I don't trust Privacy Guides. They must have some kind of deal with Brave. They didn't accept Brave and then out of nowhere they start accepting it with the excuse of having a Chromium-based browser.
I assure you that Privacy Guides has not made a deal with Brave or any other of the tools that it recommends on the website. I'm happy to address any other questions about raising funds if you have them.
There are lengthy discussions about whether to recommend a tool or not on the Privacy Guides GitHub and their forum. There is a lot of great context there.
> There are lengthy discussions about whether to recommend a tool or not on the Privacy Guides GitHub and their forum
The process doesn't strike me as consensus driven? Mods/team have become gatekeepers (both for persisting with existing recommendations or adding new ones), including aggressively shutting down conversations/threads they personally don't like (I was told, all moderation actions are final, regardless of who on the team does it, even if why they did it doesn't hold water). I imagine, such a rigid setup is in response to prevent bad faith actors (but then, I lose count of how many times team/mods have called others "extremist", using it as a slur, just because ... reasons).
It is hard to definitively prove ulterior motive, but other folks do observe such nefariousness and come to their own conclusions, valid or not, as GP has done.
All that to say, the way it is currently run, "discussions happened" isn't really the defence you think it is.
I think our position on Brave is clear enough from the very first paragraph in the guide:
> We recommend Mullvad Browser if you are focused on strong privacy protections and anti-fingerprinting out of the box, Firefox for casual internet browsers looking for a good alternative to Google Chrome, and Brave if you need Chromium browser compatibility.
edit: ninja'd by justin lol
Just want to put emphasis on “out of the box”. Changing any of the default settings will cause you to stand out. The fingerprinting protection is essentially to have a bunch of people all using the same browser with all of the mechanisms used for fingerprinting being either disabled or giving the same results on all installations; everyone has the same fingerprint.
> Like Tor Browser, Mullvad Browser is designed to prevent fingerprinting by making your browser fingerprint identical to all other Mullvad Browser users, and it includes default settings and extensions that are automatically configured by the default security levels: Standard, Safer and Safest. Therefore, it is imperative that you do not modify the browser at all outside adjusting the default security levels. Other modifications would make your fingerprint unique, defeating the purpose of using this browser.
[0] https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/#mullvad-b...
What about a WebKit based browser?
"Orion comes with state-of-the-art ad and tracker blocking enabled by default, unlike any other browser in existence... Beyond blocking all ads and trackers by default, Orion is also a zero telemetry browser. It protects you from websites on the web, and the browser itself never leaks your private information anywhere."
Your personal preference does not prove this website is engaging in shady deals, as the person you’re agreeing with claims.
> It does the best job of respecting the user out of any available option.
Maybe. That too is debatable. Mozilla’s track record with Firefox and privacy has been less than stellar as time goes by.
https://www.privacyguides.org/articles/2024/07/14/mozilla-di...
Firefox is built from the ground up in a different way from Chromium, with its own set of bugs, quirks, flaws, and vulnerabilities. There may be some overlap, but having entirely different architectures means we keep pushing the compatibility envelope, we get "copycat" features, where one engine does something great and the other implements it in a way that works with their own engine, etc.
It's just better to have more than 1 browser engine around. I wish it wasn't so difficult to start a new engine from scratch today, the sheer amount of features a web browser must have to get people to even consider reading your About page, and the overwhelming complexity of modern webstacks, mean you basically have to be grandfathered in as a browser that's been around for decades and has a huge amount of community support.
I am aware of alternative browsers, Arc and the like. I'm very happy to see someone seriously go after an entirely new browser engine that's not Gecko or Chromium, and the traction they're gaining while not being "fully featured" sort of sums up the sentiment of my message (I hope). Having alternatives is good.
(Remember to complain politely, but loudly, if something works in Chromium only.)