this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
987 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59693 readers
3015 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 136 points 1 year ago (6 children)

No idea why people use Brave when Firefox exists

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well, it said right there in the article that until today, Brave was that only browser that would truncate tracker tags when copying a URL to clipboard.

Moar browsers == moar innovation.

[–] Lafrack@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting, in the past Brave injected their own affiliate links into URLs. That alone should tell you not to use it.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology

[–] tgxn@lemmy.tgxn.net 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh plus the integration with crypto...

[–] Communist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah but you can easily install clearURLs

[–] h_a_r_u_k_i@programming.dev 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Default Brave blocks ads more aggressively than default Firefox. Of course you can achieve that with Firefox + uBlock Origin, but add-ons are not available on iOS and iPad OS.

That's just my experience. I still use Firefox + Firefox Focus BTW. To block more aggressively, I also use VPN + Adguard Home.

[–] ColonelSanders@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This. Only reason I use Brave is for my iPhone (which I am already planning to jump back to Android when it's time for a new phone) because I can listen to YouTube videos/music in the background and no ads when going through the browser (another reason I'm going back to Android is for Revanced). Everything else is FF

[–] online@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Yep and for some people it's too hard to think about extensions so just having them install Brave is a perfect recommendation (for now anyway).

[–] varsock@programming.dev -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Brave has superior fingerprint protection, they achieve this by randomizing the browsers fingerprint. Visit EFF's cover your tracks to test your browser.

To achieve the same functionality that brave achieves out of the box with Firefox I need many extensions and then when I profile both browsers, Firefox is more resource intensive. Brave's blocking is native to the browser. I will give Firefox the W because I've read that uBlock is technically more capable. But as a long time Firefox/uBlock user who switched to brave - this has not been noticable.

As for accessibility, I can configure brave to be really aggressive at ad blocking, tracking blocking, fingerprint blocking, and restricting JS even, and all those options I can set from one place instead of in different settings/extensions. When a website breaks, I click on the button next to the URL and immediately have options to granularly dial down the "protection" or add a website to my trusted list. In Firefox I was annoyed to having go through settings for the extension.

Brave plans to continue supporting Manifest V2 after Google kills it. For Ungoogled Chromium, however, it's still undecided, likely depending on whether UG contributors are willing to maintain it.

[–] not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The only reason why I still have Brave installed is because some sites don't work with Firefox. Like Webflow's editor. At least they claim it's not supported yet.

[–] PlexSheep@feddit.de 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I use chromium for that, there are many better browsers (even chromium forks) than braves IMO.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] filister@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you try faking the user agent?

[–] not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No, technically, I don't even have to. The website just gives a message that it wasn't tested on Firefox. But it's still usable. I just don't want to deal with any problems that might arise in the complicated process of building a website in the browser.

[–] varsock@programming.dev -4 points 1 year ago

Brave has superior fingerprint protection, they achieve this by randomizing the browsers fingerprint. Visit EFF's cover your tracks to test your browser.

To achieve the same functionality that brave achieves out of the box with Firefox I need many extensions and then when I profile both browsers, Firefox is more resource intensive. Brave's blocking is native to the browser. I will give Firefox the W because I've read that uBlock is technically more capable. But as a long time Firefox/uBlock user who switched to brave - this has not been noticable.

As for accessibility, I can configure brave to be really aggressive at ad blocking, tracking blocking, fingerprint blocking, and restricting JS even, and all those options I can set from one place instead of in different settings/extensions. When a website breaks, I click on the button next to the URL and immediately have options to granularly dial down the "protection" or add a website to my trusted list. In Firefox I was annoyed to having go through settings for the extension.

Brave plans to continue supporting Manifest V2 after Google kills it. For Ungoogled Chromium, however, it's still undecided, likely depending on whether UG contributors are willing to maintain it.