Brave Software has announced plans to deprecate the 'Strict' fingerprinting protection mode in its privacy-focused Brave Browser because it causes many sites to function incorrectly.
My dude, the other user said that the crypto scams can’t be disabled, meaning right now in the present. Not that they couldn’t be disabled. I asked which can’t be right now in the present.
And now you’re talking about something that happened 4 years ago and was fixed lol. I did not ask when did brave ever prevent you from disabling crypto scams, I asked right now lmao.
Once again, I hope you’re doing this because you hate the brave ceo and not because of some weird fanboyism with firefox lol. Because the more I look at your comments the more it looks like the later. You just pretty much said that you don’t care about the issues with firefox by saying that it is irrelevant.
You are in a post about Brave. If you need to talk about anything but Brave to justify its behavior, the behavior is bad.
And just because Brave is technically currently not engaged in any scams that we know of, does not mean that it has a history of engaging in those scams, or that enabling them by default is good behavior on their part.
You might as well not reply if you will deflect this badly.
Hey firefox boy, My original reply was to someone saying just use firefox that ignored mentioning all the issues that firefox has with its default settings including the terrible default fingerprinting protection to start lmao which is on point with this post about brave fingerprinting.
Also you’re going around telling people that the privacytest is not reliable way to compare browsers because of a brave employee which is fair but you don’t bother to mention whether the test is actually lying or even propose an alternative test either.
I personally tested the coveryourtracks test by the EFF, and to my surprise brave scores better than librewolf, and this is using the default fingerprinting settings of brave, not the one that will be removed.
My dude, the privacytest website shows that librewolf is a better browser than brave, and when you told me (I think it was you lol) about the brave employee running it I thanked you for that info and began looking for alternatives.
I did the coveryourtracks test, which to my surprise brave scores better than librewolf:
So yeah, in my attempt to make a more fair comparison I only ended up with results that make brave a better browser lol.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the conflict of interest, but that should be followed with at least some alternative being suggested if you don’t want to bother into looking whether the data is false or misleading.
Edit: I will also state that I don’t know if there is another conflict of interest going on in the EFF though.
I gave a concrete example: when Brave injected affiliate codes into the URL bar, there was no way to disable it.
Because it’s irrelevant and gish gallop is not convincing to me
My dude, the other user said that the crypto scams can’t be disabled, meaning right now in the present. Not that they couldn’t be disabled. I asked which can’t be right now in the present.
And now you’re talking about something that happened 4 years ago and was fixed lol. I did not ask when did brave ever prevent you from disabling crypto scams, I asked right now lmao.
Once again, I hope you’re doing this because you hate the brave ceo and not because of some weird fanboyism with firefox lol. Because the more I look at your comments the more it looks like the later. You just pretty much said that you don’t care about the issues with firefox by saying that it is irrelevant.
You are in a post about Brave. If you need to talk about anything but Brave to justify its behavior, the behavior is bad.
And just because Brave is technically currently not engaged in any scams that we know of, does not mean that it has a history of engaging in those scams, or that enabling them by default is good behavior on their part.
You might as well not reply if you will deflect this badly.
Hey firefox boy, My original reply was to someone saying just use firefox that ignored mentioning all the issues that firefox has with its default settings including the terrible default fingerprinting protection to start lmao which is on point with this post about brave fingerprinting.
Also you’re going around telling people that the privacytest is not reliable way to compare browsers because of a brave employee which is fair but you don’t bother to mention whether the test is actually lying or even propose an alternative test either.
I personally tested the coveryourtracks test by the EFF, and to my surprise brave scores better than librewolf, and this is using the default fingerprinting settings of brave, not the one that will be removed.
Would you consider any of the following examples lies?
https://gizmodo.com.au/2014/04/how-to-lie-with-data-visualization/
My dude, the privacytest website shows that librewolf is a better browser than brave, and when you told me (I think it was you lol) about the brave employee running it I thanked you for that info and began looking for alternatives.
I did the coveryourtracks test, which to my surprise brave scores better than librewolf:
https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
https://imgur.com/WeGvgS5.png (LIbrewolf on the left, brave on the right)
So yeah, in my attempt to make a more fair comparison I only ended up with results that make brave a better browser lol.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the conflict of interest, but that should be followed with at least some alternative being suggested if you don’t want to bother into looking whether the data is false or misleading.
Edit: I will also state that I don’t know if there is another conflict of interest going on in the EFF though.