It's all about the marketing and nothing about the technology or company.

I opened google for the first time in months (years?) to check out the results for "best private browser". Predictably, the AI overview confidently responds as follows:

The best private browsers in 2026 for enhancing online anonymity and blocking trackers are Tor Browser, Brave, and Mullvad Browser. For maximum privacy with high security, Tor is top, while Brave is best for daily, fast browsing. Mullvad is ideal for anti-fingerprinting, and LibreWolf offers excellent privacy for Firefox users.

I would be very surprised if Brave did not at least at some point sponsor content to position itself as privacy oriented. This hidden advertisement then bleeds into both AI and human armchair experts with no deeper understanding of the tech they're commenting on. And so the myth that Brave has good privacy becomes self-enforcing.

Unrelated edit: Answering "why is firefox bad for privacy", Google AI becomes oddly self-hating:

Firefox is often considered "bad" for privacy by privacy-conscious users because, despite its pro-privacy marketing,
it collects significant user data by default via telemetry, relies on Google as its default search engine, and has updated its privacy policy to allow broader use of user data. While superior to Chrome, its default settings are not "privacy-maximalist," necessitating manual configuration.

Because it has ad blockers built in, has Tor built in, blocks trackers by default, and is very upfront and open about how they use your data if you choose to let them. A big part of what this article misses is that the feature is opt-in. It is turned off by default. Some people are weird and want personalized ads, in which case this feature is a hell of a lot more secure than other browsers who have to opt-out of tracking and don't give a shit about your PII.

Oh wait, I forgot where I was. Umm, I mean... Brave bad! Bad browser!

Because those lists are usually just ads themselves.