[Krasnol]

> -awesome ad block built in and by default, no need for extensions

You make it sound like the "need for extensions" is something bad while having the choice and control over what Ublock blocks is something far more superior than some build in ad-blocker provided by an ad-company.

> free of the political WTF-tier decisions of the organization backing Firefox.

I don't see how exchanging it to the shady business practices (yes...they fixed and excused for that...after it came out) of the Brave ad-company is better. But I guess this is actually some political statement you make here.

[zionic]

I don’t like giving questionable 3rd parties full access to my browsing data. I’d rather the browser get that right from the get go.

It’s just like AV, I want Microsoft/Apple to secure their shit and not “Norton”

[Krasnol]

> I don’t like giving questionable 3rd parties full access to my browsing data.

Oh I get it now. You don't understand how ad-block extensions work.

You don't give anything to anybody there.

PS. Brave is your Norton.

[waffle_maniac]

Ad block extensions require access to the DOM, right? How is that not access to browsing data?

[lotsofpulp]

Isn’t Brave the questionable 3rd party? And Safari/Edge the better option based on that reasoning.

[roenxi]

No, Brave is the first party. They are the ones in control of what the web browser does.

[lotsofpulp]

>It’s just like AV, I want Microsoft/Apple to secure their shit and not “Norton”

You can replace AV with browser and Norton with Brave in this statement.