I think librewolf scrubs most of that stuff out. I'm basing that off of using burpsuite's proxy server though. On vanilla firefox it captures so much crap going out. I havent tried with wireshark though.

That's all true, but why take a modified chromium instead of a modified Firefox?

Also clearurls and decentraleyes would be pretty much useless with Firefox and uBlock Origin.

Chromium-based browsers have inherently weaker extensions due to Manifest v3 and many other targeted attacks on adblockers. If you want a browser that works far better and provides a much higher level of privacy, use Mullvad Browser (worked on in collaboration with the Tor Browser, just without Tor integration) or LibreWolf. Both are Firefox forks with Firefox telemetry removed and anti-fingerprinting measures. You don't need and absolutely should not install any extensions beyond the default installed in those 2 browsers (except perhaps a password manager), as that will dramatically damage the fingerprinting protection they provide. Both will have a much higher level of protection than you could ever realistically expect from any Chromium-based Browser.

Yes but no. Firefox does some creepy stuff, and I will need to verify this. But it also matters how much data websites get about you, and Ungoogled Chromium has no fingerprint protection

Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances

So I went ahead and read that article and goodness gracious, does anybody actually read these links??? Because that link is a complete nothingburger. It's a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal. But it's not, it's just a big word salad that is too long to read, so nobody will bother.

The most significant charge is (1) that the CEO makes too much and (2) the author doesn't like that they contract out work to consultants who think diversity is good. And everything after that is LESS significant.

Every point made, so far as I can tell:

• Have assets worth $1.1 billion as of 2021
• Mozilla spent less on "expenses" from 2021 relative to 2020
• Revenue went up over the same time
• A lot of revenue was from royalties (e.g. agreements for default search)
• They disagree with the wording on a donate form about whether Mozilla "relies" on individual donations
• The CEO made $5.6MM
• They pulled out one expense, which appears to have been training/education relating to social justice topics
• They pull out a few more individual expenses and weren't sure what they were.

This isn't secret documents being handed to Deep Throat in a dark parking lot. There's no smoking gun, no smoke, just a PDF with ordinary tables of expenses and revenue, and consultants who did diversity training. If that's shady then, get ready to be mad about every non-profit ever.

I will never understand how people expect software to gather no telemetry or metrics whatsoever.

Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances.

I'm not going to refute this because it seems to me that article are right in several points. Also, we have to be honest, Mozilla is kind of stupid sometimes.

But if you care about the default search engine or privacy settings, you really just need to do some hardening and tweaks to make it very private in general. Chromium doesn't have any of these settings, it even doesn't have RFP btw.

and they also do stuff like adding unique IDs to each installation.

Looks like you can download Firefox through the Mozilla's official HTTP/FTP repository that doesn't trigger this ID token generation. Also this article motivates people to download Firefox installer from Softonic's page:

Firefox users who prefer to download the browser without the unique identifier may do so in the following two ways:

1. Download the Firefox installer from Mozilla's HTTPS repository (formerly the FTP repository).
2. Download Firefox from third-party download sites that host the installer, e.g., from Softonic.

Softonic have a really nice and privacy respectful privacy policy (obviously that's not the case) in contrast with randomized pretty anonymous unique ID triggered by Firefox installer download. Mozilla's generated ID feels more like a download counter than a tracker indeed.

I'm not trying to justify the Mozilla's problems. They makes silly things sometimes, but being realistic, they do a better job taking care of their users privacy more than Google or even Brave.