Funny how you do not address most of what I said ... so, disingenuous it is.
Regarding optional features, I more used them as a ~~segue~~ red herring into the last three links
ftfy
Nothing good will come of this conversation, so I'll stop it right here. Have a nice day.
Being chromium based it
Don't get me wrong, I am using Firefox, but your entire post is pretty disingenuous. Criticizing Brave over privacy concerns and then suggesting Firefox instead requires disingenuity or a special kind of ignorance and/or stupidity. Firefox has had 10 times as many privacy "mishaps" as Brave with all the "experiments" of corporate affiliates they shipped to users unannounced. There's a reason there are so many forks of Firefox.
Pretty much everything you criticize about Brave is entirely optional.
Then you title a link as Brave "getting ousted as spyware", and the linked to page does not oust Brave as spyware at all. You would do good to adopt some of the more neutral/factual tone of that page.
And in parts that page is pretty ridiculous, too: complaining about what is set as the default search engine (the same as Firefox, btw). Who the fuck cares what search engine is set by default? Just change it. Opt out of everything you do not like. If there's stuff you cannot opt out of which is bad, we can talk about that. But arguing about optional features is ridiculous.
Edit: little add-on: Brave factually has better out of the box (no plugins) privacy protection than Firefox: https://privacytests.org/
I take it you missed that the "previous one" was also sarcasm.
That's terrible advice, [...]
Is it really? It reliably protects people from all the garbage content on youtube.
Being able to adjust your sarcasm detector is a must-have skill. Sarcasm levels fluctuate wildly depending on platform, community, season, and topic. Otherwise you can never know if you're making an ass of yourself when replying to other comments. Really, it's irresponsible to partake in social media without a finely tuned sarcasm detector.
Weird. Must be some scaling issue in Boost. It even looks like that when I view it full screen and zoom in:
Why does this photo(?) look like digital concept rendering from ~2000 without antialiasing?
They've been doing the same with all hyperlinks in the gmail web frontend. Not when you fetch the mails via imap/pop, though.
They trained an "AI" on an empty set?
I came here to make the same smoking analogy.
Considering how many tests Brave does not pass, I'd say that page looks pretty balanced and fair. Also it is consistent with independent studies where Brave came out on top of the list.
My impression is that most opposition against Brave is largely political. And then people try to find technical reasons after the fact, which simply isn't justified in comparison with other browsers.