Thank goodness that we can post things in here without Braves astroturfed PR community galavanting to save face like what happened when any story against brave posted on the other site
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
Technology
69098 readers
2881 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The CEO of brave is a homophobic bigot if that helps push anyone over the edge for changing their browser. It was the last straw for me.
God damnit.
Every browser I switched to since Firefox has been a good user experience, and then I find out some horrible bullshit.
Is there any safe browser that isn't run by hateful assholes?
tldr:
- CEO was forcefully ousted from Firefox for anti-LGBTQ views and donations.
- Replaced existing ads on sites with Brave's own "private" ads.
- Collected crypto on behalf of others without their knowledge or consent
- Injected referral links into crypto websites to steal crypto revenue
- Put ads in the new page tab
- Shipped a TOR feature that leaked DNS
- Doesn't disclose the ID of their search engine crawler via useragent
- Removed "strict" fingerprinting protection
- CEO is generally a right-wing dick.
My take: No other browser is sustainable without advertising. Orion looks to be that guy, but we will see. We've already seen many other browsers stop development, like Mull and LibreWolf, due to lack of resources. Firefox itself is on the chopping block with Google potentially being forced to sell Chrome. We'll see what Kagi is able to manage with Orion, though releasing it with pretty much all the features one could want for free doesn't appear promising. I think taking a "private advertising" approach is the best we're going to get. This makes Brave sustainable.
The CEO is a dick, no doubt, but they pretty much all are, and every browser has it's drawbacks.
As far as the useragent, I kinda agree with Brave on that one. Sites want to be crawled by Google but they will block anyone else, which obviously creates an anticompetitive environment in an industry that severely needs competition.
As for the fingerprinting, I kinda get it. I'm sure some users were turning on strict protection and then complaining about the browser not working properly and ultimately ditching it while complaining to others. That being said, even with "standard" fingerprint blocking, Brave is the only browser I've used on CoverYourTracks and it returned "you have a randomized fingerprint". I'm not any sort of tech genius but I think the folks at EFF are and I trust them.
My take: We can have an open source browser. No resources are required. We don't need ads to view content we make. There is no need for a megacorp or any entity taking money and controlling us.
We can have an open source browser.
Most browsers are already open source. They're all funded by advertising (except Safari which is a whole other problem).
No resources are required.
Are you planning to imagine it into existence?
When you find one that has some sort of sustainable model that isn't advertising, please let me know. I'll be all over it.
Okay are you ready?
The model:
- We program it
- For literally fun
- Together many people, that find different parts of bringing the web to people safely
- We do it completely altruistic
I don't think you understand. It would take you time to do that. A whole lot of time. Probably thousands of hours. Time is what's known as a "resource".
I understood perfectly, your claim is that it takes advertisement. Not time. And nobody has said it doesn't take time.
I understood perfectly
You very clearly did not and still do not.
your claim is that it takes advertisement. Not time.
Somehow you managed to gloss over the only point of my statement while also simultaneously fabricating things that I never said anything about.
And nobody has said it doesn't take time.
You said "no resources are required". As I've just finished mentioning, time is a resource.
We've already seen many other browsers stop development, like (...) LibreWolf, due to lack of resources.
Wait, what?
Two things:
-
When did Librewolf stop development?
-
On funding, they say in their FAQ:
If we don't need funding, we won't risk becoming dependent on it. And also: no donations means no expectations. This means that people working on LibreWolf are free to move on to other projects whenever they want.
Librewolf seems to very consciously not looking for "resources" from advertising or donations, or etc. The only resource they seem to want is motivation.
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
I think that having expectations and funding to continue is important, like you say.
But I'm still confused about what you mean by the "resources" comment re: Librewolf.
When did Librewolf stop development?
https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/issues/1906
"Hey all, I'm on the LibreWolf team, and it's true that since the departure of @fxbrit the project has taken a total nosedive when it comes to keeping up to date with Arkenfox and settings in general. We're still making releases, but settings did not get updated."
"As @threadpanic said, since fxbrit left we have been in a kind of "maintenance" mode in terms of settings. Mainly because we are really only three people left"
"LW since fxbrit left/died/who-knows has gone to shit - I worked with him behind the scenes to make the right choices and while he would do his own analysis, we always agreed, and his voice influenced them. Now they don't know what they are doing, and in fact have compromised security and make really stupid decisions. Same goes for all the other forks - really dubious shit going"
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
Exactly.
But I'm still confused about what you mean by the "resources" comment re: Librewolf.
"Resources" can refer to many different things, in this case it is motivation/prioritization.
Thanks.
I can somewhat understand the overall criticism, because Librewolf - as far as my understanding goes - would be in trouble without the work being done on the code upstream.
Personally, I know that this does not exist (yet), and to some people that put privacy above everything else with a more libertarian slant, this might sound like the worst option imaginable, but my "dream" way to handle it within the current economic system would be:
Have an open source, FOSS base, web-engine and all, developed with public funds similar to public broadcasting in many countries (Bonus if carried by international organisations instead of just national. Think a UN institution like UNESCO or WHO, but focused on making the internet accessible neutrally and to all). On top of that code, projects that want to put privacy above all else could still feasibly built projects like LibreWolf (an even Brave), relying somewhat comfortably on secure fundamentals.
I know, sounds like a dream, which it is at this point. But every other solution within the current economic status quo I personally thin of, I see no chance of enshittification not always encroaching and creating crises, if not outright taking over.
But that didn't answer my questions
Oh, yes, it wasn't a direct answer, also, I'm not the person you answered to. Ultimately, my comment was more meant as an overall addition to the discussion, building on the idea of what a solution to:
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
might be.
But as answers to your two points. #1 - I have no idea where they got that from, myself #2 - I think you answered that one yourself rather well, and I wanted to build on that one.
Sorry if that was confusing, my brain is also good at confusing myself at times, can't imagine how that is for others at times.
I missed you weren't the person I responded to. Thank you.
CEO was forcefully ousted from Firefox for anti-LGBTQ views and donations.
I think this is making mountains out of molehills. My understanding is that he had a very good working relationship w/ LGBTQ people in the org, and he had been working for many years at Mozilla before this point. The issue was his private donations to an anti-same sex marriage initiative. He didn't push for any company policy change, didn't advertise the donation, and didn't use company funds (used personal funds), so it really shouldn't be anyone's business.
I personally disagree with his political views, but I think he was a fantastic candidate for CEO of Mozilla. How he votes or spends his personal money shouldn't be relevant at all.
Replaced existing ads on sites with Brave’s own “private” ads.
I like this idea in principle, but not in implementation. Brave should have worked with major websites to share revenue, but what Brave actually did was remove website ads and insert its own, forcing websites to go claim BAT to get any of that revenue back.
My preference here is to not use a cryptocurrency and instead have users pay in their local currency into a bucket to not see ads (and that's shared w/ the website), and that should be in collaboration w/ website owners.
Collected crypto on behalf of others without their knowledge or consent
This is a big nothing-burger.
Basically, Brave had a way to donate to a creator that wasn't affiliated with the creator. The way it works is you could donate (using BAT), and once it got to $100 worth, Brave would reach out to the creator to give them the money. They adjusted the wording to make it clear they weren't affiliated with the creator in any way.
Injected referral links into crypto websites to steal crypto revenue
Yeah, this is totally wrong, and they reversed course immediately.
Put ads in the new page tab
Not a fan, but at least you can opt-out.
Shipped a TOR feature that leaked DNS
Mistakes happen. If you truly need the anonymity, you would have multiple layers of defense (i.e. change your default DNS server) and probably not use something like Brave anyway (Tor Browser is the gold standard here).
Doesn’t disclose the ID of their search engine crawler via useragent
Also a bad move, though I am sympathetic to their reasoning here: they just don't have the resources to get permission from everyone. Search has a huge barrier to entry, and I'm in favor of more competition to Google and Microsoft here.
Removed “strict” fingerprinting protection
This was for better UX, since it broke sites. Not a fan of removing this, they should have instead had a big warning when enabling this (e.g. many sites will break if you enable this).
CEO is generally a right-wing dick.
Fair, but that should be a separate consideration from whether to use a given product. Using Brave doesn't make you a right-wing dick.
You probably wouldn't like the CEO of any company whose products you like, so basing a decision of what product to use based on that is... dumb.
I personally use Brave as a backup browser, for two reasons:
- it's a chrome-based browser
- it has ad-blocking
My primary browser is something based on Firefox because I value rendering-engine competition. But if I need a chromium-based browser, Brave is my go-to. I disable the crypto nonsense and keep ad-blocking on, and it's generally pretty usable.
Using software made by people who are politically aligned to sell out your country to russia is stupid stupid stupid and makes you an idiot, idiot, idiot.
Its not just politics when the politics are treason and electing a kgb asset. In a normal country and time it wouldn't be a big thing wether your browser maintainer wants feee public transit or not but in current time right wing means you literally voted to destroy the entire us in order to weaken nato for the russian invasion.
It sounds like you need to step away from social media and touch some grass.
But let's say you're right, pretty much every big company is sucking up to Trump, and you'd be hard pressed to find something in your shopping cart that doesn't benefit someone that supports him. That's an untenable position.
The better approach, IMO, is to avoid products from companies that mistreat their employees. That's why I avoid Walmart, Amazon, and a few others, because that sends a clearer message and funnels my money to a better cause.
Avoiding Brave is just virtue signaling, it doesn't actually accomplish anything. If Brave goes under, Eich will still be conservative and probably still donate to causes you don't like, but we'll have one less competitor to Google's absolute hegemony over the web browser market.
Use Brave if it solves your problems, don't if it doesn't. Don't base that decision on the personal views of the person who happens to be in charge.
but we’ll have one less competitor to Google’s absolute hegemony over the web browser market.
Brave isn't a competitor to Google, it's an enabler. It uses the same engine, which is all Google cares about: Their engine, their internet.
It absolutely is a competitor. Yes, it uses the same engine, but it blocks their ads. And at the end of the day, serving ads is what Google wants to do.
But again, Firefox (and forks) is my main browser, and it's what I recommend to everyone. But Brave is on my list of acceptable Chromium browsers, assuming you need a Chromium browser (I do for web dev at my day job).
Yes, it uses the same engine, but it blocks their ads.
Which means nothing, when Google can, and is, pushing technology to freely unleash their ad network on all web pages, as a function of the engine itself.
No, it's not a competitor. Excepting in their ad markets, and frankly, it's not a competitor, it's a statistical blip.
as a function of the engine itself.
AFAIK, there's nothing in Blink (the rendering engine), V8 (the JavaScript run engine), or any other low level pieces of the browser that does this. What they're doing is hamstringing extensions and building in a layer of tracking into the browser on top of the engine. A fork can absolutely keep the engine bits and remove the tracking bits.
The problem with Chrome's hegemony over the rendering engine has nothing to do with their ad network, but with their ability to steer people to use their products instead of competitors' (e.g. "Google Docs is faster on Chrome, switch today!" just because they introduced a chrome-only spec extension).
Brave absolutely is a competitor. They block Google's ads, have their own search engine (and are building their own index), and provide a privacy friendly alternative to Chrome without any compatibility issues. That's why it's my backup to Firefox (and forks), sometimes things don't work properly on Gecko and I want a privacy-friendly alternative to chrome. That used to be Chromium w/ uBlock Origin, but with that extension taken from the chrome web store, I reach for Brave, which has it built in.
And yeah, it doesn't have a ton of users. That doesn't mean they're not a competitor though.
This is a very well written an thorough article and I highly recommend reading it. If you don't want to however, here is a summary of the key points:
-
- Brendan Eich donated to anti-LGBT political organizations, politicians, and initiatives such as CA Prop 8 which banned same-sex marriages.
-
- Brave promised to replace ads with privacy friendly ads that would actually pay publishers and even users with a volatile cryptocurrency while keeping a cut for themselves. This never actually came to life and was criticized as "blatantly illegal".
-
- Brave collected donations for popular content creators without actually involving or seeking consent from said creators. In short they accepted donations in crypto for creators, but would only pay out if it reached a minimum value of $100. When called out, Brave said refunds were impossible.
-
2020 — Brave injects referral links when visiting crypto wallets
-
- Brave injected their own referral links for services such as Binance without informing users or asking permission.
-
- Brave turned their home screen image rotator into a place to serve ads, many of which were suspicious or crypto related.
-
- Brave added a Tor feature which exposed users DNS requests
-
- Brave refuses to disclose their crawler bot to websites since many websites want to block Brave Search. Brave will only chose not to crawl a website if it also blocks Google's crawler.
-
2024 - So-called "privacy browser" deprecated advanced fingerprinting protection
-
- Brave removed a the Strict, Block Fingerprinting privacy feature from their browser.
-
- Brave paid for targeted ads for users searching for Firefox in the Play Store and ran a campaign to "Forget the Fox". When called out on this the VP publicly denied it and claimed it was photo-shopped.
-
- The VP of Brave, Luke Mulks, frequently posts about all things crypto, from NFTs to FTX, and uses AI-gen images to promote them. He also frequently re-tweets right-wing activists.
-
- Brendan Eich's feed also frequently contains right-wing content and Republican propaganda despite his claims to be "independent".
Edit: corrected a mistake noted below.
Prop 8 was not merely proposed, it was approved by voters and actually banned same-sex marriage for several years before it was ruled unconstitutional.
Brendan Eich contributed to the actual banning of same-sex marriage in California for several years.
I don't use Brave as my main browser but I think some of the accusations are not fair.
- TOR Feature. I don't think it was deliberately done. Similarly Firefox revealed your up address even if you used VPN while using. As long as there was no malicious intent we can't say anything other than that they software has big bugs.
- Yes, it is questionable what they do for getting money but same can be said for most donations or schemes that FOSS use. There was long discussions about the money Mozilla receives from Google, or things Opera did (basically similar to Brave)
- Getting news from right wing is useful if you ever need to do research, I had a course in uni about anti-islam and getting really right wings news was difficult. We all knew the same 2 sites.
- The political opinion of the CEO is concerning but not important enough. In that case I'm wholly on the same boat as the developer of the Factorio, if Hitler were to make good Browsers I'd use them.
- It is also important to note most of the problems are in the past. Sure it means there are likely a lot we could not find and it is annoying to use a product where they would exploit you if they are given a chance.
That said Brave is still #1 Browser I'd recommend someone installing. If I can I'd install Firefox myself, but on the phone it is what I recommend. I don't trust my uncle to install Firefox and install uBlock etc. on top of it. But I trust him to install Brave and use it.
Most privacy minded Browsers like Libre Wolf have restrictions, like not enabling WebRTC out of the box, meaning using Zoom, Meet etc is not possible. There are people who are forced to use such software and not able to tweak with config files. Some people think just because they can do it, everybody should be able to. I think it is a good choice to recommend to people, very good in place replacement for Chrome, you can even take your bookmarks and addons with you
anyone believing brave is good for privacy is quite naive
It's good for playing youtube without ads and Netflix which doesnt work with my firefox setup for some reason. That's all I use it for.
Ublock Origin on Firefox can also play YT without ads...
Netflix Idk
the crypto and the asshole ceo aside, nobody should trust a browser that claims to respect privacy that's based on chromium.
What's wrong with ungoogled-chromium? Or Vivaldi?
ultimately they're still chromium and they still contribute to chrome's dominance.
Okay, but that's not a privacy reason.
It is still a privacy reason. You are still contributing to googles plans to dominate and control the internet by using a chromium product its a privacy threat, and an everything else threat too.
But neutered Chrome (aka repurposed + degoogled Chromium) isn't the same as Google Chrome. I 100% understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't file this under "privacy" (at least not without some asterisks).
its still furthering googles control of the internet, which is an inherent threat to privacy, regardless if you think you are participating in it or not.
Once again, that's not privacy (the context of this discussion). Your point is that using Chromium encourages websites (as in, developers) to keep making sites that are Chromium-optimized, instead of browser-agnostic.
When you take all the "Google" out of a browser, they're not getting any information from you because those mechanisms no longer exist. Again, I'm talking about Google and Chrome. You're combining 3 different "issues" and slapping a "PRIVACY" label on them.
The real issue is that people default to Chrome, because for years it was the most performant browser (until it became a bloated shitfest). People need to become the change they wish to see (like me, who switched from Brave back to Firefox on all devices). That's how you defeat a browser monopoly. This is just Internet Explorer from the 90s/2000s all over again. Remember how everyone used to default to it because it's what they were taught? We (collectively) need to stop telling people "download chrome" as the default. It's the equivalent of saying "google it", instead of "look it up".
You're the kind of person that gets told repeatedly that X is bad, don't do X.
Then you do X, get in deep trouble, and cry about how could anyone possible let this happen, and expect everyone else around you to clean up the mess, arent you.
Google dominating the internet IS a privacy problem.
Taking google tracking bullshit out of your browser does nothing to address their monopolistic power that allows them to violate your privacy even without their tracking shit in their browser. Using Chrome/Chromium hurts privacy. Because using google shit in general hurts privacy. Using chrome/chromium furthers googles base, further forces the web to align with what google wants, and is bad for privacy, and for everything.
And Chrome was never the most performant. Google just sabotage their own services to run worse on competitors browsers, because end users are stupid and will just assume "not google browser = bad " and use chrome.
And if you still cant wrap your head around it, then you're hopeless.
I'm starting to get the picture that you don't understand how a web browser works. Otherwise you wouldn't be equating Chrome to Chromium/forks that remove Google-everything. Blink being the dominant renderer is a completely separate issue. The renderer itself does nothing for Google in terms of "collecting data" on its own. You're talking about the browser as a whole (e.g. "Chrome" = Chrome + Blink). They're two separate things that are shipped together.
Google dominating the internet IS a privacy problem.
I agree, but using a non-Google, Chromium-based browser/fork that removes all of the Google bits is a separate issue than Google Chrome having huge marketshare. I don't know how old you are, and the reason I say that is because I'm old enough to remember the original beta release (and 1.0) of Chrome. Chrome then isn't what Chrome became years later, and now. That was my point in bringing up the past; because you're acting like it's been like this since Day 1. It's taken over a decade for it to become enshittified.
And Chrome was never the most performant. Google just sabotage their own services to run worse on competitors browsers, because end users are stupid and will just assume "not google browser = bad " and use chrome.
Sure, rewrite history. Chrome was never the most performant, and nobody had anything to say about its ludicrous speeds during the Windows XP/7 era, when it was released /s. I understand what you're saying, but my overall point is that you're being hyperbolic and tying together separate issues under one label. For example, Brave sucks, but not because it's based on Chromium. It sucks because of their policies and the actual execution (e.g. removal of privacy-preserving features, whitelisting Meta ads, etc).
Also, you clearly don't read anything because I already told you that I switched from Brave to Firefox on all of my devices. Now what I'd like to know is, what browser(s) are you using, and do you recommend, and why. Because, by your logic, it's the rendering engine (Blink) that is the issue, since you say that even anti-Google forks of Chromium (not Chrome) are as bad as Chrome itself. Does that means that now I can't use Firefox forks, because they're all tied back to Mozilla, who also has inserted/removed/changed features that have to do with privacy? I'm genuinely asking you. Also what does it mean when Mozilla gets a huge chunk of their funding for Firefox directly from Google?
tl;dr -- The Blink renderer used by Chrome/derivatives does nothing on its own. You should be complaining about web developers who skew (design) their sites towards it instead of following general best practices for all renderers. Separately, and additionally, people should move away from Chrome because it's a privacy nightmare, but that has nothing to do with the renderer. Finally, I do agree with you about Google kneecapping their web properties so they work worse with other browsers, but that's user-agent related, and Google-related (not something Chrome does).
A neutered fascist is still a fascist.
If one forks Chromium like Firefox has been forked to hell and back, then I view it as effectively taking the power out of Google's hands. The issue with Chrome supremacy is that Google gets to, directly or indirectly, shape how websites/the internet operates/are built/optimized (since web devs will use it to do their web dev).
So then wouldn't a better strategy be to make a Firefox-like, Chromium browser that is truly "neutral" (like Firefox is *on paper)? Also, remember that Mozilla receives a huge chunk of funding from Google, directly, in order to "keep Chrome from being a monopoly".
Now, that last part depends on whether you considering Chrome to be Chromium, which I don't. Here's my understanding/view, overall (feel free to cherrypick or challenge any of it; I welcome and respect your opinions/corrections):
-
Firefox has existed for longer than Chrome, but Chrome on release was leaner and faster (I speak from personal experience). The only other option was Internet Explorer, which was "Chrome" at the time (as in, average people defaulted to the "blue e" icon)
-
Chrome became the dominant browser because it was lean and fast for its time. It's obviously different now, but you cannot retroactively fault people for choosing an objectively-better browser [for the time]
-
Genuinely not defending Google here, but my opinion is that a large reason we began to transition from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 is because of Chrome (and any other modern browsers). This meant Chrome-optimized sites that didn't work well with other browsers, but I view it as a no-fault situation (it's just how tech progresses; it breaks compatibility with existing tech sometimes)
-
Most people use "Google-everything" these days; I myself have had a Gmail account since it was a closed beta. This means they're more likely to lean towards Chrome, because Google recommends it anyway
So to me, the issues are actually that people default to Google-everything, including Chrome (thus feeding Google info about their entire lives, 24/7). But I don't see Chromium itself as evil. On its own, it's open-source (minus Google bits obviously), which is what allows forks to be made that not only avoid the Google bits, but outright block them. I think it's taking power back. I don't think "EVERYONE SHOULD SWITCH TO FIREFOX OR A FIREFOX FORK IMMEDIATELY" is realistic (and I say that as someone who switched back to Firefox months ago)
I also think that web devs themselves should stop being biased towards..."Chrome-sponsored" (figure of speech) best practices. But I also think that Mozilla should [continue] making their browser more compatible with modern websites, and even maybe get more involved in establishing web design best-practices (meaning practices/technologies that work well equally regardless of browser or rendering engine). In fact, recently Mozilla highlighted their Web Compatibility reporting tool, so that people can let them know about sites that don't render correctly in their browser
Why I recommend against pushing people away from Brave:
Most people are still trapped in an ecosystem owned by either Microsoft, Google or Apple. We're yet to see a perfect web browser for everyone, but in the meantime we choose one, maybe two or three if we feel a bit more picky for each task, and use them to the best of our capacity. Making anyone feel guilty and ashamed for choices like this, when the best options are few, relative, and often come at a cost, is just useless.
I suggest reading the settings guides available at privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/ or checking the browser comparison at eylenburg.github.io/browser_comparison.htm to know the details that anyone who actually wants a better browsing experience cares about. Better to lend a hand than push around.
If whoever reads this still can't get over it and needs to play a blame game with someone about why everyone should boycott Mozilla, Brave, Proton and other privacy focused FOSS companies because of what someone said, did or thought, please at least find a decent fork, toss a coin to it's devs, share their work and help others benefit from it.
At this point there is a pretty solid list of reasons to avoid Brave and use another FOSS privacy focused option.
Personally, everything I've read about Brave makes me trust them even less than Microsoft, and Google.
That is the usual effect sensationalism has, but feel free to choose what best suits your needs.
I do enjoy Cromite, Librewolf, Mullvad Browser, Tor Browser and some others, but I can't deny each (as any) has it's own set of drawbacks. Better to have them in mind when setting up and using those browsers than to panic and run in circles searching for a perfect solution that doesn't exist.
Even more importantly I'd celebrate that people are using any privacy focused FOSS, even if it's not what I'd ideally use. If they feel motivated to keep on that road they'll end learning to use more advanced options in time. On the other hand, make them feel insecure about their options and bloat their minds with sensationalist posts and they'll just use Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge because, "personally", why bother when everyone and everything is so evil and complicated and we're all doomed anyway? 😮💨
Those reasons are all pretty goofy in my book. I use Brave on a daily basis on all my PCs. Only browser out there that offers both good privacy and actual usability. Plus, the first issue in the article is literally a nonissue for me and I actually personally really like the leadership at the company.
I present: The intellectual prowess of bigots.
Yes, because using a web browser is bigotry 😂 It's cool if you don't like it but at least have legitimate reasons for not liking it.