Comment by claudiojulio
5 days ago
I don't trust Privacy Guides. They must have some kind of deal with Brave. They didn't accept Brave and then out of nowhere they start accepting it with the excuse of having a Chromium-based browser.
5 days ago
I don't trust Privacy Guides. They must have some kind of deal with Brave. They didn't accept Brave and then out of nowhere they start accepting it with the excuse of having a Chromium-based browser.
Hey, I'm Justin from the 501(c)(3) fiscal host of Privacy Guides, MAGIC Grants. Us board members administer the funds for Privacy Guides, and we are different people than those who are on the Privacy Guides committee.
I assure you that Privacy Guides has not made a deal with Brave or any other of the tools that it recommends on the website. I'm happy to address any other questions about raising funds if you have them.
There are lengthy discussions about whether to recommend a tool or not on the Privacy Guides GitHub and their forum. There is a lot of great context there.
I don't doubt PrivacyGuides but...
> There are lengthy discussions about whether to recommend a tool or not on the Privacy Guides GitHub and their forum
The process doesn't strike me as consensus driven? Mods/team have become gatekeepers (both for persisting with existing recommendations or adding new ones), including aggressively shutting down conversations/threads they personally don't like (I was told, all moderation actions are final, regardless of who on the team does it, even if why they did it doesn't hold water). I imagine, such a rigid setup is in response to prevent bad faith actors (but then, I lose count of how many times team/mods have called others "extremist", using it as a slur, just because ... reasons).
It is hard to definitively prove ulterior motive, but other folks do observe such nefariousness and come to their own conclusions, valid or not, as GP has done.
All that to say, the way it is currently run, "discussions happened" isn't really the defence you think it is.
We don't have a deal with Brave. It was added almost 3 years ago, and nobody has even proposed removing it in the time since. Furthermore, it would be insane and likely illegal for a public charity to strike a deal to serve an undisclosed advertisement for a product from a private company.
I think our position on Brave is clear enough from the very first paragraph in the guide:
> We recommend Mullvad Browser if you are focused on strong privacy protections and anti-fingerprinting out of the box, Firefox for casual internet browsers looking for a good alternative to Google Chrome, and Brave if you need Chromium browser compatibility.
edit: ninja'd by justin lol
> We recommend Mullvad Browser if you are focused on strong privacy protections and anti-fingerprinting out of the box
Just want to put emphasis on “out of the box”. Changing any of the default settings will cause you to stand out. The fingerprinting protection is essentially to have a bunch of people all using the same browser with all of the mechanisms used for fingerprinting being either disabled or giving the same results on all installations; everyone has the same fingerprint.
We cover that too [0]. In addition, while I wouldn't blanket recommend a VPN usually, it's important to use a VPN in conjunction with Mullvad Browser (specifically). If you're not blending in with a crowd of similar browsers at the network level too, the fingerprinting protections are a bit pointless.
> Like Tor Browser, Mullvad Browser is designed to prevent fingerprinting by making your browser fingerprint identical to all other Mullvad Browser users, and it includes default settings and extensions that are automatically configured by the default security levels: Standard, Safer and Safest. Therefore, it is imperative that you do not modify the browser at all outside adjusting the default security levels. Other modifications would make your fingerprint unique, defeating the purpose of using this browser.
[0] https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/#mullvad-b...
> We recommend Mullvad Browser if you are focused on strong privacy protections and anti-fingerprinting out of the box, Firefox for casual internet browsers looking for a good alternative to Google Chrome, and Brave if you need Chromium browser compatibility.
What about a WebKit based browser?
"Orion comes with state-of-the-art ad and tracker blocking enabled by default, unlike any other browser in existence... Beyond blocking all ads and trackers by default, Orion is also a zero telemetry browser. It protects you from websites on the web, and the browser itself never leaks your private information anywhere."
https://kagi.com/orion/
They specifically state on their page for the Brave listing (and all the other ones) that they aren't affiliated with any of the projects they recommend. They also list the criteria they have for listing a project. If you think something shady's going on, perhaps you could point out which of their publicly available criteria Brave doesn't meet?
Agree. Firefox is the only browser I "trust". It does the best job of respecting the user out of any available option. I am the user and I deserve respect. You are also users, and you deserve respect, too.
> Agree. Firefox is the only browser I "trust".
Your personal preference does not prove this website is engaging in shady deals, as the person you’re agreeing with claims.
> It does the best job of respecting the user out of any available option.
Maybe. That too is debatable. Mozilla’s track record with Firefox and privacy has been less than stellar as time goes by.
https://www.privacyguides.org/articles/2024/07/14/mozilla-di...
In their defense, I think it is good to have a more private chromium browser if we’re talking about the subject of accessibility for new folks. Much easier to get them off chrome proper.
I dont understand the needed distinction between "chromium" and "non-chromium" browsers, thyre just web engines and ultimately technical details. Although chromium having significantly more compatibility (or chrome features that websites use) the average consumer will be using websites that keep strict accordance with webstandards to support safari. For technical users its another story but for the average user the web engine of your browser doesnt matter, just the shell around it, so I find it quite silly the notion we need X browser and also an X chromium browser
Some people think it’s important to support more browser diversity by not using chromium-based browsers. Some people also think that it’s bad to use pretty much anything produced by Google. Plenty of reasons to want non-chromium browsers
4 replies →
I am somewhere in the middle. If people could see something like Privacy Guides that is trying to be a primary privacy resource, and then look up any advice on another source, it could be useful. People aren't used to challenging something they read when it comes to privacy from a "trusted source", and I think that should be a key part of privacy and security. Try to find other sources, that aren't connected, to back up a claim.