• 3yiyo3@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    it is not even true that “privacytests.org rate it as the best”, if you look close enough, librewolf is best rated, which is an amazing browser BTW.

  • satanmat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    From the JDLR dept… notice how brave is listed first, and passes every test (except a very few)

    This report just looks biased. Even if it is totally legitimate, and many users have pointed out how it isn’t , it looks biased.

    It looks like every sales pitch for a product where they list everything their product does and how it’s better than the other things.

    I vote librewolf

  • danhab99@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Unless someone wants to disagree with me

    All the code is opensource and no one has ever raised a privacy alarm in a merged pull request. There’s nothing to fear

  • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t run Brave because Brave runs a crypto scam right in the browser.

    I don’t care that you can disable it, I don’t care that it might be the only way they found to make a buck out of free software: anyone who dabbles in crypto is instantly sketchy. And I don’t want to run a piece of software as critical as a browser made by someone who’s not 100% trustworthy.

      • Mullvad accepts crypto as payment; there aren’t many other options for anonymous online payment methods today. What Mullvad aren’t doing us creating and running their own cryptocoin in support of their advertising wing. The two are not equivalent.

            • Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              How did I make a false equivalency when the op literally called any project that “dabbles in crypto” a possible scam? That includes Signal as well as Mullvad. Op’s comment does not in any way indicate the use of one’s own currency, simply abolishing all services using crypto.

              • Don’t you recognise a difference between creating a cryptocurrency to use it to encourage people to watch ads, and allowing people to pay with for a service with an existing cryptocurrency in the cause of anonymity? There’s a fundamental difference, right? If not, then fair enough - them taking exception to Brave but supporting Mullvad is hypocracy in your eyes.

                FWIW, I believe no defender of !privacy should be opposed to cryptocurrencies; for better or worse, they’re the only option for online anonymous payments. But I also object to the proliferation of bespoke shitcoins, most of which are truly pyramid schemes in intention amd execution. But it’s a fine line, I’ll admit.