> For me what convinced me to switch to brave is that actually do privacy by default, not just empty talk like mozilla.

That's one hell of a take.

    - they have their own independent search engine 

    - and their own privacy respecting AD network. 

    - they block ADs and trackers BY DEFAULT

What is a "privacy respecting AD network"?

How are points #1 and #2 at all pro-privacy?

If they are embedding their own ad system, how is them blocking ads and trackers actually relevant? If all telemetry is not off by default it undermines the relevance of point #3 substantially.

>How are points #1 and #2 at all pro-privacy?

#1 - The search engine works based off of what you actually query, not who you are, other sites you've visited, where you're located etc.

#2 - Ads are off by default, you can opt in to see ads and if you do you can opt in to collect a token that you can then either keep or donate to content providers that you support (ie tipping). I have never opted in so I never see it.

1. Actual competition to Google with no trackers, unlike DDG and start page and many others, which are basically new UIs for bing and google respectively.

2. https://brave.com/brave-ads/

The opt in by default in Brave vs Firefox's opt-out by default does speak value.

While a feature can be good/suggested to be enabled, a user won't know to look for it unless advertised or in settings. Most of the features in Firefox seem to be behind about:config changes. I imagine most users just install software and go on with their life instead of configuring.

Can be a double edged sword though. No sites that are memorable off hand, but I have had site that Brave with Shields w/defaults would not load vs stock firefox + stock Ublock would. Note sure if this is due to the "opt in" by default breaking a site.

Edit: Brave is opt out, Firefox is opt-in. I had them backwards.

"Opt-in by default" is called opt-out, fwiw.

You're right, I had those backwards