I have seen many people in this community either talking about switching to Brave, or people who are actively using Brave. I would like to remind people that Brave browser (and by extension their search engine) is not privacy-centric whatsoever.
Brave was already ousted as spyware in the past and the company has made many decisions that are questionable at best. For example, Brave made a cryptocurrency which they then added to a rewards program that is built into the browser to encourage you to enable ads that are controlled by Brave.
Edit: Please be aware that the spyware article on Brave (and the rest of the browsers on the site) is outdated and may not reflect the browser as it is today.
After creating this cryptocurrency and rewards program, they started inserting affiliate codes into URL’s. Prior to this they had faked fundraising for popular social media creators.
Do these decisions seem like ones a company that cares about their users (and by extension their privacy) would make? I’d say the answer is a very clear no.
One last thing, Brave illegally promoted an eToro affiliate program making a fortune from its users who will likely lose their money.
Edit: To the people commenting saying how Brave has a good out-of-the-box experience compared to other browsers, yes, it does. However, this is not a warning for your average person, this is a warning for people who actively care about their privacy and don’t mind configuring their browser to maximize said privacy.
Guess what, Firefox also gets the same score on ghis site :)
https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox
Also they both seem to be the better option to Chrome https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/chrome
Not sure if this score applies to vanilla Chromium.
Firefox gets a high rating on default configuration.
The next line explains that with custom configuration, it becomes Not Spyware.
Brave can be configured in the same way, so really no difference
It’s Chromium-based, so I don’t understand how it could be “configured in the same way”.
Yes they both get the same score, but Firefox also has a mitigation guide to make it Not Spyware.
Let me put it in this way – if Firefox were really a spyware, TOR browser won’t be based on Firefox.
That’s not the best argument tbh, bc you van remove all the spyware from brave AND Firefox sooooo
Tbf Tor is based on US military software. Could be a honeypot lol. But it’s the best we’ve got…
That website has a very strict, unusual interpretation of ‘spyware’. Even if all the telemetry and unprompted connections made by Mozilla Firefox are in good faith and legitimate features, that website still labels it ‘spyware’, as it is revealing unnecessary information without your consent.
The same website gives Tor Browser a ‘Not Spyware’ rating, as it (necessarily!) removed the default features of Firefox that concerned them.
Side note - I think you may have accidentally marked your account as a ‘bot account’ in the settings.
That website is very bad and full of verifiably false information, they act as if any and all connections a browser makes are automatically bad and “spying”. They even claim that Tor Browser is a “spyware”.
Could you please provide and example or two? I wish to verify it, since I didn’t notice any last time I checked the site.
They’re very clear that this is their approach (bold text on the home page). Even if you disagree with their definition, that doesn’t make the site bad. And there are many valid situations where a threat model should be this strict, consider anti-government activists in any country.
It says “Not Spyware”. https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/tor
Sure, let’s look at the page for Firefox. They claim that there are “Automatic connections to some websites you’ve visited, including their trackers” with the new tab page, and that they “couldn’t find a way to disable it.” Whoever made this website couldn’t take 2 seconds to go to about:preferences and see the option to display recently visited sites?
They also have a section titled “Firefox tracks users with Google Analytics”, which they’re very misleading about. Instead of explaining that GA is only present in about:addons and that it can easily be disabled, they’re extremely vague about it and just blindly say it “sends analytics to Google”, which would lead people to believe its much worse than it actually is (i.e. Chrome level). There’s an important distinction between: “Google Analytics is present on 1 page in the browser and can be disabled” vs. vaguely stating “Firefox send analytics to Google” without full info or context. Hopefully I’m explaining that well enough.
Its also disingenuous to consider Firefox’s Captive Portal as “phoning home” without, again, providing full info or context. It has a legitimate purpose, to allow users to connect to public networks, and can be disabled for those who wish to do so. It doesn’t give any data to Mozilla, all it does is detect if a captive portal is present. I think this is another instance of the context being important to have, which the website just simply doesn’t give.
Another instance, look at their page on Tor Browser, where they just flat out lie and accuse Tor Browser of “sending telemetry”.
I could go through more, but these are a few I notice immediately that I take issue with.
Categorizing something as spyware solely based on the number of connections it makes is horribly irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Whoever made this couldn’t even be bothered to find what data is actually being exchanged for most of these connections. There’s a lot more to determine how privacy invasive something is then just sitting and counting the number of connections it makes, and treating them all as malicious and for “tracking”.
That’s why this website is so dangerous. Calling Tor Browser spyware and saying it sends telemetry could trick people who don’t know better to use worse alternatives. This even moreso extends to casual users too, who could also be misled into using a less private browser as a result of this website’s insane claims.
They have a separate article up calling it spyware as well, see here. Weird contradiction from them and just shows this site isn’t very well designed or thought out.
Thanks for the detailed reply :)
I agree with all your points, it is misleading and potentially harmful to use a strong term like spyware to refer to all of those things, without further context. I guess I’m still used to a couple of tech circles where people would jokingly throw ‘spyware’ around to describe anything and everything, so I didn’t realize how misleading it really is. Especially when it’s applied to things like automatic updates, which only the most extreme security models consider more of a risk than a security feature.