> My point is that accusing someone of being on payroll on the basis they made a recommendation is stupid. And my point is: that's your opinion. You're being rather reductive. I'm not saying anyone who recommends something is on payroll. I do think that DS is shilling for Brave though, and I find that sketchy. Again, it's an opinion--I am not trying to prove this to anyone, you can do as you please. > Even if nothing is gained, you are at least able to browse the web without supporting a Google product. Consider this: Brave is based on chromium. It's popularity still supports Google. I'm not saying this is necessarily evil, as Google owns many open-source projects--but on't think you're not supporting Google by using Brave. Supporting less so than using Chrome? Absolutely--this comment is mostly an argument of semantics. > but for other applications such as viewing a (legal) site with no clearnet address (due to blackballing, for instance) it could be useful Here's the problem: if you use tor alongside a clearnet browser (especially if it's the same browser), you're making it a relatively simple matter of relating your "anonymous" tor traffic to your actual IP/web-fingerprint. Since you're using TOR, the traffic being routed through the network is considered far more suspicious--so good work, you've just defeated the purpose of using TOR entirely. You might as well just use your public ip--at least it'd be obfuscated by all the other noise going through your IP. The whole controlled op piece is just like my comment on DS shilling for Brave, it's my opinion and intuition. You can believe whatever you want. And I use ungoogled-chromium as my main browser.