This isn't such an outrageous assumption to make here.
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
Example: selling market preferences of a town rather than the individual people in it.
But at least with Brave, the initial funding information was made public, so there's already more information available to users in comparison with Mozilla. Mozilla just said: "there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners" - that could mean literally anyone.
You're just spreading FUD unless you have evidence that Brave funnels usage data in secret.
Even if fine in the present, you cannot guarantee me the future of a Thiel-funded, VC-owned firm.
Mozilla, in comparison, is a mature, non-profit with substantial goodwill and operational transparency.
Everything past these details are just noise.
This is common in non-profits for a number of reasons: protects the foundations assets, allows for engaging in commercial operations (Mozilla VPN, Anonym), greater flexibility, etc.
It is not a true for-profit company. All "profit" flows up to the non-profit and the non-profit parent retains complete, absolute control while being tied to the Mozilla mission.
There was something else they did that was shocking a couple years ago that made me glad I never used it. I went to wikipedia to jog my memory and found this...
> In 2020, the company was found to be appending affiliate referral codes to the end of certain cryptocurrency exchange URLs typed into the browser's address bar. The practice applied to exchanges such as Binance and Coinbase, and was later discovered to extend to suggested search queries for terms like "bitcoin" and "ethereum".
I'm not sure why anyone would trust a browser that does this kind of thing. Some could claim it's a harmless way to make some extra cash, but it's very similar to what Honey was caught doing.
Brave is a Thiel-funded, VC-owned private company with far more egregious monetization efforts.
Ultimately I know everything at Mozilla is completely controlled by the mission-driven non-profit parent -- something they've recently double-downed on.
Brave does not have those same assurances and cannot be trusted.
Brave is relying on a fork that takes advantage of the fact that the webRequest API is still technically there
This doesn't look like neglect to me at all. And in addition to all this, they've dramatically reduced their dependency on Google for funding.
They've literally been caught MITMing web pages for their own financial gains.
Lol, they chose to ship parts of their browser as extensions, it's definitely now "random extensions".
> and blocking uBlock Origin from working on, for example, the Firefox extension site
Any other example? Bypassing an extension on their own website has absolutely no link to the browser itself being a malware, this is ridiculous.
I don't even use Firefox and I think Mozilla is a shit organization misusing its funds to pursue bad ventures lately, but even I think your claims are bullshit.
Chromium is detestable. In whatever form it takes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1unhtxu/initial...
My reasoning for not using Brave: not only is it a wrapper around Chromium, but their crypto stuff and some dodgy affiliate injection in the past paints them as untrustworthy.
Brave is faster, suspends tabs when getting short of RAM with hundreds of tabs, has a first-class built-in ad blocker and fingerprinting protection, is compatible with Chrome extensions, includes Tor support, provides anonymous Brave Search with Goggles out of the box, free and private AI assistant Leo.
In any case, thanks for explaining. There are some features there I was unaware of