MsDropbear42 🦘♀🌈🐧 on Nostr: PrivacyTests.org The Tor Project Mullvad VPN ...
PrivacyTests.org (npub1zzg…s940) The Tor Project (npub1y8a…5cy0) Mullvad VPN (npub168e…9uaw) nostr:npub1adqp2zgwnc9ej87eqmn27rtvjltaeugvshhag0gf7xngwlwsj2fqqhjgpyI test all browsers by default; that's because users tend to stick to defaults. ... I don't think it's right to have privacy protections available only to power users who know how to tweak settings and which settings to tweak
Here though, sorry, i still disagree, fwiw. Yes i definitely grasp the sense of "test defaults for ordinary users", but IMO the logic of this objective then rather falls on its face when your table includes several browsers that no "ordinary" user is ever going to select & install of their own volition.
Pls correct me if i am mistaken, but, just to focus on a quick dual comparison atm, isn't the primary difference between standard Firefox & one of its forks Librewolf, that whilst the former ships with no user.js & some comparatively lenient settings in prefs.js, the latter has toggled most settings to "high" in its prefs.js & uses a very hardened user.js? If so, then this would exemplify my discomfort with the site data presentation, as readers would wrongly infer that standard FF is simply inherently "lax", when that's really not accurate.
Similarly, though i regard Vivaldi as inherently less private than FF [when both have been "tickled up" with harder settings], it nevertheless would garner many more green ticks in your table if tested with the harder settings in its internal GUI Settings, + where applicable also its chromium-legacy chrome://flags. However atm, once more, an unaware reader of the table would simply conclude "oh, Vivaldi is poor". Indeed, periodically this is a combative trope raised in the Vivaldi Forum, using your table as an attack weapon. It just seems inequitable to me.
Here though, sorry, i still disagree, fwiw. Yes i definitely grasp the sense of "test defaults for ordinary users", but IMO the logic of this objective then rather falls on its face when your table includes several browsers that no "ordinary" user is ever going to select & install of their own volition.
Pls correct me if i am mistaken, but, just to focus on a quick dual comparison atm, isn't the primary difference between standard Firefox & one of its forks Librewolf, that whilst the former ships with no user.js & some comparatively lenient settings in prefs.js, the latter has toggled most settings to "high" in its prefs.js & uses a very hardened user.js? If so, then this would exemplify my discomfort with the site data presentation, as readers would wrongly infer that standard FF is simply inherently "lax", when that's really not accurate.
Similarly, though i regard Vivaldi as inherently less private than FF [when both have been "tickled up" with harder settings], it nevertheless would garner many more green ticks in your table if tested with the harder settings in its internal GUI Settings, + where applicable also its chromium-legacy chrome://flags. However atm, once more, an unaware reader of the table would simply conclude "oh, Vivaldi is poor". Indeed, periodically this is a combative trope raised in the Vivaldi Forum, using your table as an attack weapon. It just seems inequitable to me.