I feel like there is no web browser with a sane default configuration that I can recommend to other people. All browsers are preconfigured in a way that harms the privacy of their users or include services that no one wants such as Pocket and BAT.

Here are my problems with some popular browsers.

  • Mozilla Firefox: Pocket integration, no ad-blocking without extensions.

  • Brave: Everything related to crypto. Also its start page is horrible.

  • Chromium: No ad-blocking without extensions and soon Manifest v3 will cripple all content blockers.

Now, these suboptimal defaults wouldn’t be such a big problem if the configuration files were easy to backup and restore and respected the XDG base directory specification.

  • kariboka@bolha.forum
    1083·
    10 months ago

    Ad blocking shouldn’t be tied to the browser, anyway. ublock is superb, imagine if firefox devs should have to develop it along with the browser (that nowadays is a herculean task).

    Anyway, extensions give user freedom to chose how they use their browser.

    Pocket take 2 seconds to disable.

    • marlowe221@lemmy.worldEnglish
      167·
      10 months ago

      It’s kinda the same with Brave. Just take 2 seconds to turn off the crypto thing and forget it was ever there.

      I’m primarily a Firefox user but keep Brave around for Chromium-based browser testing.

      Just turn it off, folks!

        • Ganbat@lemmyonline.comEnglish
          185·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, and there’s definitely some pay-offs going on with their reviews. Almost every one of them says something close to “This browser pays you just for browsing the internet!,” most of them don’t mention that it’s crypto, and none of them mention that it has nothing to do with browsing, but is instead for clicking integrated ads.

            • Ganbat@lemmyonline.comEnglish
              21·
              10 months ago

              What are you on about? Clicking is literally the only way to get anything from it, period. I used to use Brave on both mobile and desktop, and that was true universally. You don’t get BAT unless you click the ads.

          • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
            23·
            10 months ago

            it has nothing to do with browsing, but is instead for clicking integrated ads.

            It doesn’t show you ads if you’re not browsing… 🤔

            And you don’t have to click the ads.

            • Ganbat@lemmyonline.comEnglish
              22·
              10 months ago

              Brainlet response.

              Getting popup ads is a far cry from “just browsing,” and despite claims otherwise, I always noticed a fairly stark difference from month to month that seemed to coincide with whether or not I was clicking the ads. 🤔

              My favorite part of all these mad shilling comments in getting as how not a single one of them addresses the carbon copy “BRowSeR tHAT PaYS YoU!!!” reviews, they just all go “Hmm, but it says you don’t have to click, haha, you fool, you liar! You are discredited!”

              • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
                31·
                10 months ago

                Brainlet response.

                Dafuq is a “brainlet”?

                Getting popup ads is a far cry from “just browsing,”

                I don’t know what part of this you’re not getting but you have to be browsing in order to get an ad, so it has absolutely everything to do with browsing, despite your insistence to the contrary.

                that seemed to coincide with whether or not I was clicking the ads.

                Wait you actually clicked the ads?

                mad shilling comments

                God I just love these comments. As if no one can actually genuinely like a product and any correction of disinformation makes you a “shill”… such big brain energy over here.

                how not a single one of them addresses the carbon copy “BRowSeR tHAT PaYS YoU!!!” reviews.

                Because we don’t care. We don’t read reviews from randoms online. We listen to experienced privacy and security advocates, and we actually use the browsers ourselves.

                • Ganbat@lemmyonline.comEnglish
                  22·
                  10 months ago

                  You’re not a shill for “genuinely liking a product” or “correcting disinformation” (which, btw, are both obvious b.s.), you’re a shill for denying any lying about genuine issues.

                  You’re a shill for your staunch refusal to accept that there’s a difference between “using a browser” and “receiving advertisements that pop up over your content or in your notification bar.”

                  You’re a shill for responding to mention of the half-truths they (and people like you) propagate with the dismissive “Wait you actually clicked the ads?”

                  You’re a shill because you willingly admit that you don’t care about the shady shit they do, and you clearly don’t want other people to care.

                  You’re a shill for implying that anyone who would point out the shady shit they do is simply dumber or less informed than you.

        • vector_zero@lemmy.world
          55·
          10 months ago

          Is it not open source? You can literally audit the code and point out any shadiness yourself.

      • yukijoou@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        93·
        10 months ago

        though brave has 2 issues you can’t turn off:

        • it’s chromium-based, and strenghtens the browser engine monopoly
        • the company behind it seems quite shady, and afaik the ceo/leader/founder/… is homophobic
        • marlowe221@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, obviously not great. Hence why I only use it for testing.

          I would love to ignore Chromium based browsers completely I’m a web developer, so I can’t.

          I wish there were a Chromium browser I could have the warm fuzzies about, but I’m not aware of one.

        • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
          11·
          10 months ago

          the browser engine monopoly

          I don’t think you understand what a monopoly is. Chromium was developed specifically to avoid a monopoly…

          • Atemu@lemmy.ml
            21·
            10 months ago

            Chromium was developed specifically to avoid a monopoly…

            [Citation needed]

            • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
              1·
              10 months ago

              No one at Google is going to say that out loud. But it’s a fairly obvious assumption.

              Same reason that Firefox is almost entirely funded by Google

  • hottari@lemmy.ml
    432·
    10 months ago

    No browser will ever tick ALL your boxes. You pick one and make it work.

    • the_crab_man@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      27·
      10 months ago

      No browser will ever tick ALL your boxes.

      Why not? Is it that hard to NOT include bloatware in your browser and respect XDG Base Directory? As for content blocking, the code is already there because extensions make use of it, just integrate it into the browser UI and use uBlock Origin’s block lists.

      • hottari@lemmy.ml
        81·
        10 months ago

        Sure. Then one of the project’s lead members will publicly donate to some homophobic group and that will have you second-guessing your browser of choice.

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        2·
        10 months ago

        Is it that hard to NOT include bloatware in your browser

        I mean obviously it is, yes. If you want to build a good browser, that takes resources. How else would you monetize it? God knows no one is paying directly for a web browser…

  • VitabytesDev@feddit.nl
    39·
    10 months ago

    Just use Librewolf. It’s a fork of Firefox, with Pocket disabled, Ublock Origin preinstalled, and privacy settings enabled by default.

  • words_number@programming.dev
    396·
    10 months ago

    What’s wrong with pocket integration?Nobody forces you to use it. Apart from that it stores user data e2e encrypted, mozilla has no access to your data (as opposed to chromes sync functionality). Imho, a browser should not block some content by default. But ad-blocking must be easy to enable/install. All of that’s the case in FF so I see no reason not to recommend it.

  • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
    261·
    10 months ago

    You’re going to be spending a lot of time with your browser, make it a 2 way dialog, customize.

    Firefox has an extremely vibrant extension ecosystem and seems to overall be doing well, but see what works for you.

  • TheMadnessKing@lemdro.idEnglish
    23·
    10 months ago

    What’s the problem with using uBlock on FF. Gets rids of ads, has ton of features to custom add filters and more.

    Also, I kinda like Pocket Integration on FF. Found some interesting articles that way.

    • the_crab_man@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      216·
      10 months ago

      And I’d have to do that manually for every computer on which I install the browser. I can’t just tell someone to install a browser and use it as is, there are always several additional steps required after install to have a decent experience. This is especially a problem for people who are not tech savvy.

      • deong@lemmy.world
        19·
        10 months ago

        Or just use their built in sync and sign in one time, and all your addons will be installed and enabled for you.

        If your argument boils down to “none of the browsers are exactly pre-configured for me, one of the 7 billion not special people on the planet”, I’m not sure there’s a productive conversation to be had here.

      • flashgnash@lemm.ee
        5·
        10 months ago

        Use NixOS, nix package manager or home manager, declaratively add all the extensions and config you want, boom same browser every time

        People who are not tech savvy can handle installing a browser extension manually the one or two times they have to set one up