this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
25 points (75.5% liked)
Privacy
50146 readers
385 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Recommending mullvad, in this economy ? That's a bold strategy , if nothing else.
I suppose if you're going to do that then following up with handwaving brave's historic shenanigans and current CEO is consistent.
"They previous did and continue to do some shit i don't care about , i like their products" at least shows some backbone.
The corporate defense version of the narcissists prayer is weaksauce.
What a strange comment. Can't say I've ever been called a narcissist for recommending privacy browsers before.
Mullvad is pretty much the most trusted VPN provider. If you don't want to pay for a VPN, don't. I explicitly mentioned it is still a good privacy by default Firefox based browser without the bloat of Firefox.
Sure, let's go through your list, why not.
2016: Brave announces a feature, then are laughed at because it's a bad idea. They don't do it. Ok then?
2018: for some reason they allow users to donate in someone else's name that Brave is not affiliated with. They give them the money after $100 is reached, which is clearly stated. They don't clearly state which is affiliated and who isnt, confusing the website owners into thinking someone impersonated them. They then label it after someone contacts them about this, and don't use a dumb ass fundraising system like this again. At no point are they being misleading about where money is going, and this does not affect Brave users in any way.
2020: injecting affiliate links. According to Brave, this was a coding mistake, and it was fixed before they made any money from it. Even if I don't believe them, from what I can tell, this is not like the Honey scandal where it stripped out other people's affiliate links to steal their money, but rather only put an affiliate link into a clean link to make Brave money when there would have been no money involved. Not a privacy issue either from what I can tell. It's an "if x then y" thing during the search process. There's not someone sitting in Brave HQ reading everyone's searches and pressing a button, nor is it recorded. Is it scummy and possibly illegal to get money from a company who is thinking someone advertised on their behalf but are effectively not gaining anything? Yeah, and if they did in fact do it on purpose, that is bad. But I can see their logic of it not hurting anyone. Sorta...and if I'm being honest I'm not going to cry for corpos that heavily push ads.
2020: ads on home screen. Like every browser, including Firefox. OK. I forgot this happened because I turned it off. Like I do for every browser, or at least every browser that allows you to do so. Except in Brave's case, they will literally pay you to not turn it off.
2021: Brave makes a Tor plugin that they didn't realize conflicts with their ad blocking in such a way that causes DNS leaks. They fixed it as soon as this was found out. Unlike the affiliate link thing, I don't believe for a second that this would be intentional. Brave does not stand to benefit from this on any way, unless they are fully a fed psy-op.
2023: certainly the most worrying on the list that they're even approaching this as a feature. However, Web Discovery Program is opt in. Your data is not being sold or used for Brave's index unless you tell them to. I think their idea here was to build their own index based on consensually given data rather than solely scraping the internet without consent. However I'd really prefer they just didn't be a part of data selling at all, obviously. Needless to say, this is a big problem with browsers in general. Firefox has stated that they don't sell data, but they have definitely been in bed with Ai lately and their telemetry is opt out.
Now far be it from me to even approach being a corporate defender. I am. not here to suck Brave's dick, I keep up to date with what Brave is doing because I don't fully trust them. But then again, I don't trust pretty much any browser creators more than I am forced to. I just think it's really weird that Brave gets so much hate when it isn't warranted when compared to what other browsers do.
Ungoogled Chromium, for example, removes some key security features from the Chromium project for absolutely no reason, and relies on a bizarre build system that lacks transparency, relying on third parties binaries instead of just, you know, building from source. Helium is a fork of Ungoogled Chromium, and doesn't fix either of those issues. Vivaldi is closed source. Why are we even entertaining them being a privacy browser if we don't know what code they're running? They could be worse than Google for all we know. Firefox refuses to fix a security flaw on Android where they don't sandbox by site, which has been known about for years. Every Android Firefox fork has the same issue. As good as it is on desktop, that's why I ultimately moved away from Firefox, because I need to sync tabs from my PC to my phone.
edit: well shit, i just realised i used a meme/reference that might have been mistaken for me specifically implying an economic reason not to use mullvad.
That's my bad for assuming universal meme knowledge.
, in this economy? was predominantly used to reference economic reasons to not doing something, it has broadened in scope to encompass the idea that the proceeding statement is nonsensical in general (not just for economic reasons)
So "mullvad, in this economy ?" roughly translates to "mullvad is a questionable choice in this current (specific or general) context"
No one was calling you a narcissist, read it again.
And my comment had nothing to do with its technical competence (nor it's economic impact, see note at the top)
Have you really not seen any stories related to mullvad recently?
Not my list, a list.
And all of those explanations are the handwaving I mentioned.
Your take on them all seems reasonable if not exactly the same as mine.
In aggregate though they indicate a potential pattern.
My response was specifically to your implication that because their many shenanigans were in the past and nothing was a current problem that they we should only judge them on their current technical competence.
I also noticed you didn't mention the current CEO and why someone might have an issue with them.
Then you probably aren't hearing all of what people are actually complaining about.
hint : they aren't usually complaining about the technical competence.
Also other browsers get plenty of shit, a lot of it justifiable.
All valid, and I agree.
I could list some you haven't mentioned as well.
I personally use a variant of Firefox that has a whole bunch of questionable shit turned off or removed.
Despite almost all of their recent moves having been to announce some bullshit that actively makes them a worse option for me they are still currently , barely, the least worst option (for my preferences)
And only then it's mostly because of the variants.
What I was getting at is that playing down the continuous bullshit from these companies weakens your arguments.
It also genuinely seems you don't see why the non-technical aspects of these companies might be a point of contention for some people.
I wasn't sure if you were referring to either or both interpretations for Mullvad, so I responded to both versions of what you could mean by that. Based in your last comment I have a feeling I didn't hear something recent about them, as far as I know everyone still likes them.
I reread the narcissist thing and I'm really not sure what you mean then. Are you calling the Brave CEO a narcissist?
I do see a pattern, which is why I said I don't fully trust them and why I noted they were controversial in my original comment. The way I see it is basically this: if you are a dyed in the wool tinfoil hat wearing privacy advocate, and actively part of the privacy community, you are probably a little bit crazy. Privacy should be default, but unfortunately we are in the wild west of information exploitation, that's why you and I have to go out of our way to find private options. For a privacy focused dev, its them vs the world, and in a capitalist economy, you have to find a way to make your product make money, or it has to be a small enough project to not need much. GrapheneOS's lead dev, for example, is a bit nuts. Do I trust he is competent and trying to do the thing he says he is trying to do, and do I trust putting his OS on my phone over Google? Definitely. Would I be friends with him? No. Brave I trust a little less, but I see them in a similar way: often trying to find a crackpot method to make money off their product so they can stick around.
I can't say I'm a fan of their CEO. Then again, I can't say I particularly like any CEO of any company, so I try to support open source projects with the Unix/Linux philosophy of doing one thing good, so I can support small projects that don't need a CEO. Unfortunately maintaining a browser is not one of the things that can be done the Unix way. It is basically its own OS in some ways, a lot of work, even more so if it is your own engine like Firefox. For companies that I'm forced to choose between, their personal viewpoints are a concern, just not my biggest one, unless they're like Satan themselves like Larry Ellison or Elon Musk. I'm forced to pay Microsoft for licenses and support at work, and that bothers my conscience more than using a free browser by a guy who didn't support gay marriage in 2014 before it went through federally, like just about everyone I grew up with, most of whom have since gotten over themselves. Not saying it's OK or right, just noting that was at least half of Americans back then.
I agree with your assessment that Firefox used to be the default good option and get steadily worse every day. They got have too big of a team so they're trying to expand, but that goes against their core audience because we just don't want extra "features". They aren't doubling down on what got them here: being a privacy focused browser. They're trying to be Google, but can't be because 1. Google exists, And Chromium is still is the best browser engine functionally, which most people care about most, and 2. It will alienate core audience even more. So their strategy is to go slow enough that hopefully we don't notice or they don't go bankrupt because they make most of their money from. Google being the default search engine.
Does this make Firefox a stupid option that I'd criticize people for using? No. It is still one of the best options we have, in a world where most of them are bad because a browser project has to have a certain amount of devs and money behind it to keep up with security and maintenance. And I recommended 2 Firefox forks to OP in my original comment. Firefox vs Brave is really just a predictable trending down of "Stop Firefox we don't like this minor bad change!" "I'm gonna do it anyway" VS "Hey guys what about this?" "WTAF were you thinking Brave?" "Oh, sorry..."
I was referring to a theoretical corporate defence version of the narcissists prayer and was again bitten by my ridiculous expectation that meme/reference knowledge is universal
Specifically your defence of brave sounded to me like this slightly altered version of that prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not their fault.
And if it was, they didn't mean it.
I wasn't trying to imply you are they were narcissists, only that your reply sounded a lot like that prayer.
ah, again, with my assumptions:
TL;DR; A mullvad founder donated a large amount of money to what is largely considered to be a right wing political party
Here's a small selection links, should be easy to search once you know what to look for:
Note, there is obviously bias and opinions here, have a look in to the actual details yourself for a full picture.
I agree with all of that up to this part:
If their crackpot experiments are at the expense of the things i care about i'm out, but that's a personal opinion, not a universal viewpoint.
Again, all reasonable takes up to the end part:
"He's not as bad as musk and gates, plus everyone of that generation was like that" sounds a lot like an excuse, even if you specifically state that it isn't.
Agreed
Again, agreed, until the end.
That's entirely glossing over the nature of the sketchy shit being pulled.
As we said mozilla are just stacking those shitty decisions like they were bricks of gold.
but they haven't done anything even remotely a sketchy as :
Presenting it like they are doing comparable things is disingenuous at best.
So you basically ARE calling me a narcissist by proxy, or a defender of narcissists at best.
Well, no more Mullvad for me. Thanks for pointing that out. There are several good alternatives.
I'll keep it brief. I do find the controversies comparable, for the reasons previously stated. I will not continue to belabor the point as you do not agree. I find Brave's mistakes to be easier to point out than the proverbial frog in boiling water, but not any less harmful. My goal is not to say everything Brave does is OK, but rather to push back in this concept that they do so many more worse things than similar products, which I do not believe to be true, as well as explain the context, which as much as they are still bad things that should in fact be criticized, are not AS bad as reading the headline sounds, and I can kinda see where they were coming from in some cases. And I'm more inclined to stick with them because they respond to criticism by fixing thr problem. I don't expect that to change either, they've forced themselves aggressively into the position of catering to the core audience of privacy enthusiasts. I'm not telling you to accept it "at the expense of things you care about". I'm telling you the problems no longer exist, so you don't have to.
Worth noting that the CEO was the CEO of FIREFOX at the time of the LGBT controversy. He was forced out due to the backlash, so good on Mozilla, but I don't believe for a second that Firefox employees didn't know the type of person that he was, or that their corporate culture or values are particularly different than Brave's. They're just not arrogant enough to say it out loud. I could nitpick other things I don't like about Firefox like their VPN, but at the end of the day my opinion is that they are both not great, but some of the better options available. I don't play favorites just because it's the thing I chose. It is entirely possible that either company could announce something tomorrow that would be unforgivable to me, and I would not be surprised by either one.
The only reason I point out of something is not "as bad" is because I don't believe it is possible to stay completely away from supporting anyone controversial. Can't do it with food production, can't do it at work even though it makes me feel bad. Can't do it with web browsers. If a 4th option besides Chromium, Gecko, or WebKit pops up overnight ran by the Jesus Christ of open source and privacy, I'd happily switch and we won't have to keep having these conversations. But right now, this is what we've got: Brave, Firefox, and a few standout Firefox forks like Tor, LibreWolf, and Zen.