Have you tried Brave? I've been using it on the side and it's speedy and constantly improving.

Not OP, but I tried it some time ago, haven't checked back on it since. How is it privacy-wise, comparable to FF?

No, Firefox (same as any of the big four) does not block ads or trackers by default. Brave does. We also have no-script and fingerprinting protection, currently opt-in by site (but we hope to engineer f.p. to on by default).

Blocking 3rd party ads and trackers really speeds things up!

This probably got downvoted for snark, but it's true. The worst Chrome might do is help Google target ads better (if you don't change the defaults).

The worst Firefox might do is get your machine pwned.

> The worst Chrome might do is help Google target ads better (if you don't change the defaults).

Chrome is the one running any x86 binary the website presents it with, only trying to run a static verification that it won't do anything evil.

Chrome is far more at risk of pwning you (and NaCl sandbox breakouts have been quite common).

You mean "the website" which is accessed over HTTPS and more likely than not has its key pinned internally?

Point is, Chrome falls every year at Pwn2Own just like every other browser, but only Firefox has been excluded because it's too easy.

> You mean "the website" which is accessed over HTTPS and more likely than not has its key pinned internally?

Any website can run NaCl code, you realize that? Even TIDAL uses it on its site for native playback.

Even pages only accessed over HTTP.

something seems off about that

Looking through the previous year's results, it doesn't seem like firefox has done especially poorly?

And as noted in https://redd.it/45epd7, firefox multiprocess is sandboxed, and it does have security features that other browsers don't have

so... IMO it doesn't seem like the reason given is quite genuine?