That you can is besides the point. You shouldn’t need to. If the first thing I need to think about after installing it is “well, let’s see what garbage is in here that I need to turn off”, then any trust I would have for it has already gone out the window. Especially important odor a browser where that is kind of the main differentiating aspect.
Firefox has telemetry. You can opt out and delete it, but by that logic it shouldn’t be trusted either. Also, I doubt people who really care about privacy don’t harden firefox. Being able to is not besides the point.
It still has to be feature rich and work or of the box. I haven’t been back to Firefox in a few years, but it was pretty dumpy by comparison to brave. I’ll look again but the key feature of a browser to me isn’t “it’s not Google, it’s Foss, and I don’t have to disable stuff”.
I’m gonna hope you’re a fellow Linux user if that’s the perspective you take.
I wasn’t arguing for Firefox or FOSS. It just seems to me that if your selling point is trust and privacy (at least it is what I see people citing as Brave’s Big Thing), you should be as transparent and irreproachable in that regard as possible. Having said this, of course, good features can be enough for the trade-off to be worth it (this is true of pretty much every piece of software out there, Chrome included), depending t each user finds more important.
By that logic, Firefox would be in the same boat. After initially installing, you have to turn off data collection in the settings and disable Pocket in the config.
That you can is besides the point. You shouldn’t need to. If the first thing I need to think about after installing it is “well, let’s see what garbage is in here that I need to turn off”, then any trust I would have for it has already gone out the window. Especially important odor a browser where that is kind of the main differentiating aspect.
Firefox has telemetry. You can opt out and delete it, but by that logic it shouldn’t be trusted either. Also, I doubt people who really care about privacy don’t harden firefox. Being able to is not besides the point.
Idk if I’m doing something different but for me, the crypto stuff seems to be opt in.
Like you have to create a wallet it seems, they don’t make one for you.
The article (and these comments) are rife with half-truths and pitchforks. (And I use Firefox).
Beside**
It still has to be feature rich and work or of the box. I haven’t been back to Firefox in a few years, but it was pretty dumpy by comparison to brave. I’ll look again but the key feature of a browser to me isn’t “it’s not Google, it’s Foss, and I don’t have to disable stuff”.
I’m gonna hope you’re a fellow Linux user if that’s the perspective you take.
I wasn’t arguing for Firefox or FOSS. It just seems to me that if your selling point is trust and privacy (at least it is what I see people citing as Brave’s Big Thing), you should be as transparent and irreproachable in that regard as possible. Having said this, of course, good features can be enough for the trade-off to be worth it (this is true of pretty much every piece of software out there, Chrome included), depending t each user finds more important.
You use linux but your primary criteria for the most used program on a PC is not having to configure it?
That’s a pretty odd middle ground to take.
I think you misread me. I said I don’t mind configuring. It’s not hard to turn off default options.
By that logic, Firefox would be in the same boat. After initially installing, you have to turn off data collection in the settings and disable Pocket in the config.