• meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Firefox is safer and tbh, has probably the best UX and aesthetics out of anyone. Brave is garbage.

        • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Brave is just a shill for Google mothership. Firefox is leading privacy and security through browsers.

          • zwekihoyy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Firefox has a weaker sandbox than chromium and less mature site isolation and therefore has lower security. privacy is a different story, but remember you’re only as private as you are secure so Firefox is inherently not that private assuming a malicious site escapes the sandbox.

            I’m fully against chrome’s growing monopoly as well as Google surveillance capitalism but let’s not be so dramatic with the “google mother ship” nonsense.

            using chromium as a base does not equal data being sent back to Google, just like using Android as a base doesn’t inherently send data back to Google.

      • stifle867@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        As a Firefox user, the only thing Brave does that I wish Firefox would copy is their fingerprinting resistance. I know Firefox does have fingerprinting resistance but it’s nowhere near the same level as Brave.

        • Pantherina@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          No. Firefox with RFP, Arkenfox user.js, Librewolf or Tor-Browser unifies your fingerprint. Its universal among users. Brave scrambles it, while some may say that is actually not a real fingerprint and can be detected, making you stand out extremely

          • stifle867@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Just to be clear, are you saying Firefox with fingerprinting resistance used in conjunction with Arkenfox user.js provides fingerprint unification, similar to what Tor browser does? I’ll have to check that out.

            I think both approaches are valid tbh. Having a unique fingerprint obviously uniquely identified you, but if it’s randomised then your browsing sessions can’t (in theory) be linked.

            • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              The Chameleon extension could solve some of the fingerprinting issues as it can randomize the browser and OS info that is sent.

    • Boring@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I disagree. Firefox is fine, but saying chromium is spyware because its primarily maintained by google is like saying android is spyware.

      Additionally chromium browsers are arguably more secure than Firefox, and has more advanced sand boxing. So much so that graphine OS used chromium instead of Firefox for their vanadium browser.

      Only thing I agree with is not using brave… Cause well… They fishy.

        • Boring@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          And I’m sure you only use twofish because the NSA backdoored AES when they standardized it.

          • Joe Bidet@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            what does it have to do with Google’s business model being mass-surveillance, and/or them being caught several times collaborating with the NSA, the US army, etc.?

            I agree that the NSA backdooring stuff is a problem too… (or even a different facet of the same problem…) Yet, one doesn’t invalidate the other…

            • Boring@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m just saying that collaboration with or association with spooks or glowies isn’t in itself a red flag.

              Many privacy and freedom granting software is made by these people.

              Take Tor for example, made by the navy to hide information from the public and anonymously attack networks of adversaries… Yet now is the NSA’s biggest obstacle in mass surveillance.

              • Joe Bidet@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I beg to disagree: the global interception capacities of the NSA in 2012 (as showed in the very few 2013 documents from Ed. Snowden that were made public) clearly were enough to routinely de-anonymize tor. By owning a certain percentage of the global internet traffic, you de facto own tor (can very precisely correlate what comes in and what goes out, and do that retrospectively when needed).

                and that was 10+ years aog

                Association with spooks is a red flag, for the multiple, endless ways they have been doing their shitfuckery, endangering the general public, the exceptional US citizens, and information/communication security at large… by weakening standards, by corrupting corporations to introduce (or leave open) some bugs, by infiltrating development teams, by pressuring operators to grant full access, by breaking and entering, etc…

                Anyone who doesnt see that as a problem has to be considered as part of it. Simple, basic rule.