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.
MsDropbear42 🦘♀🌈🐧 /
npub1zc…lfc3a
2024-02-19 01:49:47
in reply to nevent1q…uajd
Author Public Key
npub1zcatlselx24atvcf4mz2xkyrvffkqe606f8e27pqzhks4qvw499sxlfc3aPublished at
2024-02-19 01:49:47Event JSON
{
"id": "3f94c24e6b6949fcb127befe6dd6a6644f478526ff3490f17930632098a51d33",
"pubkey": "163abfc33f32abd5b309aec4a35883625360674fd24f95782015ed0a818ea94b",
"created_at": 1708307387,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"1091c448bb75d35fd9319ac9998e999e0475497a96add35fcf94c26dd23d9791",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"21facf76918fb23c84c1bc9347e0a1aba88bf342e5349902df0b9f37e9be7310",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"d1f3c71639ae3bba17ffc6c8deb1fdb3a56506b3492213d033528cc291523704",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"eb4015090e9e0b991fd906e6af0d6c97d7dcf10c85efd43d09f1a6877dd09292",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"298ad905464879ba537fb5c47a97b122f6ca97edd9b5910affbc805610ec1916",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"403ad2a880ddf3b535336d8580d538c4213d27729cb60577ae765390bdfba3ba",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"b0608259094d23fcb81086f9b66d72e65e39cef72c2af6899473e78bc331f698",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"39710decd8d524182da5daaa524407d5207c33bedb3bf95a4340bd8aa739b16a",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"8879c11645c03566f99e608e865941009bc5497dbbe80c0d5ddb2bc1bb1a5742",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"7e890f4f523561d5700f16d4d5d6eed9eee9b3a6d515d83b9a81b37d2b20d8b1",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://venera.social/objects/85a863ed-1365-d2b3-bbd6-7f9980205814",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub1zzgugj9mwhf4lkf3ntyenr5encz82jt6j6kaxh70jnpxm53aj7gsrns940 nostr:npub1y8av7a5337erepxphjf50c9p4w5ghu6zu56fjqklpw0n06d7wvgqwh5cy0 nostr:npub168euw93e4cam59llcmydav0akwjk2p4nfy3p85pn22xv9y2jxuzq4s9uaw 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\n\nHere 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 \u0026 install of their own volition.\n\nPls correct me if i am mistaken, but, just to focus on a quick dual comparison atm, isn't the primary difference between standard Firefox \u0026 one of its forks Librewolf, that whilst the former ships with no user.js \u0026 some comparatively lenient settings in prefs.js, the latter has toggled most settings to \"high\" in its prefs.js \u0026 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.\n\nSimilarly, 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.",
"sig": "9b1e7eeeee08f6c0d5ab49d0cab3f31c2a9d3e50ccf97bfe4179a0cbc92f82820ba330a9fa37144e53330c2d4c40c1ed6d41472de63d65373a2071bd2a05620c"
}