Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Brave has some "blockchain" based features, to appeal to those who are drawn to that hype. They make money by selling ads, either for crypto-related companies or else using a crypto-based mechanism.

Absolutely all of this is either opt-in, or else trivial to opt-out from with a few clicks.

Mozilla is an entity that essentially exists at the whim of Google. Funded by Google to sit in the corner and be semi-relevant at best, so that Google can stave off anti-trust attacks on Chromium. It earns a half-billion dollars per year in revenue, and essentially pisses away most of that on MBA nonsense that has nothing to do with maintaining a web browser.

You don't have to care about or pay attention to any of that to use Firefox.

Neither of these two organizations are indisputably "perfect". If you are the type of person for whom your web browser choice is a component of your personal "identity", then attaching either of these logos to your own personal brand can be problematic.

However, wrapping up your personal brand identity in web browser selection is ridiculous. All of the above is essentially irrelevant nonsense. Meanwhile, back in the land of objective reality... the world has standardized on Chromium for better or worse, and so Brave has a bigger plugin ecosystem and far fewer if any compatibility issues with any website.




Thank you. My god, WFH and crypto are two topics HN is not good at discussing.


It does make me sad what became of Mozilla




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: