4 ms·

NordVPN gives only two browsers a 5 out of 5 for privacy (one of the being Firefox). https://nordvpn.com/blog/best-privacy-browser/ https://nordvpn.com/blog/be

NordVPN gives only two browsers a 5 out of 5 for privacy (one of the being Firefox). https://nordvpn.com/blog/best-privacy-browser/ https://nordvpn.com/blog/best-privacy-browser/ Other than Safari (getting only 3 out of 5), the entire list is based on Chromium or Firefox source code. If anything that Google touches is poisoned, there are no alternatives other than to find a text based browser like lynx.

jqpabc123 6y ago
Based on your own reference, Google's "touch" is apparently inadequate to "poison" source code. Epic was also rated 5 stars --- and it is based on Chromium source. The real problem with surveillance capitalism is the profit motive and the fact that profit is obtained at the expense of the user's privacy. Without delving into details, Mozilla has an obvious conflict of interest with regard to privacy since nearly all their funding is derived from surveillance capitalism.
- uberman 6y ago
  Chromium is more in bed with Microsoft and Google than Mozilla is. That is the point. You can't claim Firefox is bad for using google resources then claim that Chromium is not likewise bad for using Google and Microsoft resources. Just to be absolutely clear. I think Firefox is just fine and I don't consider it poisoned by Google at all. The only issue I do see is that Firefox really needs a more diverse funding stream for it's own safety. If people want to say that Google is bad because "reasons" and therefore Firefox is bad because it gets resources from Google. Then they must also conclude that Chromium and everything downstream of it is likewise bad or "badder" given the overwhelming support of Chromium by Google and now Microsoft. So if Google bad means Firefox bad by proxy then all contemporary general purpose browsers (including Tor as it is based on Firefox) are bad. What you are left with is basically Lynx. In the end, condemning Firefox is foolish as aside from funding support it is the only modern alternative left without direct ties to Google. (Safari aside)

jqpabc123 6y ago

Based on your own reference, Google's "touch" is apparently inadequate to "poison" source code. Epic was also rated 5 stars --- and it is based on Chromium source. The real problem with surveillance capitalism is the profit motive and the fact that profit is obtained at the expense of the user's privacy. Without delving into details, Mozilla has an obvious conflict of interest with regard to privacy since nearly all their funding is derived from surveillance capitalism.

uberman 6y ago
Chromium is more in bed with Microsoft and Google than Mozilla is. That is the point. You can't claim Firefox is bad for using google resources then claim that Chromium is not likewise bad for using Google and Microsoft resources. Just to be absolutely clear. I think Firefox is just fine and I don't consider it poisoned by Google at all. The only issue I do see is that Firefox really needs a more diverse funding stream for it's own safety. If people want to say that Google is bad because "reasons" and therefore Firefox is bad because it gets resources from Google. Then they must also conclude that Chromium and everything downstream of it is likewise bad or "badder" given the overwhelming support of Chromium by Google and now Microsoft. So if Google bad means Firefox bad by proxy then all contemporary general purpose browsers (including Tor as it is based on Firefox) are bad. What you are left with is basically Lynx. In the end, condemning Firefox is foolish as aside from funding support it is the only modern alternative left without direct ties to Google. (Safari aside)