I used to be optimistic about Brave, but I no longer consider it to be a good project. It has had some serious issues with security and the intent behind it is starting to seem nefarious. Monetizing other people's content was always sketchy and their DRM is going far beyond EME.
Conversation
Replying to
Firefox has serious security issues, and I don't recommend using it. The sandbox is far weaker than Chromium and it doesn't provide site isolation which is a necessity in 2019. On Android, Firefox doesn't provide a browser sandbox at all, which is just completely unacceptable.
1
1
8
Replying to
Brave is a better choice than Firefox. I'm not saying that Brave is a bad choice as a browser in technical terms but that the project has the wrong motivation behind it. It's at odds with privacy and it's now clear they value the attention nonsense more than they do privacy.
1
1
4
Replying to
I largely feel the same way about Mozilla's approach with Firefox. Apple seems far more interested than Mozilla in delivering actual privacy rather than the appearance of it, although Apple recently started using it as part of their branding / marketing which is what taints this.
2
1
3
Replying to
Apple has much more leverage to force breaking features onto websites because there are no alternatives to using WebKit on their platform.
This affects rollout of privacy features on Apple vs non-Apple platforms.
1
Replying to
I'm also talking about support for Content Blockers which are a privacy-friendly way to support declarative content filtering rather than having extensions given free reign over traffic. For webRequest, the API is also not robust, and doesn't handle edge cases / failures well.
I think the privacy features should be built into the browser, not based on enumerating badness (which fundamentally can't work) and in my opinion Chromium never should have given extensions so much access to the content instead of providing most functionality in better ways.