Why recommend brave browser on android ? and not mull?

The first article focusses on anything except the actual privacy and security. Most of the things said there have little impact, are many years in the past before Brave even existed or can be turned off completely with few clicks.

On privacytests, Brave and Mull are somewhat equal. Add onto that the increased security Chromium based browsers provide over Gecko based browsers. There’s also a thing to be said about usability advantage because you can use Brave on all of your devices.

It’s okay to not use a product for ideological reasons! But I think when making recommendations for people who aren’t sure what to use, but need/want privacy and security, the most ethical thing is to focus on exactly that. The question should mainly be what the end product actually provides for the end user. And in that regard, Brave is one of the best options.


Small caveat, this is also true for Mull since it is more or less just Firefox.


This has been discussed so many times in countless other theads. Please read those and comment there if you feel like but this gets tiring.


Please, no offence, but the article is trash.
It’s not a private browser of its CEO’s past donation and BAT.

First half is about that its CEO donated money to a non-profit organization. We may like his ideology or not, but donating money is not a crime. And, it is not an indicator of a privacy browser at all.

Second half of the article is about BAT, which can be deactivated with a few clicks.

Problem solved!


I always have a hard time finding it: There is something that chrome based browsers have, privacy wise, that gecko based browsers do not have.
Sometime, I have also read that this advantage chrome based browsers have, is debatable. And also that gecko based browsers have something chrome based browsers do not have regarding the same subject?
I THINK it is site isolation or something with sandboxing, but I am not quite sure.
Could someone enlighten me and explain why one is better than the other privacy wise?

On Android, Firefox is still less secure than Chromium-based alternatives: Mozilla’s engine, GeckoView, has yet to support site isolation or enable isolatedProcess.


My comparison page explains this: Browsers - DivestOS Mobile

See also:

Disclosure: Mull & Mulch are my projects


If I may derail the topic a bit, I feel that in the context of web browser and the monoculture dominance of Chromium based browsers, I would like to remind everyone that if you dont want Firefox support to die on websites you love to frequent, we should at the very least, from time to time, use Firefox on low stakes kind of websites where privacy and/or security may not matter a lot.


The 1st article is and i will be nice, really really REALLY bad. I’m open to hear any argument but reading this article reminded me silly twitter rants. I will ignore that website, thanks OP. Especially when the person say this in their comment…

And sorry folks to dig up this thread, i use the summary newsletter which are really useful btw


I understand the reasons why Privacy Guides recommends Brave, but it is difficult for me to trust the software if the head of the project is a bigot, given the current political situation in the US. I also think it is important to suggest non-Chromium solutions whenever appropriate.

As an end user, I recognize that their can be benefit in recommendations based on technological vs. ideological grounds. There are other spaces which make the recommendations based on some of those factors, but a benefit of privacy guides is that it is less subjective.

Personally, I use FF on android 80% of the time, but that’s after thoughtful consideration of the PG recommendation.

An individual wanting to have a more secure experience on the web does not make someone a good or bad person regardless of the opinions of the Brave CEO.

1 Like