It’s all about the marketing and nothing about the technology or company.
I opened google for the first time in months (years?) to check out the results for “best private browser”. Predictably, the AI overview confidently responds as follows:
The best private browsers in 2026 for enhancing online anonymity and blocking trackers are Tor Browser, Brave, and Mullvad Browser. For maximum privacy with high security, Tor is top, while Brave is best for daily, fast browsing. Mullvad is ideal for anti-fingerprinting, and LibreWolf offers excellent privacy for Firefox users.
I would be very surprised if Brave did not at least at some point sponsor content to position itself as privacy oriented. This hidden advertisement then bleeds into both AI and human armchair experts with no deeper understanding of the tech they’re commenting on. And so the myth that Brave has good privacy becomes self-enforcing.
Unrelated edit: Answering “why is firefox bad for privacy”, Google AI becomes oddly self-hating:
Firefox is often considered “bad” for privacy by privacy-conscious users because, despite its pro-privacy marketing,
it collects significant user data by default via telemetry, relies on Google as its default search engine, and has updated its privacy policy to allow broader use of user data. While superior to Chrome, its default settings are not “privacy-maximalist,” necessitating manual configuration.
Good luck figuring that out based on their website.
(Edit: the website home was last edited in August 2025, and Edelstein seems to have left Brave by October 2025. So during the time I was aware of its existence, the same person was putting Brave Browser at the top of privacy lists and working at Brave Browser HQ.)
Oh don’t read this as me defending Brave, I don’t think that’s a good browser to use.
I just mean that using deceptive means to promote a product (including botted comments and other shady tactics) is standard practice by now for any company trying to sell a product.
I can’t speak to any of Brave’s qualities because I don’t use it and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. The fact that they’re using marketing tactics like this kind of goes against the good guy persona that they’re trying to present and that’s enough to turn me off of their products.
It’s all about the marketing and nothing about the technology or company.
I opened google for the first time in months (years?) to check out the results for “best private browser”. Predictably, the AI overview confidently responds as follows:
I would be very surprised if Brave did not at least at some point sponsor content to position itself as privacy oriented. This hidden advertisement then bleeds into both AI and human armchair experts with no deeper understanding of the tech they’re commenting on. And so the myth that Brave has good privacy becomes self-enforcing.
Unrelated edit: Answering “why is firefox bad for privacy”, Google AI becomes oddly self-hating:
Yeah, this is standard SEO that all companies have been doing since people figured out how to game Google’s PageRank algorithm.
The only thing new is the AI who’s search strategy is ‘summarize the top n results’
privacytests.org is run by a chief Brave engineer.
Good luck figuring that out based on their website.
(Edit: the website home was last edited in August 2025, and Edelstein seems to have left Brave by October 2025. So during the time I was aware of its existence, the same person was putting Brave Browser at the top of privacy lists and working at Brave Browser HQ.)
Oh don’t read this as me defending Brave, I don’t think that’s a good browser to use.
I just mean that using deceptive means to promote a product (including botted comments and other shady tactics) is standard practice by now for any company trying to sell a product.
I can’t speak to any of Brave’s qualities because I don’t use it and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. The fact that they’re using marketing tactics like this kind of goes against the good guy persona that they’re trying to present and that’s enough to turn me off of their products.