• Edited

I need a secondary android browser that supports extensions. I'm aware that none of these are as secure as Vanadium and Brave and thus will only use it for specific tasks.

Kiwi, due to being Chromium based, seems to work the best while Firefox/Mull sometimes has site breakage. Kiwi also supports native dark mode without the need to install another extension like Dark Reader. Since it's chromium based, I'm assuming it supports better site isolation whereas Firefox-based android browsers still don't support this, correct?

The cons I'm seeing is that its not really open source and created by a developer who I'm not sure if I should trust. It's also not uncommon for it to be late in updating to the newest version of Chromium. Chromium may also soon stop supporting ublock origin, which is one of the extensions I plan to install, though I don't know the time frame for this. I also can't sync bookmarks.

Both Firefox and Mull are open source. I'm guessing that Mull is better than vanilla Firefox since it has some Arkenfox privacy configurations built-in. Both browsers also support syncing bookmarks with other Firefox browsers. Only reason why I'm guessing Firefox might be better than Mull is that i'll definitely be getting the most timely updates, but unlike Kiwi, Mull seems to stay on top of it so this shouldn't be a concern I don't think.

Mull/Firefox though seem to lack proper site isolation, though I'm not sure how important this is? Does it depend on use case? I'd mostly be staying logged in to 1 website, and then use private browsing for everything else, choosing to open external links in private browsing windows.

There is also no dark mode, so I'd need to use Dark Reader (or another app if someone wants to recommend one) which forces me trust another party and slows down page loading.

    Sbpr Firefox has a dark theme built-in. Is that not sufficient? Settings > Customize > Theme

    • Sbpr replied to this.
      • Edited

      guser39 sorry i meant forced dark mode for all websites. So even if a website doesn't have a dark mode available, it will invert specific elements on the page to give you an effective dark mode (works better on some websites than others).Chromium browsers all have a flags toggle for this ("Auto Dark Mode for Web Contents") that you can find at chrome://flags . Kiwi also puts this setting in its main settings menu calling it Night Mode.

      Firefox doesn't have this, only a system dark theme that only works if the website has a dark theme available and if the website chooses to use your browser's system settings by default.

      On Mull, due to fingerprinting resistance, even Firefox's insufficient dark theme doesn't work so you always get the light version unless you play around in about:config after every update or install a forced dark mode extension like Dark Reader.

      Sbpr just get Mull and add Ublock

      Firefox doesn't have an about:config and Mull does. Firefox is adding new questionable features that may be fine or may be bad for privacy, let others be beta testers of that, stick with Mull

        • Edited

        Dumdum

        That Mozilla article is very funny:

        Sadly, tracking is the only way to perform attribution without help from the browser.
        Tracking is terrible for privacy, because it gives companies detailed information about what you do online. [...]
        Our hope is that if we develop a good attribution solution, it will offer a real alternative to more objectionable practices like tracking.

        So Mozilla is trying to avoid "objectionable practices like tracking"...
        But also, attribution requires tracking.
        And Mozilla is... doing attribution anyway for some reason?
        Quite two-faced of them. I don't accept this supporting of the "lesser of the evils" narrative. The evil shouldn't be supported, period.

        I prefer a different take on attribution:

        "Attribution" is when an ad-tech company shows you an ad, and then follows you everywhere you go, monitoring everything you do, to determine whether the ad convinced you to buy something. [...]
        This is unspeakably grotesque. It should be illegal. In many parts of the world, it is illegal, but it is so lucrative that monopolists like Google can buy off the enforcers and get away with it. What's more, only the very largest corporations have the resources to surveil you so closely and invasively that they can perform this "service." [...]
        Look, I understand why advertisers like attribution and are willing to preferentially take their business to companies that can perform it. But the fact that merchants want to be able to peer into every corner of our lives to figure out how well their ads are performing is no basis for permitting them to do so [...]
        https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/07/revealed-preferences/

          zzz

          I could be fine with Firefox showing ads based on generic tracking that is non-invasive.

          The problem is that if there's any server-side tracking that could be modified, I don't get to confirm that server-side code and there could be a demand made by the government to modify the server code.

          So as an example, if the browser monitors what websites I go to, assigns a category to them on the server such as "technology" and "golfing," and then shows ads, I don't mind that. But if the government then demands that all ping times are recorded and Mozilla retain all site history in secret, that is not something I want. Also, if the government requires Mozilla to make these changes, they woukdn't be able to tell is.

          It's very hard to trust a privacy-based US company because any time you rely on the servers as being private, you are placing trust in them not being required to be compromised.

          Because Mull is just a fork on Firefox with telemetry removed, you don't have to have concerns with Mull.

          Firefox is a good browser so if your threat model does not include the government (no illegal activity, not a minority group that could be persecuted such as LGBT or minority religious group or protester with minority that could become persecuted, no expected illegal activities in the future, no.one within the government upset with you and no anticipation of that happening and mostly moderate views or slightly right or left of center) then please use Firefox since they need the money since that judge's disasterous anticompetitive decision that Google is a monopoly because it subsidizes Mozilla by paying for it to be the default search, resulting in the possible destruction of Mozilla and the only non-Chromium based browser that holds back Google controlling all web standards and making them all pro-tracking.

          Mull also has built in default hardening. It's a good browser.