Since it is based on Chromium, but promises to keep the new Google tracking out in the future and maintain compatibility with extensions, I can see why it would be recommended. But only as a backup to access a site that won't load in Firefox.

we're back to the days when Firefox first came out, except instead of some websites only working with IE, they'll only work in Chrome/Edge.

Firefox still doesn't have vertical tabs which I've found really useful for my workflow right now, so I use a fork called Pulse. Don't want to use any extensions for it when Pulse and other forks do it natively.

It's faster on older devices

Brave has marketed itself more aggressively than Firefox did.

Additionally, Firefox' most devoted userbase can be quite bitter at times.

I thought there was something wrong with my screen!

What even is that font? I've seen it before but can't place it.

Poor font forces concentration and consideration from the reader.

Both (all) ads are bad though. I would rather have none of them while surfing the web. NextDNS and uBlock has been such a friend over the years for me regarding that 🥰

Brave actually doesn’t take all of Chromium’s new code. They write patches that modify what gets brought in or used, which allows them to avoid bringing in changes they don’t like.

More info here: https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/10742158329613-What-does-Brave-remove-from-the-Chromium-engine-

See also https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Patching-Chromium

I don’t know how extensive Brave’s changes are, but it would definitely be easy for them to add their own ad blocker. On the other hand, changes like re-enabling the entire APIs that were taken away from extensions would likely be out of scope.

It’s an interesting process but I’d personally rather just use Firefox