Serious Discussion The Privacy Illusion: How Brave Browser Built Its Own Surveillance Machine

[LinuxFan58]

Privacy and anonymity are two separate things. Sometimes I get an advice from people to delete my cookies otherwise "they" know everything from you. With tracking pixels, fingerprinting, tracking parameters and log-in requirements to view content privacy as most people define it is a lost cause. Add to all these tracking mechanisms the fact that privacy law and privacy law implementation also has some issues (after the very recent ODIDO breach in the Netherlands, former customers complained getting e-mails while ODIDO should have deleted data long ago and we all remember the AVAST selling your data scandal).

Best strategy for me: take privacy measures which do not interfere with useability (e.e.g removing your AD-id in Android, using an adblocker and auto-delete browsing data, blocking some telemetry with your DNS service) and put your data in as much different baskets as possible.

 

[cofer123]

Lots of words but zero references to any of their claims on that article. Surely this proves Brave = bad!

 

[Oxygen]

Why does one want "privacy" in a browser but use other services that sell and use your data anyways? Not a lot of people read the ToS and how/what data is collected and just agree to everything.

 

[Jonny Quest]

Why does one want "privacy" in a browser but use other services that sell and use your data anyways? Not a lot of people read the ToS and how/what data is collected and just agree to everything.

Including 3rd party AV's "never ending" list. A couple of examples.

Legal-Privacy-Policy-For-Home-Users-Solutions

www.bitdefender.com

F‑Secure Total privacy notice | F‑Secure

www.f-secure.com

 

[Parkinsond]

Why does one want "privacy" in a browser but use other services that sell and use your data anyways? Not a lot of people read the ToS and how/what data is collected and just agree to everything.

I consider "privacy tools" are closer to one of the marketing strategies.

The only justification to seek absolute privacy is being a high-caliber target whose cyber-behavior is under 24/7 surveillance waiting for an exploit to breach.

I'm not Bibi to cover my phone camera.

 

[Oxygen]

Including 3rd party AV's "never ending" list. A couple of examples.

Legal-Privacy-Policy-For-Home-Users-Solutions

www.bitdefender.com

F‑Secure Total privacy notice | F‑Secure

www.f-secure.com

Well, the terms of any service can change at any time and most people wouldn't realize it (or again) just mindlessly agree to said new terms. I'm all for privacy and any service that respects and promotes that but I also realize the unrealistic lengths somebody must go to achieve "true" privacy.

 

[Oxygen]

I consider "privacy tools" are closer to one of the marketing strategies.

The only justification to seek absolute privacy is being a high-caliber target whose cyber-behavior is under 24/7 surveillance waiting for an exploit to breach.

I'm not Bibi to cover my phone camera.

I could say that some things you do online could be absolutely private but that would narrow it down to very specific things. Would the average non-savvy users do that? No, probably not. People give out a ton of personal information in real-life situations as well and how do we know how that information is used?

 

[Miravi]

By default, Firefox also sends everything typed in the address bar to Google for autocompletion. This needs tweaking for privacy.

Considering that the article in the OP suggested that Brave chose a path of higher revenue and could learn from Mozilla's selfless virtue, it's interesting to consider the differences between the business models of Brave and Mozilla.

In 2025, Brave finally passed $100 million in annual revenue while additionally operating a fully independent search engine index. They don't depend on Big Tech at all in this regard.

Meanwhile, Mozilla's revenue in 2024—the latest full-year audit—amounted to $680 million. $485 million came straight from Google's coffers. Mozilla's CFO stated in May 2025 that about 85% of Firefox's revenue comes from the Google deal.

Studies and testimony from the U.S. v. Google antitrust case (2023-2024) reveal that 80-95% of users keep browser defaults when it comes to search. It has a very high retention rate. Mozilla rakes in around 5x (probably more in 2026) the annualized revenue of Brave just by directing most of their users to the biggest data collector in the industry.

 

[Jonny Quest]

By default, Firefox also sends everything typed in the address bar to Google for autocompletion. This needs tweaking for privacy.

Considering that the article in the OP suggested that Brave chose a path of higher revenue and could learn from Mozilla's selfless virtue, it's interesting to consider the differences between the business models of Brave and Mozilla.

In 2025, Brave finally passed $100 million in annual revenue while additionally operating a fully independent search engine index. They don't depend on Big Tech at all in this regard.

Meanwhile, Mozilla's revenue in 2024—the latest full-year audit—amounted to $680 million. 86% of that, or $585 million, came straight from Google's coffers.

Studies and testimony from the U.S. v. Google antitrust case (2023-2024) reveal that 80-95% of users keep browser defaults when it comes to search. It has a very high retention rate. Mozilla rakes in around 6x the annualized revenue of Brave just by directing most of their users to the biggest data collector in the industry.

Could you post some of the links so I could browse through those during my lunch break, please? TIA

 

[Miravi]

Could you post some of the links so I could browse through those during my lunch break, please? TIA

Sure. There could still be articles that might cover the topics more to your liking.

Here's one article (non-paywalled) referencing Brave's recent attainment of $100M annualized revenue: Brave Reaches 100M Users and $100M Revenue in 2025

Link to Mozilla's 2024 audited financials (figures in thousands of dollars): https://stateof.mozilla.org/pdf/Mozilla Fdn 2024 - AuditedFinancials.pdf

Mozilla's CFO stating that about 85% of Firefox's revenue comes from the Google deal: Mozilla exec warns DOJ remedies in Google monopoly trial could crush Firefox

I initially overstated the royalties from the Google deal because the calculation came from Mozilla's total revenue instead of just Firefox's when I quickly synthesized information for the post. Sorry! It's corrected.

The NBER published the academic paper finding that only 1.1% of Google users voluntarily switch away when given an active choice. ~98.9% retention for Google: Sources of Market Power in Web Search: Evidence from a Field Experiment

A Columbia Law analysis estimated that defaults influence 70-80% of U.S. search queries overall, with "choice screens" (forcing users to pick) reducing Google's share by only 2-12%: https://law-economic-studies.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Search_defaults_Oct_26.pdf

"Competition and Defaults in Online Search" found that choice screens reduced Google's mobile share by <1% in the EEA: https://igier.unibocconi.eu/sites/default/files/media/attach/AEJMicro-2023-0193.R2.pdf

The Verge did some coverage on the Google antitrust case last year, referencing how "habit, inertia, and brand recognition" empower the search monopoly: US v. Google: all the news from the search antitrust showdown

Data and surveys have revealed numbers like 80%+ default search retention with variability, so I'll allow the wide range.

 

[Jonny Quest]

Sure. There could still be articles that might cover the topics more to your liking.

Here's one article (non-paywalled) referencing Brave's recent attainment of $100M annualized revenue: Brave Reaches 100M Users and $100M Revenue in 2025

Link to Mozilla's 2024 audited financials (figures in thousands of dollars): https://stateof.mozilla.org/pdf/Mozilla Fdn 2024 - AuditedFinancials.pdf

Mozilla's CFO stating that about 85% of Firefox's revenue comes from the Google deal: Mozilla exec warns DOJ remedies in Google monopoly trial could crush Firefox

I initially overstated the royalties from the Google deal because the calculation came from Mozilla's total revenue instead of just Firefox's when I quickly synthesized information for the post. Sorry! It's corrected.

The NBER published the academic paper "Sources of Market Power in Web Search: Evidence from a Field Experiment," finding that only 1.1% of Google users voluntarily switching away when given an active choice. ~98.9% retention for Google: Sources of Market Power in Web Search: Evidence from a Field Experiment

A Columbia Law analysis estimated that defaults influence 70-80% of U.S. search queries overall, with "choice screens" (forcing users to pick) reducing Google's share by only 2-12%: https://law-economic-studies.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Search_defaults_Oct_26.pdf

"Competition and Defaults in Online Search" found that choice screens reduced Google's mobile share by <1% in the EEA: https://igier.unibocconi.eu/sites/default/files/media/attach/AEJMicro-2023-0193.R2.pdf

The Verge did some coverage on the Google antitrust case last year, referencing how "habit, inertia, and brand recognition" empower the search monopoly: US v. Google: all the news from the search antitrust showdown

Data and surveys have revealed numbers like 80%+ default search retention with variability, so I'll allow the wide range.

Thank you, friend, that is more than enough That will cover both my lunch and dinner reading

 

[Miravi]

Thank you, friend, that is more than enough That will cover both my lunch and dinner reading

If you're not in the mood for academic papers and financial documents, sometimes it's worth just searching their titles (or similar) and seeing what lighter articles come up.