They've been caught forcing their own affiliate links amidst other unethical nonsense. I could go on.
If it didn't have a cryptocurrency wallet built into it and was simply a browser, it would be far easier to humor the idea.
After the backlash towards Mozilla for accepting cryptocurrency donations, I think we can all say that recommending Brave over Firefox isn't going to work for a significant demographic of users.
They replace ads only with consent from the publisher and the browser user and only with no tracking involved. This is no more unethical than blocking ads altogether.
Do advertiser's own space in your browser? Do they own the right to consume your data bandwidth? Do they own the right to hijack your privacy?
If the answer is no --- if you believe your browser and your privacy and your bandwidth belongs to you, you should check out Brave. Unless you are affiliated with the privacy invading ad networks?
Think twice, write once. It was the #1 result on Google. That someone who actually uses Brave knows less/is ignorant of problems with Brave speaks volumes about how seriously we should take your recommendation. "Out of the loop" doesn't even begin to describe it.
Try harder. No wonder misinformation and fake news spreads like wildfire when people can't be bothered even doing basic fact-checking yet can write countless words attempting to defend something. With that in mind, I'm expecting you to reply attempting to justify it. Don't waste your time, nor mine.
I just started my Brave browser adventure. While it has more explicit controls for many privacy-related settings still how-to guide is something highly recommended.
If Firefox has any real interest in privacy they would make it easy to achieve with no "how-to guide" needed.
For what privacy in Firefox should be like, see Brave.