

That’s my point, checking a few boxes in the settings is the bare minimum if you care about it, so idk what’s the value in comparing defaults.
And privacy is often a tradeoff, if a browser doesn’t have the strictest by default, it’s probably because the ones who forked it didn’t consider it a good tradeoff.
That only seems relevant if one uses the defaults, and if you care about privacy you probably don’t, so idk what’s the goal of this little experiment other than just curiosity.
It’d be a whole lot more useful if it was “here’s the connections these browsers made after enabling all privacy-preserving settings they offer”.


I don’t know if this is a case of bit rot, but just a heads-up OP: that script won’t detect this category of failure. You need a solution that computes checksums of the backed files to really be sure their content is integral.
Just pasting more info for those that were concerned, like me:
Issue. This was rolled back and only seemed to affect Windows.
(I don’t use Brave as a daily driver, but it’s my Chromium browser of choice when I need assess if a website is really broken, or if it’s just misbehaving on Firefox.)
valid question, idk why would people downvote it
broken websites on desktop are rare and not nearly enough to drive a browser change, but they usually fall into two categories:
websites that “break” on purpose for no good reason when they detect it’s not chromium. Either avoid the site or change the user agent.
websites that degrade some functionalities because they rely on newer features or on how things appear on chromium. They’re usually CSS breakages and do not affect browsing that much.
Support for manifest v2 greatly outweighs these potential issues imo.
It’s private as opposed to the public internet; there’s no “personal” in VPN.