuckDuckGo browser was blocking all known trackers except Microsoft trackers. After that information was made public and users complained, DuckDuckGo was able to renegotiate its agreement with Microsoft so that it can block their trackers.

Furthermore, DuckDuckGo now publish their blocklist on GitHub.

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/05/duckduckgo-microsoft-tracking-scripts

So this privacy issue has been rectified now. But even if it hadn’t, failing to block Microsoft trackers isn’t the same as collecting data and selling it to Microsoft.

But if you are aware of DDG browser selling data to Microsoft, please share a source.

[–] Biorix@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Really? I thought that used Bing search as backend but not that they sell your data

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

No, you have it right. That person is just conflating the controversy over their agreement with Microsoft as "ThEY're sELLiNg yOuR DaTa". 🙄

[–] neutronstar@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

In fact. Mozilla rely more in Google. If i wasn't mistaken 90% of their money came from Google and they rely Google safebrowsing wherein it exposes your IP to Google