The least resource-intensive way to provide attack-resistance near the level provided by Google's Chrome team would probably be to notify the user when a vulnerability is disclosed so that the user can either switch to Chrome or restrict their browsing to safe sites till the binary provider can get a security update out.
I know of no one doing that or providing timely security updates however except Google, possibly Opera, possibly Brave and probably some day soon Microsoft.
The also have a guide for enhancing privacy in Firefox
I mean no offense by this but I consider myself a privacy wonk and that website is a bit too tin foil hat even for me.
I think we're in a bad way as far as choices go for browsers these days, but Firefox seems like the best of a bad situation to me. If people are still concerned, they should take a look at the changes made to Firefox for the Tor browser.
Do you block ads without the publisher's consent? If so, you are in a much more morally precarious situation.
It's a honest question. I understand you'd say that about Chrome, but I thought that Chromium being open source it isn't exactly in the same bag.
I've also started to make use of text browsers. Links and Links2 are two that I use. Links2 is a nice halfway option as it will support images too.
I find them great for websites where I want to read info, but the interface is ironically designed to make that harder than it should be. News sites are a perfect example. Text browsers turn them from bloated billboards back into a readable format.
Edit: I know it's chromium-based, but still wondering!
Maybe the browser itself is OK. I've never used it.
Seems like a scam.
But this is literally what Brave does by default.