So what you are saying Firefox is bad and instead it is better to use Chrome that is owned directly by a company they are trying to avoid?

Creating and maintaining a web browser is not simple, Firefox is the freeest usable browser.

i'm definitely not saying it's better to use chrome...where did i say that? What I'm saying is you can't label something ethical, if it gets all its money from what this site would label as 'unethical'. I don't know what the alternative browsers would be, dillo perhaps? I don't know they're the ones searching for 'ethical' alternatives. So what I'm saying is, I expected to see something different, not firefox.

Lie I said, it's probably a mix of things. If Firefox ends up offering better privacy and user empowerment than the alternatives, it's still the better option. I suppose Opera when it was still a paid product might also be in here, but that didn't survive.

Many would also consider the inclusion of Brave in the browser categories as dubious. Their business model comes very close to being a shakedown operation.

Can you expand on why Brave is "close to a shakedown operation"? My impression was that they were on the up-and-up. Plus, I'm all for just about effort being made to move away from the current ad economy. I'd rather pay for services directly.

I too support development of an alternative to the ad economy, but I don't support using the threat of income blocking to force a website to use a particular solution. This is in effect what Brave is doing.

Brave deprives the website owner of income by blocking or replacing ads while at the same time pushing the website owner to sign up to Brave's rewards program, which Brave generates income from, instead of ads for funding.

It is useful to compare ethicality among sets of alternatives; an absolute scale would be more of an abstract philosophical exercise. They are taking the practical, decision-informing approach and have put using the least-guilty browser near the top of their list.