I use the following in order of preference and frequent use:
Desktop (Windows)
Brave: I don’t need to block elements such as newsletter notices or annoyances, as those on Firefox using uBlock Origin do, since I really don’t care and it doesn’t bother me.
Firefox w/ Arkenfox: I use this as a fallback, or for logging into sites like this forum. Yes, I could do that on Brave, but I want to keep what I do on both browsers separate. A key difference is that I use uBlock Origin Lite, rather than uBlock Origin, although there seems to be some issues with the former currently.
Mullvad: For generic searches, reading information, researching for information so I can respond to queries like this, and the like.
Tor Browser: I somewhat use it for the same purposes as Mullvad, especially for anonymity.
Android (Plastic Premium Galaxy)
Tor Browser: Since I don’t use my Galaxy frequently, as I’m almost always on desktop, I mainly use Tor browser unless I need to sign in. Thus, I use Brave as a secondary browser.
Brave: I use this very similarly to desktop, except I don’t add exceptions since I can’t. (It’s either clear everything or manually clear what you want.) I simply just clear everything and deal with the inconvenience.
Differently to desktop, I use this also when I’m impatient with Tor Browser speeds, such as using Invidious on a .onion site, I just use it on Brave.
Mulch: I use this for sites I can safely stay logged into, like Cryptee.
Anyone who mentions “Privacy” and “A browser with AI adblocking” should go straight to jail.
Also, curiosity got the better of me and I looked up this “company” which is less 10 months old, and it’s sufficiently hard to find any information for them. Totally not a shady company and an attempt to lure people into installing it.
I hope this post helps you and others form an informed opinion on this subject.
This post is about non-stable versions of Brave, Firefox and Chrome browsers. If you aren’t interested on that, please skip this wall of text.
TLDR: Beta, Alpha, Nightly, Testfligh, Dev, Canary and other non stable versions of browsers are generally not recommended due to less security guarantees with them and also due to usual extra telemetry enabled in non stable browser versions. You can sometimes disable the extra telemetry of non stable browser versions completely or partially, but even then such browsers don’t provide any significant advantage compared to stable browser versions.
TLDR 2.0: Use normal browser versions if you want the most privacy and security.
Brave browser:
Brave Software Inc. (the company behind the Brave browser) addresses the privacy and security implications of its beta and nightly versions in the following documents (the Dev version is also mentioned, but I think that’s an old version of Brave that doesn’t exist anymore, at least I can’t find any link to download it anywhere):
The Beta and Nightly versions come with more analytics enabled by default, and, from my interpretation of Brave’s privacy policy, you can partially opt-out of them if you want to (read the privacy policy for more details, the parts that address this are faster to read than this post, and explain this better). Also, Brave Software Inc. doesn’t maintain any promises about Brave’s privacy and security when you use the Beta or Nightly versions (better described by Brave on the GitHub link I sent above, really fast to read).
Firefox:
Mozilla, the organisation behind Firefox, claims the following in its Firefox Privacy Notice — Mozilla (I copied the only relevant part):
Mozilla’s pre-release versions of Firefox (which are distributed through channels such as Nightly, Beta, Developer Edition and TestFlight) are development platforms frequently updated with experimental features and studies. In addition to the data collection described in this Privacy Notice, these versions by default may send certain types of web activity and crash data to Mozilla and in some cases to our partners. Any data collection or sharing adheres to our Firefox data collection policy and we will always be transparent and provide you with controls.
For more details of what kinds of analytics can be enabled by default when using Firefox Nightly, Beta, Developer Edition or TestFlight, look at the “Eligibility for Default on Data Collection” section of the Data Collection - MozillaWiki entry, more specifically at the Category 3 “Stored Content and Communications”.
I wanted to find some information more specific to what extra data is collected by Mozilla and how to opt-out of that exact data collection when using Firefox Nightly, Beta, Developer Edition or TestFlight, but I didn’t find any more information about that provided by Mozilla. In my opinion, they should be more clear and specific about this, or am I missing something?
Google Chrome:
Last and worst privacy wise, Google Chrome has some official documentation about its release channels:
As expected, Google isn’t very specific about what data is collected when using other release channels of Chrome compared to the stable release channel, neither about how (or if) you can opt-out of that data collection.
The best I found was this (first link):
By default, Canary reports crashes and usage statistics to Google (you can deactivate this feature).
And this (first link, also applies to stable Chrome):
Metrics
If the setting to help improve Chrome’s features and performance is enabled (chrome://settings/syncSetup?search=improve) then Chrome can automatically monitor and send anonymous metrics to the Chrome backend—such as memory usage, page load times, or the usage of a browser feature.
Chrome uses metrics to check performance, stability, and for unexpected behavior. This mechanism can also be used with field trials to compare metrics for users who have a new feature activated, and the control group of those who don’t. That way, if a problem occurs, Chrome engineers can turn off the new feature while they’re working on a fix.
This sound like Chrome metrics, independent of the release channel.
Warning:
All the information I shared with you so far is based in documentation and resources from first-party sources, which means I am trusting Brave’s official resources about the Brave browser, Mozzila’s about Firefox and Google’s about Google Chrome.
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies carry legal importance, so I find it unlikely that any of this product’s Terms or Service and Privacy Policies are lying directly to their (few) readers, such lies are more likely to occur in marketing materials (this is general advice, not specific to Google, Brave Software Inc. or Mozilla).
Third-party reviews:
For a third-party review of some privacy and security protections and features that come enabled by default with different beta/nightly browsers (and stable versions of those browsers too), the following website is the best resource I know of:
PS.: The maintainer of privacytests.org works for Brave, although he created and published the website many months before starting to work for Brave and, in my opinion, he is very transparent about this in the website’s about page.
Source: Open-source tests of web browser privacy
Congratulations!
If you read and understood all of this, have a nice day and share feedback about this post, whether positive or negative (specially negative, it’s more urgent to improve wrong/misleading information/advice than to receive an heart reaction emoji, although those are also appreciated).
Mull is also recommended by Privacy Guides in the Mobile browsers page, not Firefox Focus or Firefox for Android.
In case you end up using Mull, I recommend reading the above link so that you use Mull in the best possible way, or at least so you are better informed about Mull, its advantages, weaknesses and other things to take into account.
If you read both Mull and Firefox/Focus recommendation descriptions, you will notice that it gives Mull credit for having better security and privacy defaults than Firefox and Firefox Focus on Android, as well as hardening that can’t be achieved when using normal Firefox or Firefox Focus on mobile.
Firefox/Focus description:
Firefox doesn’t have the best defaults, reserving maximum privacy & security through hardening the browser. (Limited on mobile) An attractive reason to use Firefox is it’s an alternative to the Chromium monopoly.
Mull description:
Mull is the closest thing to a pre-hardened Firefox on Android. It brings many features from the Tor Uplift Project, the arkenfox project, & more! It is recommended to install ‘uBlock Origin’.
As to the favorite check mark being attributed to Firefox/Focus instead of Mull, I disagree with Techlore in that regard and I don’t have any way to defend that choice.
As for PrivacyTests.org, it only tests browsers under their default configurations, that is a limitation that people should keep in mind when checking that website’s test results.
Quoting form the website’s about page (emphasis mine in the second paragraph):
How the tests work
To understand and compare the privacy characteristics of popular web browsers, each browser is subjected to the same suite of rigorous automated tests. Each privacy test examines whether the browser, on default settings, protects against a specific kind of data leak.
Personally, I would never recommend Techlore as a resource for anyone, but I do admit it did help start my privacy journey.
I would use Mull over Firefox Focus, since you can install uBlock Origin and it’s hardened. Firefox Focus has literally no ad blocking which is quite an important feature.
In his defense, the GrapheneOS people threw a hissy fit and asked him not to mention their name. I think Henry even mentioned in some video that he would recommend “that phone OS” if they allowed it.
I love the project, but we could live with a little less drama (even though I admit it improved a lot lately).
Many thanks all for your insightful advice. For privacy newbies like myself, it can take some time to find good, trustworthy advice and then grow to understand the nuances.
For example, it was not obvious to me and the uninitiated that many of the green ticks in the browser-test is simply a result of the browser clearing data upon close. A clear note explaining a setting on the browser can be changed to achieve the same level of privacy would help ignorant people like myself make better decisions.
I never rely on default settings. The first thing I do when I download an app is check if I can improve its privacy. I gather from everyone’s responses that when the available settings are changed for optimal privacy, Mull is more effective than Firefox Focus is?
For everyday use: Safari Developer Preview with 99% of test/beta functions disabled.
For sensitive browsing (banks, shops, alike) :: practically every browser thats able to run behind packet-stopper.
