this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
48 points (88.7% liked)

Privacy

32120 readers
257 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As the title suggests. I want community opinions on the Arc browser.

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IanAtCambio@lemm.ee 90 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You HAVE to make an account and sign on when you first open it. On a privacy focused sub, that should be an instant DQ

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] IanAtCambio@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago

Disqualification

[–] guiguinofake@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dairy Queen. Their ice cream is kinda ass compared to local stuff.

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well that's something different

[–] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Not really. DQ is a fairly large chain.

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 1 points 10 months ago
[–] TealNinjaLlama@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Disqualification

[–] Lodra@programming.dev 50 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

With chromium being poisoned last year and Mozilla trying to diversify away from Firefox, I’m starting to wonder what browser I should be using in the near future. So I’d really like to hear some opinions on arc browser!

EDIT: Aaand it’s chromium

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 61 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Arc is Chromium based. In other words, you're still using Chrome/Chromium.

Firefox and Safari are the only two browsers (seemingly) left on the market with their own rendering engines. (Gecko and WebKit respectively)

So while things are fucking bad at Mozilla, it's important to try to get people to use Firefox so market share will increase enough that Mozilla won't want to diversify away from Firefox. I know that's living on hopes and dreams, but that's better than just rolling over and letting Google take over the modern world-wide web.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You forgot about epiphany! /s

[–] scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 10 months ago

That’s WebKit… so basically Safari lol

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

A Firefox fork is fine. LibreWolf in particular picks up the pieces Mozilla keeps throwing everywhere, and then makes the browser much more private.

[–] madis@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

LibreWolf does seem to go a bit too far with the hardening. It's fine if you're used to Tor Browser or Mull Browser but as a general recommendation... ehh.

[–] WeLoveCastingSpellz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

on the other hand I think it is not enough and do have a more extreme set up on regular firefox

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Librewolf gives you options, and if you don't want to toggle them on, you're free to do so. I vehemently disagree with your analysis and I believe the protection that Librewolf provides should be considered bare-minimum in this age. This should be the default browser, not Firefox

[–] madis@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Librewolf gives you options, and if you don't want to toggle them on, you're free to do so.

These do sound like they are enabled by default though, hence the breakage?

I believe the protection that Librewolf provides should be considered bare-minimum in this age.

If websites work with them, sure. But if they don't, try explaining that to your grandma.

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

They aren't though

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

If you think so, the extra features can be disabled from the settings, because LW added an extra section for them too... No hunting through about:config.

[–] Gooey0210@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

What is too far about it? 😂

[–] SomeBoyo@feddit.de 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] SomeBoyo@feddit.de 3 points 10 months ago

Only if you use it in emacs.

[–] utopiah@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

chromium being poisoned last year

Can you please expand on that? I don't use chromium except when I have compat tests to run but still curious.

[–] Lodra@programming.dev 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Here’s a random article on the topic to get you started.

Basically Google is destroying anonymous web browsing by embedding finger printing in chromium. Certain trusted servers will track your identity and report whether or not it trusts you.

It’s actually very similar to how Single Sign On and identity providers work. Except you aren’t choosing to use it with a “login with Facebook” or similar button. It’s forced on you by the browser

[–] Murdoc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This article only mentions Chrome, not Chromium. So I looked it up and found this:
"Web Environment Integrity (WEI) is an abandoned API proposal previously under development for Google Chrome.[1] A Web Environment Integrity prototype existed in Chromium,[2][3] but was removed in November 2023 after extensive criticism by many tech groups.[4]"

[–] Lodra@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

Oh really??? I wonder if there’s hope for chrome after all. Though I’m still sticking with Firefox 🙂

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

https://privacytests.org/

PS for all the haters of open source facts : Even librewolf references this site for browser testing.

https://librewolf.net/docs/testing/

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

An employee of Brave runs that website.

If that doesn't scream conflict of interest, I don't know what does.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

And yet the results are still fact and brave still isn't the best.

[–] dukethorion@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Are you saying the information presented is somehow incorrect?

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Well first, let's stay on the topic of a huge ethical conflict of interest. Do you understand why that's a problem, and how conflicts of interests have been abused throughout history?

[–] dukethorion@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well, there's a good chance that most people who present technical information publicly are probably involved somewhere in the tech space. Pretty sure the owner of that site also has a disclaimer stating that he in fact works for Brave.

More directly, is the information on that website inaccurate? Could any other person create a similar website with the same information? Has anyone?

True facts don't change based on who presents them. Every time I see this "oh don't trust the Brave employee" it's usually someone who is mad that FF isn't the best in whatever category.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

This doesn't address my question about how to rationally think about conflicts of interest.

Well, there's a good chance that most people who present technical information publicly are probably involved somewhere in the tech space.

Seems like a bad assumption. Do you trust a scientist paid by BP to tell you how safe BP fuel is for the environment? Do you trust Mark Zuckerberg to tell the United States how private Facebook is?

And after you employ some critical thinking there, maybe your responses will dictate how you would see the presentation of statistics, and whether a dishonest paid actor would be likely to overstate things that make their employer look good and understate things that made their employer look bad, while technically not lying as far as the law is concerned.

[–] Samueru@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Every time I see this “oh don’t trust the Brave employee” it’s usually someone who is mad that FF isn’t the best in whatever category.

You just nailed it lmao.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How do you feel about ethical conflicts of interest?

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is none. This is a personal project. It has been long before brave. The source code is there. All previous results are there. All methods used are there. They make it well known their current employment.

Oh, did I mention you can run the same tests because the whole thing is OPEN SOURCE.?

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

There is none

Yeah sure lol

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

Well, first, let's stay on the topic of fact versus your possible issue of possible conflict.

K thx bye.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

The source code is freely available for you to run all the tests yourself. On any browser you like.

Brave sucks. Peter Thiel can suck the corn out of my shit.

But, the tests and results are still accurate. *based on fresh install and no config changes. (FF can be hardened well beyond what's shown)

As you can see in the results tor/mull/mullvad/librewolf are basically the best for all around privacy and security.

They're all based on FF.

Ps: The guy was doing this long before he went to work at brave. (Maybe that's why they hired him? Hmmm)

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

They're saying they don't understand open source at all. They're saying someone must stop the highly regarded and useful personal project they've been working on for years prior to being hired by evil corp (it is because Peter Thiel). They're saying they don't know how to read the results of the tests. Etc.

[–] hellfire103@sopuli.xyz 32 points 10 months ago
  • Proprietary
  • Based on Chromium
  • Requires an account to use

Instant nope from me!

[–] KY13KR385@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

I think Arc is a very interesting browser. I’ve tried using it on and off, but I have read a few blogs/posts that suggest it’s not very privacy forward. One of my biggest pet peeves with it is that it’s built on Chromium, and it requires you to have an account/login. Here’s a great privacy review, my apologies if you’ve seen it already: https://adam.kostarelas.com/blog/arc-browser-privacy-check/