Brave integrates privacy friendly translate option in its browser

Martin Brinkmann
Sep 22, 2022
Brave
|
35

Brave browser users may have noticed translate prompts in the browser when they visit foreign language sites for several weeks now. Brave, which relied on Google Translate up until now, has switched the translation feature to a privacy friendly alternative.

brave translate

When Brave users visited a foreign language site previously, an option to install a Google Translate plugin was presented to them. While that ensured that sites and content could be translated, it was not the most privacy friendly option.

Now, with the release of Brave 1.43.88 for desktop systems and Android in early September 2022, comes the switch to a new translation service. Like Vivaldi Technologies, Brave is using a self-hosted Lingvanex server to power translations.

ADVERTISEMENT

Whenever Brave users visit a website that is in a foreign language, meaning a language not installed on the user's device, Brave offers to translate it. The prompt is subtle, displaying only the source and target languages, and a menu icon. Compare to Vivaldi, it is lacking direct access to options, including the ability to pick a different target language and enabling the always translate option.

These are supported by Brave, but only displayed when the menu is selected. All it takes to translate a webpage is to select the default target language. Translations happen quickly, just like in Vivaldi.

The menu displays options to change the target language, preferences to always or never translate the language, or to never display the translate prompt for the active site. The last option gives users an option to switch the source language, if Brave's detection of the language failed.

Closing Words

Brave's new translate feature is a self-hosted privacy friendly service that does not require connections to Google to translate webpages. Brave's translation feature, and Vivaldi's as well, still requires Internet connectivity. Mozilla's Firefox Translate feature for Firefox integrates locally into the Firefox browser, which means that users may translate content without making any connections to servers on the Internet.

The one downside to using Firefox Translate is that language support is limited currently.

Still, for Brave users who rely on translate functionality, it is an important feature.

Now You: do you use translate functionality in your browsers of choice?

Summary
Brave integrates privacy friendly translate option in its browser
Article Name
Brave integrates privacy friendly translate option in its browser
Description
A recent Brave browser update enabled a new privacy friendly translation service in the web browser using a self-hosted server.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «

Comments

  1. Sebas said on September 22, 2022 at 8:11 am
    Reply

    @Martin: “Sie sind herzlich willkommen Sebas”. My pleasure you can buy me some Albert Hein cereals?:

    https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/20/google-continues-extensions-manifest-v3-push-even-though-some-apis-are-not-ready-yet/#comments

    First!

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on September 22, 2022 at 8:34 am
      Reply

      Thank you for the tip :)

  2. Metalocalypse said on September 22, 2022 at 8:32 am
    Reply

    @anonymouse
    Brave is better than Firefox.

    1. Iron Heart said on September 22, 2022 at 9:00 am
      Reply

      @Metalocalypse

      I know of someone who would disagree with you:

      https://www.weforum.org/organizations/mozilla-corporation

      1. akg said on September 22, 2022 at 9:35 am
        Reply

        Brave will also get support for vertical tab implementation.current nightly build supports this feature already.

      2. Anonymous said on September 22, 2022 at 3:54 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart

        >I know of someone who would disagree with you:

        What does this mean?

      3. Iron Heart said on September 22, 2022 at 6:30 pm
        Reply

        @Anonymous

        That Mozilla is a member of an organization where corporate interests are paramount.

        It’s just somewhat funny considering the “browser of the people” narrative.

    2. Andy Prough said on September 22, 2022 at 11:16 am
      Reply

      @Metalocalypse –
      Brave is, however, missing a lot of extensions.

      And to be fair to all the great work that Martin, Pants, earthling, Tom Hawack and others have done over the years in creating and cultivating the Firefox privacy and security list which eventually became the Ghacks user.js project (and is now the Arkenfox user.js) — Firefox with Arkenfox user.js is able to go toe-to-toe with Brave on most privacy and security issues while using less memory.

      Due to the fact that the chrome web store is about to lose even more key extensions once Manifest V3 is implemented in a few months, it’s probably time for a lot of Brave users to return to using Firefox+Arkenfox.

      1. Iron Heart said on September 22, 2022 at 11:43 am
        Reply

        @Andy Prough

        Fingerprinting is being defeated by all browsers looking the same, at least behaviorally. You either try to make all instances look the same with the same settings and output (Firefox) or you let all instances randomize (Brave). There’s also overlap between the two, e.g. Firefox randomizes Canvas while Brave statically disables WebGL, it really depends on the output you mean to protect.

        Now, Firefox is unique by default, there is zero fingerprinting protection in a fresh install of Firefox… Not even fingerprinting scripts are being blocked, this is opt-in for its tracking protection by default. Firefox being unique by default and not defending you against fingerprinting at all is bad, right? It’s bad for sure, but the solution offered is not very sound either. Hardly anyone applies user.js scripts (below 1% of all Firefox users according to the below source), and these user.js scripts create a very different output from what could normally expected from default Firefox. Scripts would notice this suspect output and record it in their database just like any other, and chances are that you have not fixed anytjing because your setup still sticks out like a sore thumb.
        I mean, you probably fool simpleton approaches like only looking for Canvas or WebGL output, but any more comprehensive scan of the browser’s features would reveal you as unique and there is not enough of a crowd to hide in since so few people do that.

        Furthermore, to make matters worse, Firefox suffers from major version fragmentation every four weeks, when new major version alter its rendering procedure and / or web standard support. Tis will mean that differing major versions of Firefox + user.js can be told apart, not to mention if you alter some setting of the user.js, then you are totally screwed.

        I don’t understand why this is touted as a good fingerprinting defense, I’ve said it many times and security experts like Daniel Micay from the GrapheneOS project agree with me here:

        “If you want to see truly meaningful privacy features, look at some of the stuff Apple is shipping in Safari. Firefox is shipping theatre and Apple is shipping privacy. Of course, people duped by marketing / branding is a regular topic on this subreddit.

        In general, I don’t do privacy / security theatre in GrapheneOS, so I won’t do something like censoring WebGL debug information to pretend that the GPU type can be hidden, etc. because it doesn’t work and is just meant to make users feel that the browser is doing something.”

        “Providing the offer to disable features to reduce attack surface can be useful. Doing it to prevent fingerprinting is utter nonsense since by changing any settings that sites can detect you have made yourself far more easily fingerprinted. Disabling WebRTC and WebGL would make you far easier to fingerprint, not harder. These sites encouraging things like that is a problem.”

        source: https://old.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/ciizae/vanadium_and_bromium_privacy/ev6m2ot/

        Couldn’t say it any better myself, you think disabling stuff like WebGL and IPv6 and applying Canvas randomization fixes things for you when nobody else does it? Nope, it makes you stick out.

        And Manifest V3? This will affect extensions for sure, but Brave’s adblocker is not an extension and thus not affected. And I don’t know what other “key” extensions you talk of because the rest that I could possibly need (Cookie AutoDelete and LocalCDN) will be unaffected by Manifest V3 as well.

        > (…) it’s probably time for a lot of Brave users to return to using Firefox+Arkenfox.

        The Firefox ship is sinking, and so is the deeply misguided approach towards privacy protection of their wider community.

        Here is a good source for you which discusses this topic unbiased for both Brave and Firefox: https://fingerprint.com/blog/browser-anti-fingerprinting-techniques/

      2. Andy Prough said on September 22, 2022 at 7:24 pm
        Reply

        @Iron
        Here’s my browsers, since it is such a popular subject. I’m ranking them in order of the order in which I use them:
        1) newsboat CLI RSS reader – I can read about 50% of my regular websites from the terminal this way. It has no javascript engine and no images or media – just text in a terminal emulator. I can off-load images and streaming media to other programs from here if I like.
        2) links2 CLI browser – also runs in a terminal, also has no javascript engine and can’t run media, but it can display images. I can off-load streaming audio and video to other programs like MPV if I like.
        3) Pale Moon – I run it with javascript, css, media, images, cookies, etc blocked by default. I use the eMatrix extension to allow elements that are needed to render a website. Similar to the old uMatrix extension from the creator of uBlock Origin.
        4) Brave – I use it with noscript, and with anti-ad, anti-tracking, anti-fingerprinting all set on max level. I only use Brave if none of the previous browsing methods are able to render a page.

        However, since chromium’s security has turned to garbage and since the extension universe for chromium-based browsers is about to crater due to Manifest V3 destroying the ability of extension authors to update their extensions, I’m probably going to switch my #4 browser to Firefox-Arkenfox, or to Librewolf. Or to “Abrowser” from the Trisquel project, which is a fork of Icecat. Arkenfox, Librewolf and Abrowser all use similar privacy and security configs based on those recommended by Ghacks.

      3. Yash said on September 22, 2022 at 12:10 pm
        Reply

        Firefox with Arkenfox smokes the competition, Brave included.

      4. Iron Heart said on September 22, 2022 at 6:34 pm
        Reply

        @Yash

        You mean the Firefox ship is on fire by now, hence the smoke. As is the approach to privacy protection of its community, which doesn’t work even according to projects based on Firefox (Tor).

        You can’t substantially improve your privacy by creating a highly unique setup, you only do this so that you get the feeling that you’ve “done something”, Micay is right on the money as always and it’s pretty hilarious.

      5. Yash said on September 22, 2022 at 7:26 pm
        Reply

        ‘You mean the Firefox ship is on fire by now, hence the smoke.’
        C’mon man.

        Micay’s behaviour is clown-like. Only sound reason he has provided to not use Firefox is – Using Firefox will create two attack surfaces, i.e. Firefox and Chromium. So use Chromium and be affected by only one attack surface. Pathetic logic. That’s Micay’s reasoning.
        Pretty hilarious.

      6. Iron Heart said on September 22, 2022 at 1:58 pm
        Reply

        @Andy Prough

        > Brave is, however, missing a lot of extensions.

        Which ones exactly?

        > And to be fair to all the great work that Martin, Pants, earthling, Tom Hawack and others have done over the years

        No comment, because what I would like to say would likely not go through the “mod’s best friend” filter here. Just one thing of note: None of these people can code and know how the browser internals actually work. If they did, they would understand that you can’t fight fingerprinting by creating a highly unique setup that below 1% of Firefox users actually use (most of them with further personal changes and alterations that affect the fingerprint).

        Fighting fingerprinting by creating your own setup is precisely what the Tor Browser (based on Firefox btw.) says doesn’t work, hence their default configuration.

        > it’s probably time for a lot of Brave users to return to using Firefox+Arkenfox.

        That’s advertising and no, this would be a downgrade in terms of web compatibility, security, privacy, and performance.

        I thought you were a Pale Moon user, why are you playing the salesman for Firefox here once again? I am confused about you hopping between narratives, that much I can tell you.

        Anyway, these sources discusses things fairly and IMHO unbiased, especially re. extensions:

        _https://palant.info/2020/12/10/how-anti-fingerprinting-extensions-tend-to-make-fingerprinting-easier/_

        _https://fingerprint.com/blog/browser-anti-fingerprinting-techniques/_

        > key extensions once Manifest V3

        Key extension is the content blocker which is not affected by Manifest V3 in Brave, as it is built-in and is not using extension APIs.

        This comment replaces a prior comment of mine that the moderators didn’t like and which did thus not appear.

      7. Yash said on September 22, 2022 at 7:28 pm
        Reply

        ‘None of these people can code.’

        Can you @Iron Heart?

    3. Anonymous said on September 22, 2022 at 12:52 pm
      Reply

      @Metalocalypse
      Firefox is better than Brave.

  3. GNU Linux Sophistication said on September 22, 2022 at 12:48 pm
    Reply

    @Iron Heart

    Iron Heart commented >> I know of someone who would disagree with you: https://www.weforum.org/organizations/mozilla-corporation

    Google is liked by them also. https://www.weforum.org/organizations/google

    What are you trying to say here? What narrative are you attempting to create?

    Who makes the chromium-engine code with the most commits? Google and Microsoft. Funny how you mention Mozilla but say nothing about Google. You should never forget that without Google making the chromium-engine, what engine would Brave use? Be thankful to Google. Lol.

    And, since you were implying that “Mozilla and wef” is a negative thing, then why not apply your same reasoning to “google and wef” ???

    You hypocrite lol.

    If you were to speak about censorship again? Deplatformfox? Google is the one that censors social media sites like youtube, Tell us who has Mozilla censored exactly? Can you a provide a source on all these people you seem to think they censor?

    Why do you comment back to people that say “Firefox is better”… if you are so sure that Brave is better? Why do you spend so much time on Ghacks trying to convince an audience that Brave is better?

    Firefox has a much larger market share than Brave according to this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_usage_share

    So if you think commenting excessively on Ghacks to sing the praise of Brave will change those statistics anytime soon, i think that you are just wasting your time.

    You often say that when a browser like Firefox has less of a market share, then it is irrelevant? But, according to your own logic/reasoning? Brave is irrelevant when compared to Firefox, since Firefox has a larger market share than Brave. Lol.

    I do not agree with your reasoning, i believe a browser does not have to have a large market share to be good, neither do i believe an OS has to have a large market share to be good. Both Firefox and Brave are much better than more popular browsers in my opinion.

    You are very dismissive towards anyone who compares the Brave browser to Firefox and says Firefox is better. People understand why you think it is better, better privacy defaults and so on, but to be so disdainful towards people that say they use Firefox or people who say that hardened Firefox or Librewolf are more private browsers, you are only creating a lot of negativity in the comments sections.

    Google are the ultimate gatekeepers of what a “Chromium-based browser” can do. You should realise that.

    Brave is still not as private as Librewolf or hardened Firefox on desktop, Brave has no feature like this “Privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterbox”

    You should realise that some people choose to use Firefox because of its customizability and non-chromium engine.

    Google uses chromium-engine to enforce its dominance on browser markets, Microsoft with EDGE uses chromium-engine too. When those two are involved with making the chromium-engine for their proprietary browsers, that makes me never want to use browsers based on chromium-engine.

    A hardened Firefox configuration or a fork like Librewolf will be the real browser of choice for those looking for superior privacy/security/customizability, that is not to say that Brave is not a good privacy focused browser alternative, it is a good browser and Brave search is a good search engine.

    However, chromium-based engines lack certain things.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/x799wz/anecdotally_firefox_has_the_fewest_bugs_of_any/

    The React Spectrum team tracks browser bugs.

    60% are WebKit. ~25% Chrome, ~16% Firefox.

    Firefox has less bugs than chromium based ones.

    Not only is Firefox statistically the most secure, it statistically gets the least bugs also.

    UBO works best on Firefox, UBO minus for chrome lol.

    Brave is still better than Chrome, Edge, Vivaldi, Opera, but as for hardened Firefox or Librewolf? Brave is not as private.

    1. Iron Heart said on September 22, 2022 at 5:58 pm
      Reply

      @GNU Linux Sophistication

      > What are you trying to say here? What narrative are you attempting to create?

      What narrative? That Firefox is the browser of the people of course, hence the membership!

      > You should never forget that without Google making the chromium-engine, what engine would Brave use?

      WebKit? The next biggest engine? You know, Blink was forked from WebKit when its dominance was already rising, so if the fork never happened we would likely be using WebKit.

      > Be thankful to Google. Lol.

      They get free commits in return, from other companies who use the Chromium engine. It’s not a one way street.

      > And, since you were implying that “Mozilla and wef” is a negative thing, then why not apply your same reasoning to “google and wef” ???

      Uhm, but I do that? Read my other comments on the subject? Are you new?

      > Deplatformfox?

      *Deplatformingfox

      No idea why this bothers you, I am not the one saying that we need more than deplatforming, Mozilla is. Perhaps you should talk to them if you don’t like it. You are barking at the wrong tree here.

      > Tell us who has Mozilla censored exactly?

      I am only talking about their attitude / publications on the matter and the possibility of browser level censorship. If you think browser level censorship is impossible, think again.

      > Why do you comment back to people that say “Firefox is better”… if you are so sure that Brave is better?

      That’s an easy one: Because they also reply (spam) under my comments? Why is there one rule for them and one for me, according to you? At least I am saying more than a silly remark like “X is better than Y” which means absolutely nothing.

      > Why do you spend so much time on Ghacks trying to convince an audience that Brave is better?

      Why do you spend so much time writing bullshit about me?

      > Firefox has a much larger market share than Brave according to this

      According to Mozilla, Firefox has 200 million monthly active users. According to Brave Software, Brave has 60 million monthly active users. Brave is growing while Firefox is shrinking though. You act like Firefox is a giant compared to Brave when it actually isn’t according to Mozilla themselves. :D

      Also, any kind of measurement based on user agent alone is inaccurate for Brave, because Brave uses Chrome’s user agent for compatibility reasons (user agent sniffing), so would be counted as Google Chrome.

      > You often say that when a browser like Firefox has less of a market share, then it is irrelevant? But, according to your own logic/reasoning? Brave is irrelevant when compared to Firefox, since Firefox has a larger market share than Brave. Lol.

      My reasoning is sound, yours is definitely not. Blink has 80% market share and that’s the technology Brave is based on. Firefox has 3% market share and so does their base technology, Gecko.

      > You are very dismissive towards anyone who compares the Brave browser to Firefox and says Firefox is better. People understand why you think it is better, better privacy defaults and so on, but to be so disdainful towards people that say they use Firefox or people who say that hardened Firefox or Librewolf are more private browsers, you are only creating a lot of negativity in the comments sections.

      As far as I’m concerned, anyone may use what works best for him or her. This is logical and has always been my stance. What you are overlooking though, is the aggressive Firefox advertising that happens especially under my comments. Why should I not address this? When these people presume they can spam my comments, then me telling them they are wrong based on YXZ reason, is only fair. I also don’t believe that Firefox users have an exclusive right to be right(TM).

      When I see approaches to privacy protection that I strongly believe don’t work, not only according to me btw, but rather according to several experts in the field, I can and should point this out as well, I think.

      If that creates negativity for you perhaps you should learn to cope with the reality that people can have different opinions on things. It’s called tolerance, and no, tolerance does not preclude disagreement. It’s the peaceful acceptance of disagreement.

      > Google are the ultimate gatekeepers of what a “Chromium-based browser” can do. You should realise that.

      You are always talking about real world vs. theoretical blah blah. You know, in the real world, you can create very privacy-respecting versions of both Chromium and Android, Brave, Bromite and GrapheneOS, LineageOS are prime examples. So until you show me that these developers can’t cope with open source code (Google is the author, but it’s still just code you see), your argument remains a scarecrow to me.

      I also have no more reason to trust Mozilla’s code than to trust Google’s code, to be honest.

      > Brave is still not as private as Librewolf or hardened Firefox on desktop, Brave has no feature like this “Privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterbox”

      Just because you change some settings does not mean you are private. A good fingerprinting script will check for more than just WebGL and Canvas, and then your setup is revealed to be a very unique combination of settings indeed.

      Brave’s FP protections cover the most checked values and they are still much newer than those of Firefox, no idea what you expect at this point.

      > You should realise that some people choose to use Firefox because of its customizability and non-chromium engine.

      OK? Don’t care? How about you respect my choices as well?

      > Google uses chromium-engine to enforce its dominance on browser markets, Microsoft with EDGE uses chromium-engine too.

      Firefox has never taken the high road on any issue and likely never will.

      > When those two are involved with making the chromium-engine for their proprietary browsers, that makes me never want to use browsers based on chromium-engine.

      You can audit the Chromium open source code, otherwise browsers like Brave could not and would not use it. Who wrote the code is inconsequential if you can’t demonstrate an unfixable privacy issue.

      > privacy/security/customizability

      Doubtful / No / Yes (don’t care though)

      > The React Spectrum team tracks browser bugs.

      Bug reports can be anything between severe security issue, simple user question, and discussion of new features. Says absolutely nothing, sorry. You can open a bug report for literally any reason.

      > Not only is Firefox statistically the most secure

      I am tired of telling you this: The most used browser will always nominally(!!!!) have more security issues, just because it is logically the prime target of hackers. Firefox nominally has fewer issues because the code is less audited and less used, and less attractive to attack as a result. From independent code analysis we do know that Firefox’s security practices are lackluster though, you also can’t base your security practices and precautions solely on being irrelevant, that’s a folly.

      > UBO works best on Firefox, UBO minus for chrome lol.

      Brave’s adblocker is comparable to what uBO in Firefox does for you. Don’t care about uBO Minus (now uBO Lite) because a native adblocker is already present in Brave.

      > Brave is still better than Chrome, Edge, Vivaldi, Opera, but as for hardened Firefox or Librewolf? Brave is not as private.

      Quick reality check: Most people are using the browser as is, with the defaults, and there Brave beats Firefox by a long shot. If you use a user.js file, you are not fixing the fingerprinting threat and you are heavily reducing the usability of the browser.

      Also, stop annoying me with always the same comment please.

  4. Anonymous said on September 22, 2022 at 2:54 pm
    Reply

    So the content to translate is sent to the Brave Inc’s servers instead of Google’s. While typical of Brave Inc pseudo-privacy discourse (*), this is not a significant increase in privacy, especially when considering that a local solution is being tested in Firefox currently, which would have been the obvious private choice to do.

    The argument that at least it works fully and for all languages is not sufficient because the recent change and how it was marketed seems to suggest that this choice is here is to last, not as a temporary replacement for Google Translate until a local solution is finally adopted.

    But given that Brave is adware disguised as a browser, nothing surprising.

    (*) “don’t worry we still excessively send your data away to Google but we proxy it through our servers” being another example, or “don’t worry you will no longer be spied on as much by Google for advertisers, Brave Inc will do it instead, and this time the browser will additionally include an extra dedicated spyware for that purpose”

    1. Iron Heart said on September 22, 2022 at 5:22 pm
      Reply

      @Anonymous

      We don’t know yet whether a local solution is in the works or not, which I agree, would be better.

      > “don’t worry we still excessively send your data away to Google but we proxy it through our servers”

      You need some connections like e.g. extension updates or certificate updates, that’s just the reality of things. Even if Brave had their own extension store and was a certificate authority, you would still have to connect to them instead to them proxying Google – Firefox establishes these connections as well. I don’t see much difference there, connecting to Brave vs. connecting to Google via Brave proxy. And yes, the proxy is still an advantage vs. connecting to Google directly, because even if Brave theoretically misused the data, they have a far smaller reach than Google who track you on almost all websites and potentially search if you use it, and they can merge these datasets with whatever you give them via the browser directly. This is why the proxy is in place, further all unnecessary connections to Google were stripped by Brave.

      > don’t worry you will no longer be spied on as much by Google for advertisers, Brave Inc will do it instead

      There is no evidence that Brave collects PII, sorry. If you have any credible evidence, please show it to me.

      Your comment is much whining about an entirely optional translation feature and then some. The only thing I agree with is that local solutions are better, the rest of your comment is complete BS. Not that it matters to me anyway, I am not even using the translation feature.

      PS: Let me guess what browser you use… Firefox? No wonder nobody likes their intolerant little community. Enjoy the Google and Cloudflare non-proxied connections Firefox establishes by default btw.

  5. Anonymous said on September 22, 2022 at 4:22 pm
    Reply

    How can this be “privacy friendly” if it requires an internet connection and he translation is likely to happen in a server?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on September 22, 2022 at 4:59 pm
      Reply

      Well, it does require a connection, but it is a first-party connection. If you don’t trust Brave, you would probably not run the browser in the first place. Obviously, Firefox’s solution is superior.

    2. Rei said on September 22, 2022 at 5:34 pm
      Reply

      @Anonymous
      dude you are on the internet… what do you expect? lol you are those that want to be on the internet but complain about servers and everyone having to get your information for you to actually use a website??

      This is a service that Brave and Vivaldi are using, they host it in their server, and unless you have proof they are doing something fishy with the data they can gather through their server or the service itself then you are just being some lame paranoid person who complains about Translator service but you are on the internet probably using Youtube right now.

      Privacy is not the same as “anonymity” anyway, and I am sure you can’t prove this service which is also used by Vivaldi is not respecting your privacy.

      @Martin Brinkmann
      Why is “Firefox solution superior”? lol only because it doesn’t require connection? that sounds weird since obviously a service that is online can fix issues easier and faster, especially when it comes to translation, do you really think Firefox is better translating or not, give some examples of real sentences and stop saying something is “superior” when you don’t know about it.

  6. Somber said on September 22, 2022 at 5:49 pm
    Reply

    What a lame comment section, full of irrational fanboys.

    The best part is people assuming Firefox offline alternative is better without doing any real test to see how they stack against each other Google and Bing translate included.

    If a translation service is bad, then it doesn’t matter if it is privacy whatever or not, it sucks and it shouldn’t be used or trusted, if Lingvanex is good, and works better than others, then so be it.

    This is not even a matter of opinion, translation should be good and that’s it.

    I mean, there are so many ignorant people that don’t even understand that the real advantage of Brave to release this feature is that it is NATIVE, do you know what that means? well it will work in desktop and mobile, so Google was okay, but it was still Extension API which wouldn’t be compatible with mobile.

    But again, next time people say “oh BeTTeR beCuAsE It dOEsnt ReQUIre InTErneT conneCTtion” then get some braincells and actually bring the real tests to see how well it can translate to at least ONE language, your native language, any language from whatever to English and English to whatever.

    Until then, please fanboys just keep the words to yourself.
    Firefox, the dying browser is not better because “offline”, until the translation is not proven to be good.

    I find it funny how people complain about “My translation is being done in Brave servers” yet they are using Twitter, Reddit, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and whatever services online right now. It is just ridiculous attitude by some people who has some false sense of reality and live in a fantasy land pretending they are going to have some “privacy” (marketing scheme) on the internet.

    You go out in the real world and you don’t get any privacy, why would online give you any? lol you can reduce it, obviously but stop living in your fantasy land of being a bunch of paranoid weirdos, if not unplug and go and live in a forest in the middle of nowhere, because maybe then, your attitude “oh it is still connecting to internet” it is just stupid.

    Most services need internet connection to be improved anyway, I mean, you use an adblocker that connects to the most likely GitHub to get some lists updates and whatever server, do you complain about that? or would you rather download a WHOLE update of a browser manually just to update the lists? that’s exactly what google is kind of doing with manifest v3 that lists can’t be updated easily anymore.

    And then you are still downloading something somehow, do you really think translation can improve offline? how? you need to download a Firefox update, and then you aren’t complaining about that?

    Ridiculous, but what do I expect from people talking about privacy when it is mostly a fairy tale by the people who are in a computer 24/7 and somehow pretend they are hidden from the governments and agencies, ISP and every server in the world spying on you.

    1. Klaas Vaak said on September 22, 2022 at 6:20 pm
      Reply

      @Somber: you raise a good point. FWIW, my view is that total privacy or anonymity is impossible. Google already knows a lot about me, and continues building that picture despite me having ditched Gmail and associated services.

      What I try to do with the browser and various extensions is t make it as difficult as possible to collect data on me, and hopefully some data will remain unseen. I am realistic enough to know that I am not smart enough to outsmart the like of Google.

    2. Well said said on September 24, 2022 at 12:55 pm
      Reply

      Well said Somber, this is the truest thing I’ve read on this subject here

  7. Gnu Linux Sophistication said on September 22, 2022 at 8:55 pm
    Reply

    @Iron Heart

    Iron Heart commented >> Fingerprinting is being defeated by all browsers looking the same, at least behaviorally. You either try to make all instances look the same with the same settings and output (Firefox) or you let all instances randomize (Brave).

    Brave is arguably not as good as Hardened Firefox or Librewolf at anti-Fingerprinting on desktop. You are very naive if you think it is.

    No such feature like this on Brave “privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing” Which means Librewolf or hardened firefox users have more “anti-fingerprinting resistent screen resolutions” than something like Brave which lacks such features.

    Look at the link below, where Brave fails and gets an “x” and where Librewolf passed more important anti-fingerprinting tests on desktop version. Firefox can easily be hardened like Librewolf or even Tor browser, minus the onion.

    https://privacytests.org/

    And anyway, Brave or Firefox anti-fingerprinting features are not the magical solution some people think they are. The IP address is the most identifiable fingerprint in browsers and if Brave users were using an IP address that never or rarely changes from their ISP providers, they could still be theoretically identified by big-tech companies, for example if they logged into Gmail with a real name and used Google websites a lot with the exact same IP that never or rarely changes.

    Also, some ISP have been known to track

    Vodafone is piloting a new advertising ID system called TrustPid, which will work as a persistent user tracker at the mobile Internet Service Provider (ISP) level.
    https://www.techzine.eu/news/infrastructure/80038/vodafone-plans-a-super-cookie-to-target-ads-at-the-isp-level/

    Iron Heart commented >> GrapheneOS

    Irrelevant garbage OS (Just my opinion) that only works on Google pixel phones. Smartphones are not and never will be as private as desktop.

    Also it must be mentioned that smartphones theoretically could be harmful to health and theoretically may cause cancer. I do not believe that such devices are healthy to be using 24/7.

    Bad for the eyes and probably bad for the brain too.

    If people need to take the internet with them (by using smartphones) away from home, then i guess they do not really care about privacy, especially with all the privacy invasive features in smartphones like IMEI, Wifi, bluetooth, mic, camera. Some people are totally addicted to them and even sleep with smartphones next to them, never out of their sight 24/7.

    Imagine being so addicted to a device, you put it on your pillow? LOL.

    https://www.slashgear.com/can-charging-my-phone-under-my-pillow-cause-a-fire-10557509/

    Smartphones are not privacy devices, they are a form of transhumanism lol. Look at Tik Tok. Social media addicted people constantly looking for attention and likes, dancing like robots. Lol.

    Yash commented >> Firefox with Arkenfox smokes the competition, Brave included.

    Hardened Firefox and Librewolf = Better for security and Privacy. Less buggy also, see the link i posted.

    Iron Heart commented >> PS: Let me guess what browser you use… Firefox? No wonder nobody likes their intolerant little community.

    Firefox has far more users than Brave according to these statistics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_usage_share

    That 1% that you say use hardened Firefox is still probably bigger than the amount of users Brave has.

    And like i said previously, the Brave browser does not seem to even have a “privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing” feature like hardened Firefox or Librewolf has.

    @Anonymous

    >> How can this be “privacy friendly” if it requires an internet connection and he translation is likely to happen in a server?

    At least it is not Google translate, however, the Firefox version is superior and more private.

    People underestimate Mozilla a lot, if it was not for them there would not be such great technical achievements like the safe programming language “Rust”

    Anyone that takes joy in wanting to see a declining user base for a FOSS browser like Firefox just really does not appreciate “Free Open Source Software”

    Iron Heart commented >> They get free commits in return, from other companies who use the Chromium engine. It’s not a one way street.

    Google and Microsoft have the most commits to chromium BY FAR according to statistics.

    Iron Heart commented >> No idea why this bothers you, I am not the one saying that we need more than deplatforming,

    You still have not provided a source that backs up your idea that Mozilla are actually deplatforming people?

    Iron Heart commented >> I am only talking about their attitude / publications on the matter and the possibility of browser level censorship. If you think browser level censorship is impossible, think again.

    Where have they mentioned browser level censorship and designed features to enforce it on Firefox? Lol.

    Iron Heart comment >> Why is there one rule for them and one for me, according to you? At least I am saying more than a silly remark like “X is better than Y” which means absolutely nothing.

    I guess some people say “Firefox is better” on this Brave article, because they know you spend a lot of time talking about Firefox in a negative way on Firefox articles. It is just an endless song and dance that goes around in circles here, Firefox vs Brave lol.

    Iron Heart commented >> According to Mozilla, Firefox has 200 million monthly active users. According to Brave Software, Brave has 60 million monthly active users.

    If those statistics are correct, that means Firefox has 140 million more users, not exactly an insigificant number.

    Iron Heart commented >> A good fingerprinting script will check for more than just WebGL and Canvas, and then your setup is revealed to be a very unique combination of settings indeed.

    Javascript.enabled FALSE. A simple firefox settings if one wants more privacy and security.

    Iron Heart commented >> Brave’s FP protections

    Still no privacy resist fingerprinting letterboxing feature like Firefox.

    Iron Heart commented >> Firefox has never taken the high road on any issue and likely never will.

    They are still allowing extensions like UBO to work long after Google chrome does.

    Iron Heart commented >> Who wrote the code is inconsequential if you can’t demonstrate an unfixable privacy issue.

    Brave might say that maintaining MV2 will not be very feasible. Noscript and UBO on Firefox are more powerful than Braves native ad blocker.

    When ad-tech company Google make the chromium-engine code, it is not much of a surprise when ad-blockers like UBO gets basically neutered like a dog on chrome and becomes UBO-MINUS. Lol.

    Iron Heart commented >> Bug reports

    That statistical analysis says Firefox gets less bugs.

    You say it means nothing lol. That is being ignorant. I would gladly change my opinion if you provided legitimate statistics saying that chromium-based browsers get less bugs and less security issues.

    Iron Heart commented >> Firefox nominally has fewer issues because the code is less audited

    Firefox is a popular FOSS browser with many eyes on the code because it has a large FOSS community following that like it.

    Iron Heart commented >> Brave’s adblocker is comparable to what uBO in Firefox does for you.

    Not as powerful and can do nowhere near the things Noscript or UBO can do.

    Iron Heart commented >> Brave beats Firefox by a long shot. If you use a user.js file, you are not fixing the fingerprinting threat and you are heavily reducing the usability of the browser.

    No.

    Hardened Firefox and Librewolf beats Brave in privacy tests. I don’t care about defaults. If i had to use Brave browser, i would not trust their defaults either, no Javacript would be the first thing i change in the settings.

    @Rei

    Rei commented >> Why is “Firefox solution superior”? lol only because it doesn’t require connection?

    Yes.

    Rei commented >> do you really think Firefox is better translating or not, give some examples of real sentences and stop saying something is “superior” when you don’t know about it.

    I would agree that an offline translator is superior.

    @Somber

    Somber commented >> The best part is people assuming Firefox offline alternative is better without doing any real test to see how they stack against each other Google and Bing translate included.
    Somber commented >> This is not even a matter of opinion, translation should be good and that’s it.

    I would prefer the Firefox offline alternative.

    Somber commented >> But again, next time people say “oh BeTTeR beCuAsE It dOEsnt ReQUIre InTErneT conneCTtion”

    Quit the bitching.

    I think Firefox offline translation is better than one that requires an online connection. You must be one of those guys that supports an “An always online connection” to play video games.

    What about some poor unfortunate people who have no internet or limited internet?

    Somber commented >> Ridiculous, but what do I expect from people talking about privacy when it is mostly a fairy tale

    So you believe that people can not possibly have privacy in their lives and it is just a fairy tale? What kind of mindless ideological crap made you think that way?

    Klaus Schwab would really enjoy your thoughts and perspective on privacy related topics. Complete submission to the idea that there can never be privacy anymore. Your sort of reasoning of logic would be a dream come true for people like Schwab. Have you been listening to Gates and Schwab lectures? Lol.

  8. Peterc said on September 23, 2022 at 2:43 am
    Reply

    I don’t want to pour oil on the “browser-war” flames here, but the Brave-versus-Firefox debate *may* become moot in the not-too-distant future. Yesterday I heard on NPR [National Public Radio, in the US] that the US Department of Justice is preparing a major antitrust suit against Alphabet/Google, and that one of the remedies sought is a ban on Alphabet’s paying browsers and sites to use Google as their default search engine. Wouldn’t that eliminate the bulk of Mozilla’s revenue? To what extent would they be able to make up for the loss by partnering with different search engines that *don’t* have a quasi-monopoly on search? My guess is that, at a minimum, they would have to let some workers go and become a smaller operation, which could in turn limit their ability to keep up with Chrome (meaning all of the new standards and protocols Alphabet/Google is “persuading” websites to code for).

    CAVEAT: Ever since US v. Microsoft was hijacked by a hostile court of appeals, a new, compliant trial judge, and a new prosecution team from the Dubya administration, odds have been pretty good that threats of public anti-trust action are just shakedowns for bigger campaign contributions and better revolving-door payoffs. I won’t be remotely surprised if US v. Alphabet turns out to be a damp squid as well.

    1. Iron Heart said on September 23, 2022 at 7:17 am
      Reply

      @Peterc

      Yep, that would nuke Mozilla very quickly. Their other income streams are minimal (VPN, Pocket etc.). Further, that would also nuke adjacent projects like the Tor Browser (they rely on Mozilla’s code) and Thunderbird (owned by Mozilla and relies on its code, does not generate income either). This would also erase Vivaldi, their main income stream is a search deal as well.

      And yes, there is no other search engine who could pay them this kind of money except maybe MS with Bing, however Microsoft would have to ask itself how much such a deal is worth to them, if most people switch the search engine back to Google anyway (we all know that people will do that). I have the suspicion that their offer would be significantly lower taking this into account, and they also would have leverage if Google is not a possible partner anymore.

      The browsers left standing would be Chrome itself, Edge (promotes Bing for MS, developed as part of the OS), Safari (developed as part of the OS), Brave (has a business model other than relying on search deals), and smaller hobby projects like Ungoogled Chromium or Bromite that never relied on outside inflow of cash anyway.

      This antitrust suit was started by Trump’s department of justice back then, I am fairly surprised that Biden kept it up and didn’t use his influence to cancel it, no offense but he always seemed like the favored candidate of big tech to me. Google’s search results and promoted news stories certainly were very favorable to Biden. Color me surprised.

    2. Yash said on September 23, 2022 at 10:11 am
      Reply

      @Peterc

      If that’s what you think it is and will happen when antitrust bill comes to fruitition – Mozilla getting cash strapped, then close your eyes and take a *deep* breath or two.

      Antitrust bills don’t work that way. Surely whenever it gets passed there *would* be allocated funds to diversify browser options as well. That means funding for new projects as well as helping other browsers to minimise majority browser’s control. If that sounds like a pipe dream, well it isn’t. Where do you think Tor browser gets the money from? Whether it is a good tool or not, it doesn’t matter. Chromium security issues are becoming more common as each week passes. With antitrust that won’t fly which would mean more browser engine options. This antitrust news is classic example of users applying their own filter – news may be biased or unbiased, but ultimately users can draw different conclusions, most of the time based on what they already had in mind.

      @Iron Heart
      Trump didn’t nothing and was a posterboy for all tech companies. They never faced any major effects under his dog regime. Tech space went towards monopoly and he didn’t changed a thing coz he is a jerk and knows nothing.

      Rest assured Mozilla and Firefox ain’t going anywhere.

      1. Iron Heart said on September 23, 2022 at 11:30 am
        Reply

        @Yash

        > Antitrust bills don’t work that way.

        Are you sure about that? Because Mozilla seems to think that they will no longer get funding in case this succeeds:

        https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-reaction-to-u-s-v-google/

        “Oh noooooooo, please don’t hurt sugar daddy Google noooooooooooooo!!!!!!” ahahahahahaha

        > Chromium security issues are becoming more common as each week passes.

        That’s the narrative of gHacks’ Firefox fanboys only, you see. Nobody who is in any way important in the industry thinks that Chromium is insecure. Research into the subject reveals that Mozilla’s security practices are years behind Chromium and overall lackluster. No code analysis I have seen demonstrates that Firefox is more secure, there is zero research support for this. What you do here is plain populism, playing with and misusing statistical likelihoods as “evidence” for your nonsense appeals.

        The most used browser will always get higher nominal number of security issues, especially when the gap is as large as it is here: 80% market share vs. 3% market share. With this type of gap, I wouldn’t bother to hack Firefox either, that does not make it secure though.

        > Trump didn’t nothing and was a posterboy for all tech companies.

        Dude, how am I supposed to know? I am not even a U.S. citizen, and consequently have no reason to care. Maybe Trump started the antitrust investigation, maybe it would have come anyway independently of him. Don’t know, and don’t care.

        I hope it goes through though, this will eradicate Google-funded pseudo-opposition or alternatively force them to adopt a business model that consists of more than just being a leech.

        > Rest assured Mozilla and Firefox ain’t going anywhere.

        They seemed worried in the text linked to above. LOL.

        And for your assertion that the government will sponsor alternatives as a result of this bill: Also a fat big LOL, that’s precisely not what it means.

      2. Yash said on September 23, 2022 at 4:03 pm
        Reply

        ‘Are you sure about that? Because Mozilla seems to think that they will no longer get funding in case this succeeds:

        https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-reaction-to-u-s-v-google/

        “Oh noooooooo, please don’t hurt sugar daddy Google noooooooooooooo!!!!!!” ahahahahahaha

        ‘That’s the narrative of gHacks’ Firefox fanboys only, you see. Nobody who is in any way important in the industry thinks that Chromium is insecure. Research into the subject reveals that Mozilla’s security practices are years behind Chromium and overall lackluster. No code analysis I have seen demonstrates that Firefox is more secure, there is zero research support for this. What you do here is plain populism, playing with and misusing statistical likelihoods as “evidence” for your nonsense appeals.

        ‘The most used browser will always get higher nominal number of security issues, especially when the gap is as large as it is here: 80% market share vs. 3% market share. With this type of gap, I wouldn’t bother to hack Firefox either, that does not make it secure though.’

        If you can’t read in-between the lines I can’t help you.
        Mozilla’s response can be summed up as – you sure pass whatever bill you want, just take care of us too while dealing with the devil.

        Market share doesn’t mean a thing. Chromium – supposedly secure browser is getting worse. That’s a fact. Accept it. If not well enjoy updating your Chromium browsers as if it is a nightly build. In other words more security issues.

      3. Iron Heart said on September 24, 2022 at 3:36 pm
        Reply

        @Yash

        > If you can’t read in-between the lines I can’t help you.

        They’re worried. :D

        > just take care of us too while dealing with the devil.

        Mozilla is actually mentioned as one of the companies enabling the Google search monopoly in that bill, you see. If that bill goes through = Mozilla will cease to exist or be forced to find another business model than being a leech.

        > Market share doesn’t mean a thing

        If I was a malicious actor, it would mean everything to me, because it makes a difference how many people I can catch statistically, 3 / 100 or 80 /100 – guess which of the two is Firefox. Irrelevance is not the same as security though, Mr. Populist.

        > Chromium – supposedly secure browser is getting worse. That’s a fact. Accept it.

        I’ll accept it when you show proof to me that discusses changes to the base code.

        > If not well enjoy updating your Chromium browsers as if it is a nightly build. In other words more security issues.

        I don’t notice the updates, Brave updates itself in the background. :D If Firefox was dominant and actually of interest to hackers, you would update it daily considering its lackluster security practices.

    3. Peterc said on September 24, 2022 at 3:12 am
      Reply

      BTW, I know the expression is “damp squib,” but my fingers went ahead and typed “squid” anyway. (Actually, I remember thinking about Matt Taibbi’s description of Goldman Sachs as a “giant vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity” as I was typing my post, which is not that big a non sequitur when you’re writing about Alphabet/Google. My fingers apparently just picked up the “squid” and ran with it. Sorry.)

  9. anonymous said on September 26, 2022 at 1:48 am
    Reply

    Would DeepL be a better alternative for Brave to use?

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.