Made the switch from Firefox to Brave Browser after a couple of decades

[Atomicfog]

Wow, I'm making a thread.  This feels so retro.  So yeah, I'm not sure if you guys heard the news about firefox, but yeah, links below about how they don't care about privacy anymore. After two decades, it seems like it's time to switch it up I suppose.  I'm sure some many of you switched awhile back, but I never really liked chrome, and I used brave before, but it didn't do things how I wanted like firefox without manually adjusting it so I stuck with firefox.  

Why did I make this thread though? Because I remember I was literally here at OCR using internet explorer like basically everyone else when firefox came out. And I remember so fondly how hyped every was for it, and couldn't believe how cool tabbed browsing was. Everyone loved the logo as well and the vibe + everything about it.  There are even some old threads still around from the era with people here touting its perks. Firefox was the hip thing and also on another level compared to internet explorer. But yeah, I think a lot of the original threads may not be around and/or were in unmod iirc.  But I remember it all well -- what fun times those were.

Needless to say Brave is pretty good after some adjustments -- smooth scrolling (why is that off anyway?), hiding the number for blocked ads and such, and hiding the tacky basic attention token icon definitely felt necessary.  The only thing that I wish I could adjust it having a file menu -- not because I care about the file menu, but because I don't prefer to have my tabs at the very top of the screen.  I imagine nobody else cares about that, but if you know a work around for that without using a shady extension let me know. 

Anyhow, was fun to write a thread.  Forums are technically still > social media and discord in a lot of ways imo.

 

Also: https://x.com/LundukeJournal/status/1895249805338886591

Edited Friday at 05:20 AM by Atomicfog

[DarkeSword]

Hey just so you know, this whole "they don't care about privacy anymore" is 100% fucking nonsense. Mozilla does not say that they can use your data however they want. This is also part of the terms of literally any site you upload anything to; the service needs to say "you grant us the right to do things with your work so that our service can actually function." For example: uploading a picture to Bluesky? Bluesky asserts the right to transform your work so that they can generate a thumbnail of the picture you uploaded.

That's what these terms always mean. It's never about a service or a piece of software asserting ownership of your data. It's about you granting them a baseline level of permissions so that they can actually do the things you need them to do with the data you give them. This type of "company is stealing your work" scaremongering makes the rounds every few months in art communities and every single time someone has to clarify that companies are not stealing your work.

Mozilla is not claiming ownership of your work. Mozilla is not throwing privacy to the winds.

Instead of watching a clickbait video that perpetuates the same stupid misunderstandings, maybe go directly to the source and actually read what Mozilla has to say about it?

Also, Brave is the second-to-last browser you should be using (behind Chrome). Brave has engaged with scummy shit such as:

• Replacing ads on pages with its own ads and taking a cut
• Putting their own affiliate links in search suggestions
• Installing a VPN on Windows without notifying users
• Numerous partnerships with cryptocurrency firms

If you want a reliable browser that's not Firefox, there are plenty of options like Orion, Waterfox, Ungoogled Chromium, Arc, etc.

Brave is not it.

EDIT: But also just keep using Firefox.

[Atomicfog]

Interesting.  Well I definitely respect your take and I'm definitely not saying I shouldn't examine things further. Looking into it more, this stuff overall, its probably more complex than I cared to really examine thoroughly. Part of that though is because, there are a few things, on a surface level that rub me the wrong way about what they did in a way that doesn't feel superficial -- I feel like you get a 'spidey sense' for this stuff after enough dealing with enough nonsense.  Their statement from firefox that you linked reads as really "fluffy" and doesn't address anything specifically.  In my opinion, and I could be wrong, their change of terms could be a catch all so that they can put your data into a training data set for an ai and/or to allow the possibility for this while they shop around -- which is not something I want to support if so. 

When I look at Firefox's "how your data is shared" section (linked here as an attachment) it also seems to affirm that is a likely possibility. Not only that, everything in that section really implies they can give your data to almost anyone -- or that's what it feels like.  Their language seems intentionally open-ended even though I know at least some of that is likely to reduce liability for reasonable things like you mentioned. Meanwhile though, brave seems more clear with their privacy policies and outright says they don't buy or sell users data and don't keep any record of your browsing history (I also attached images of those statements.)  

Meanwhile, firefox deleted their promise not to sell user data: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-promise-to-never-sell-personal-data-asks-users-not-to-panic/   If that isn't sketch, then I don't know what is.

So what I'll say is when initially examined this topic I felt like -- maybe this is just other companies like brave using social media to make a big deal out this so you switch to their browser.  And maybe it is that.  But looking into the details it still seems like a big mistake in terms of what firefox did on multiple levels -- and on top of that if they did want to use what you write as training data they could easily argue that processing user data falls under "helping you navigate, experience, and interact with online content." At least it seems that way to someone like myself who isn't a legal expert.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what browser do you prefer?  When I looked into the other options you mentioned, Orion is just for mac, Waterfox is "owned by System1, a company involved in data analytics, raising concerns about potential conflicts with privacy goals" + their tracking protections seem weaker by default, and their default search engine is bing which doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.  Ungoogled chromium is actually pretty cool after looking into it, but aside from the fact that it needs extra configuration to work like brave -- I don't like that it doesn't have automatic updates as that makes staying secure a lot smoother -- I think that's mainly why I didn't switch to it awhile back before you mentioned it. I checked out Arc browser as well, but it makes you sign up for an account to use. Also, it isn't as security oriented as brave, and has a really ugly logo.

 

Anyhow, I'm curious what you think of this stuff and I do appreciate your take. Of course, you don't have debunk anything here or give your opinion if it feels like too much effort.  But it does sound like you know some things about this topic that I probably don't.  After looking into things a bit more, but really just scratching the surface -- I still feel like brave is the best option and from what I read the flaws you mentioned were mildly petty, but seemingly minor things -- with the vpn that was installed, it wasn't enabled to do anything by default -- though I suppose that would be the worst ding against them?  I'd be glad to find a reasonable justification to go back to firefox and/or use a different better browser aside from brave -- I don't think I've seen it here yet, though.  I wish firefox just kept things how they were and/or were extra transparent and in-depth about the real reasons for these changes + released more definitive statements as to why they won't make a meaningful difference rather than just making claims saying that they care about privacy and all  -- while seemingly not addressing these concerns comprehensively.

 

PS My bad if I rambled a bit here -- but the topic has a fair bit of depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 02:00 AM by Atomicfog

[Master Mi]

I might try a slightly more philosophical approach.

A critical person might generally find it difficult to place 100% trust in a technology that they did not develop themselves, in the midst of a universe that they did not create (or at least not completely on their own).

Based on the law of cause and effect, every life, every deed, every thought, every emotion, every energy and cause presumably leaves some kind of smaller or larger traces in the world - whether online or offline.

The crucial question is rather how much trust or caution (both are justified) you put into your life and the things around you.
Sometimes a little more courage pays off, sometimes caution is the better decision in terms of life.

If you are afraid of data leaks or the loss of sensitive data, but still want to take advantage of the internet, I would simply not use any or as little sensitive data as possible on the computer or technological device you use to access the internet, or maybe change the way how you use the internet.

Cell phones were once used to be reachable in emergencies (I still use them in this way - although I could easily live without a cell phone away from work) and not to immortalize almost your entire life on them, which could cause some serious problems in terms of data security and privacy in the event of loss.

Nor do I have to use every convenience of modern civilization.
I still get along really well without online banking and other such conveniences.

...

I don't want to spill out any excessive campfire stories about the good old days.

But according to my memory, there was a time of the Internet before the age of complex browsers and search engines, when kids used to hammer some weird terms directly into the URL line and, with a bit of luck, ended up on really bizarre websites (and that was probably only a quarter of a century ago).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if even nowadays some people still occasionally end up on OC Remix in exactly the same way - like a few happily stranded Argonians, who were able to hide from Zoda and his space pirates just because they didn't use any modern browsers and search engines, or because they didn't put any selfies with their magic cubes on the already alien-slime-infested platform X.

[Eino Keskitalo]

I was interested enough with the hubbub to try out some Firefox alternatives, and ocremix.org was the first url I typed in. This is great 100% fucking fun all in all! I do appreciate the discussion.

[Argle]

Louis Rossman's take is more that Firefox is trying to comply with laws like California's, and that they went about this in the stupidest and most own-goal way possible.

 

 

[Atomicfog]

23 hours ago, Master Mi said:

I might try a slightly more philosophical approach.

A critical person might generally find it difficult to place 100% trust in a technology that they did not develop themselves, in the midst of a universe that they did not create (or at least not completely on their own).

Based on the law of cause and effect, every life, every deed, every thought, every emotion, every energy and cause presumably leaves some kind of smaller or larger traces in the world - whether online or offline.

The crucial question is rather how much trust or caution (both are justified) you put into your life and the things around you.
Sometimes a little more courage pays off, sometimes caution is the better decision in terms of life.

If you are afraid of data leaks or the loss of sensitive data, but still want to take advantage of the internet, I would simply not use any or as little sensitive data as possible on the computer or technological device you use to access the internet, or maybe change the way how you use the internet.

Cell phones were once used to be reachable in emergencies (I still use them in this way - although I could easily live without a cell phone away from work) and not to immortalize almost your entire life on them, which could cause some serious problems in terms of data security and privacy in the event of loss.

Nor do I have to use every convenience of modern civilization.
I still get along really well without online banking and other such conveniences.

...

I don't want to spill out any excessive campfire stories about the good old days.

But according to my memory, there was a time of the Internet before the age of complex browsers and search engines, when kids used to hammer some weird terms directly into the URL line and, with a bit of luck, ended up on really bizarre websites (and that was probably only a quarter of a century ago).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if even nowadays some people still occasionally end up on OC Remix in exactly the same way - like a few happily stranded Argonians, who were able to hide from Zoda and his space pirates just because they didn't use any modern browsers and search engines, or because they didn't put any selfies with their magic cubes on the already alien-slime-infested platform X.

Sure, I mean -- I agree and resonate with a lot of that.  If it's any indication as to with what respect I view this stuff -- I have a vpn that I just leave off most of the time.  Because I'm not all that concerned about privacy for many things -- though I still prefer it on a certain level.  But when it comes to stuff like politics or other personal details in this day and age I'd prefer those online details be minimal and not easy to compile.  I think we live in a day and age where the details compiled on us seem likely to become a lot more granular, and I'd rather not support that trend. It's also likely to be fed into an ai at some point if that hasn't already happened -- and more advanced ai beyond that.  In addition, just for cyber security reasons its good to know you have strong base layers at the very least -- companies that don't value privacy in certain clear respects, in my opinion, also likely do that across the board in other respects. And it doesn't matter what they say about how much they value it -- you have to look at their actions to see how they are.  Like for example, google claims, "we value privacy".  But lets be real.  They have never valued privacy through their actions.  They gather all the data they want to, and maybe do the bare minimum to give you some control so others don't get that data.  Maybe it's better now to an extent, but I don't think anyone can realistically trust them all that much with their data.

But I agree with you about finding the right balance of caution and openness (I'd say openness isn't equal to courage though, but sometimes it take courage -- but I think that's what you were going for.) That being said, I think it's very reasonable to choose a browser that you feel actually values privacy to a large degree based on the evidence -- and not one that appears to blatantly disregard it in areas they didn't before, and didn't care to truly offer a detailed explanation for why they made the changes.

[Atomicfog]

16 hours ago, Eino Keskitalo said:

I was interested enough with the hubbub to try out some Firefox alternatives, and ocremix.org was the first url I typed in. This is great 100% fucking fun all in all! I do appreciate the discussion.

For sure. I definitely think it's worth exploring.  Tbh before I switched to brave browser, I didn't think it would work well for me based on my initial experience with it, but with some adjustments I think I prefer it to firefox in quite a few ways.  Like I've always had to admit in a lot of areas chromium runs a bit smoother, and more websites also seem to be built with it in mind these days so I like those benefits (though it might have more exploits designed with it in mind as well, -- not sure.) I also like how you can see a lot more tabs you open without scrolling, and it by default shows you which tab is playing on youtube (though I had to set it so youtube doesn't autoplay.)  This is really useful if you're discovering music and opening a lot of tabs to go through all the different songs -- that's what I do when I've found a lot a want to listen to that I want to look through so I know which ones are playing if two play at once which can happen sometimes (went through a bunch of really good video game remixes and covers last night and it was really nice for that.) It also lets you have a lot more tabs visible to look through without having to scroll to the right like firefox.

So yeah, little things like that are really nice quality of life features.  I also like that it will show you how much memory a given tab is taking up by default, even though I turned it off. But that can be good to turn on when one tab is slowing everything down for some reason -- then you can just close that tab and everything should run smooth.  All neat things to consider.  It's nice to just take your browser and things like that forgranted, but sometimes taking a bit of time to consider the other options can be worthwhile it overall.

This actually reminds me (and maybe I'm just rambling a bit) that I'll probably have to switch from Windows 10 to Windows 11 at some point. If I had two computers at this point I'd explore linux or maybe even mac for non-gaming stuff with how ridiculous microsoft has been in so many respects.  They even still mess up my windows 10 settings sometimes with updates -- like the other day they added news, weather, and other nonsense to my login screen as if I would want that for some reason.  But yeah from what I've seen about Windows 11 a lot can be configured well, but there's just so many dumb things they did with it imo.  But yeah, I'd really rather just keep using windows and probably will for awhile, but man -- these things that may feel like large switch ups can be really worthwhile sometimes.    

[Atomicfog]

7 hours ago, Argle said:

Louis Rossman's take is more that Firefox is trying to comply with laws like California's, and that they went about this in the stupidest and most own-goal way possible.

 

 

Interesting take.  I could definitely see that -- it does seem to add up across the board.  But ironically, in doing so they made me realize that brave's privacy policies appear to be better and more well-written all around -- at least upon a quick examination of them both.  So, by making this change so poorly, they probably spurred me and many others to switch.  You have to imagine a lot of the people who still use firefox, given their much smaller market share, are probably people who care about details like this.  Most people who don't care about stuff like this are probably already just using chrome because it works fine and it's ubiquitous.  So the fact they went about this in the way they did -- just being vague and not explaining what they were doing to their user base, even in their follow up about it -- that clearly was not a smart move, and also baffling and out-of-touch as well.  If they just said that they're changing our privacy policy quite a bit to comply with california law and here's the basic reasons why -- maybe even add some positive news in alongside it, and then a link to the more detailed reasons why and how these things won't have any effect on those that are using it and their care for privacy.  That would have been a move that made a lot more sense. 

But I really like California for doing stuff like this -- just like how they made websites let you choose what level of cookies and trackers they can use before reading them.  It makes people think about privacy and if this stuff matters to them, and it gives everyone more transparency and control with respect to their data -- even if most people really don't care about this stuff and/or understand the implications or relevance to them and how society progresses. 

Oh yeah, and this guy mentioned as far as using Librewolf. I'm definitely going to install that.  I think I'm pretty happy with Brave, but from the research I did that seems like another solid option. Also, what he said here (timestamped) sums everything up so well, lol:  

 

Also, I hadn't heard of this guy before, but I like his take here, and with respect to how companies operate after that.  Good stuff -- I appreciate you linking that video, thanks for that.

Edited 10 hours ago by Atomicfog