Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Brave is based on Chromium, it lacks some of the privacy centric features that are found in Gecko browsers. 1st party isolation,tracker blocking, containers, anti fingerprinting measures and SNI encryption are some things I can think of right now (maybe chrome as caught up now?)

Plus, Google controls Chromium and Firefox is literally the only alternative now. They push changes that are against or in in ignorance of of web standards because they can. Downstream browsers like brave,edge and opera basically have to accept whatever Google says. This isn't good for the web at all. Frankly there should be an anti-trust suit against Google for this because it is very anti-competitive.



sort by: page size:

I view Brave as very healthy competition to Chrome and Edge. Yes, it's based on Chromium. But it disables the many egregious privacy violations, as well as other bad things.

You do know Brave is built on top of Chromium which is funded by Google right? I won't call a browser that relies so much on Google as a sustainable alternative to Chrome.

Brave is fully open source, and actually defends its users privacy by default.

While firefox still uses google, allows google ads and tracking, and just talks about doing something but does nothing

Also chromium is just a superior engine, in security and speed, using firefox won't change Chromium dominance at all.


But what would be the point? For me Brave is essentially Firefox-level privacy with Chrome-level compatibility, performance and reliability. A Gecko-based Brave would be just Firefox with a few UI changes and maybe somewhat fewer compatibility issues until Google gets around to creating harder ones.

Brave is still based on chromium/blink. You might get more privacy, but you're still supporting the one monopoly of the web, Google deciding over all the web standards going forward. That is the real bad thing

Brave is also based on Chromium, which defeats the entire purpose of the suggestion. Using Brave over Firefox only gives Google more power to dictate web standards.

Friendly reminder that Brave is just "Red Chrome".

It only continues to exist as long as Google deems Chromium based browsers a viable means of eliminating worries of antitrust legislation, as only Google employees make direct code contributions.

The same argument can also be made for Firefox since a sizeable portion of their funding comes from Google, but at least they're developing a separate rendering engine.

That is more conducive to a "open web" built on "competitive software" than everyone using Blink and the standards being driven by Googles whimsy.


Pretty much my vision. The largest reason I don't use Brave is because it's built on top of Chromium, and simply jumping on the Chromium train gives Google the ability to dictate the future of the internet. There needs to be a browser engine alternative, or alternatively, maybe we need to spin Chromium out of the Googleplex and let a free and open source group handle future development independent of the Ad overlords.

While Brave does turn many away with its built in cryptocurrency and its questionable userbase, it's a damn good browser. I switched from FF after the layoffs and in short it has better privacy, UX and feature set and all BAT functionality can be easily and completely disabled.

It appears that beyond BAT integration most people are concerned about it being Chromium derived. While it's true that a more diverse ecosystem would benefit the users, I can't think of any organisation capable of creating a new browser from scratch that would be able to compete with Chrome. While I acknowledge that by using Brave I contribute to Google's dominance over the web, the only alternative appears to be using an inferior product - which would at best merely slow down Google's plans.


Brave is a Chromium browser. Mozilla is still the only one fighting Google- and Apple with Safari I suppose.

Brave being based off chrome is actually great and your comment illustrates that. If it is based on FF, it will cut into FF market share which is already shrinking. Now, it cuts into Chrome which means two privacy focused browser instead of one.

Search the page and you'll find several mentions of Brave.

What I want to know is why someone would pick Brave instead of the Epic Privacy Browser...

... though personally, I think it's far better to support Firefox as it's now the only viable alternative browser that isn't based on Chrome.

Chrome is now so dominant that people can just ignore open web standards and develop for Chrome instead. This is a Bad Thing.


I also see how Brave likes to thrive on anti-Google pro-privacy camp and I personally pick Firefox over Brave any day if the week.

There is de-Googled Chromium OS project, but Brave takes a few steps sideways by making further changes such as proxying location services, safe browsing API, etc. I doubt a 12 y/o could compile it though, let alone in 2 hours.


Brave is the same engine as chrome and has some different privacy concerns. Firefox is the independent choice, Brave is sort of mis-named.

I'm not sure Brave can go against Google's most fundamental interests, without not using Chromium.

Brave is based on Chromium, so it's vulnerable to Google's future decisions about what browsers should be able to do.

Brave is still based on Chromium, and Google is the opposite of "no tracking, no profiling".

I'll stick to Firefox + DDG, thanks.


Anything Chromium-based bad, Brave is no different than Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, Samsung Internet etc.

We need more engines, not browsers. If every other engine dies, Google gets to dictate what the web is even more than they do right now.


Brave is Chromium which is google so that one is a bit of a no .. i get it that its not the same and they take out all the phone home code etc but your still supporting google at the end of the day.

Firefox..

next

Legal | privacy