• ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would never use a browser provided by a company that dabbles in cryptocurrencies. Would you entrust your privacy to Sam Bankman-Fried?

    • Madis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same approach would make sense in Firefox too though. And as far as I know, Firefox’s equivalent option is still about:config-only anyway.

  • ᴅᴜᴋᴇᴛʜᴏʀɪᴏɴ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Fewer than 0.5% of Brave users are using Strict fingerprinting protection mode, based on our telemetry data.”

    Probably because most users who enable strict mode, also disable the telemetry?

    So now we see the effect of disabling telemetry, a negative change in the product.

    Guess its back to Chromite only then.

  • fᵣₑfᵢ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you’re interested in a browser with strong fingerprinting protection out-of-the-box, I recommend the Mullvad browser

    It’s desktop only tho

  • catonwheels@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Shame I was few used it but I think it is interesting that people actually reporting issues and seems to be expected to fix.

    I simply would just use a step down in security, that’s why I am using brave in first place. Oh don’t run my no script Firefox, oh don’t run on Librewolf. Guess I try brave now. Oh don’t work striked guess standard it is

    Not to mention that people have telemetric on. Because I don’t think most that willing to have websites break for security would like telemetric on.