all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 5 months ago

I actually appreciate the openness. As long as it is openly communicated and optional (but yes... its opt-out instead opt-in), I do not mind that much.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Hmmm not keen on letting Brave censor the web for me. And why the hell would Brave give Waterfox money if there's no telemetry?

    Idgaf about allowing search ads by default on their search partner, whatever fine.

    But the Brave part smells really really bad, wasn't their ad blocker inserting ads of its own?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    read the article. they're using brave's open source adblock library; brave isn't paying them to do this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Brave's adblockers is subpar in comparison to uBlock Origin and their tool set. It is not only about block lists.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    genuine question, why were people using waterfox instead of ironfox? like what out-of-the-box features drew them in?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)