I switched to Brave

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Browser power users are weighing the trade-offs of switching from Firefox and other alternatives to Brave, a Chromium-based browser with aggressive built-in ad blocking and a new “Origin” variant that strips out its crypto features. Many praise Brave’s speed, privacy defaults, vertical tabs, and Manifest V2 extension support, but others worry that relying on yet another Chromium fork entrenches Google’s de facto control over web standards and undermines Firefox’s role as an independent engine. Ethical concerns around Brave’s past crypto practices and its founder’s political history surface alongside broader questions about monetization models, data collection, and whether any mainstream browser can truly be “privacy-first.”

Brave’s Appeal and Feature Set

  • Many commenters use or like Brave as “better Chrome”: Chromium compatibility, strong built‑in ad/tracker blocking, fast performance, vertical tabs, containers, and good sync.
  • Brave’s ad blocking sometimes outperforms uBlock Origin, e.g., on YouTube and some paywalled/twitch streams.
  • Users appreciate Brave Origin (stripped of crypto/AI, paid on most platforms but free on Linux) as the “no‑nonsense” variant.
  • Some run Brave with crypto/telemetry completely disabled; others pay for the Origin version to avoid ads and BAT entirely.

Concerns About Brave (Crypto, Ads, Trust)

  • Repeated discomfort with Brave’s past crypto decisions (BAT, creator payouts, affiliate injection) and the perception of “suss” or anti‑privacy choices over time.
  • Disagreement on how serious those issues are: some see them as disqualifying or even fraudulent; others say the crypto/ad features are clearly opt‑in and easily disabled.
  • Some refuse to trust Brave binaries or the company, preferring distribution‑built packages or other browsers.

Chromium Dominance vs. Alternatives

  • Strong debate over using “yet another Chromium browser”:
    • One side: Chromium gives the best site compatibility and frictionless UX; most users prioritize that.
    • Other side: relying on Chromium strengthens Google’s de facto control of web standards and repeats IE6‑style risks.
  • Firefox is defended as highly compatible for most sites, with problems largely limited to certain video‑calling tools, niche APIs, or poorly tested web apps.
  • Some advocate Firefox forks (LibreWolf, Waterfox, Tor, Mullvad, Zen) or WebKit‑based browsers (Safari, Orion) as privacy‑focused alternatives.

Firefox and Mozilla Critiques

  • Some long‑time Firefox users report sluggishness, occasional site issues, and frustrations with history/bookmarks behavior.
  • Mozilla is criticized for management distractions, AI features, and weaker privacy defaults, though others say Firefox has not “enshittified” like competitors.

Ethics, Politics, and Funding

  • Heated discussion over Brave’s founder’s past political donations against same‑sex marriage:
    • Some view this as permanently disqualifying; others argue for historical context, change over time, or separating technical work from political views.
  • Broader tension between wanting ethical, privacy‑respecting software and accepting the compromises of ad‑funded or surveillance‑adjacent business models.