Cynwulf1 in a comment about waterfox left an advise to not trust so much a “popular browser fork” just because it has become popular “saying” it is safer and more private than the original. After some discussion with friends and associates a couple of links came up as appearing to be telling some truth about why some are really bad, some are equally bad, some not so bad, but all with rational arguments and explanations on how they draw those moral conclusions.
As all things published on the internet, by a variety of portrayed experts, should ultimately be taken under a critical eye, “who is publishing this and why do they want me convinced”, these two links below may answer a common question: What browser is “safer” to use, what email provider respects my privacy and anonymity?
Ultimately nothing digital these days can be trusted with any information that can risk your life and well being, and those that may depend on your safekeeping of secrets. Being constantly informed by what is happening, who criticizes who and under what basis, is a measure of safety. With the ethical ideological reasoning those two sites reflect we seem to have some common ground, and that is usually a safer criterion for screening fluff from solid critical arguments. If they are true to their claims we sincerely apologize from advocating that waterfox and palemoon have been safer bets than firefox itself, they seem just as bad.
Sorry, doesn’t cut it, we should just have done more research before promoting something we seem to have no control of. The values of waterfox and startpage (and startmail) are reflected in selling their “products” to the highest bidder, despite of how evil that bidder may or may not be. It seems as we are about to find out more of who this system1 marketing really is in the next period. Buying a popular search engine and a browser seems like an aggressive move to enter a competitive world we don’t want to have anything to do with. It doesn’t seem that they made those purchases on some moral ground but by the power and ability to serve “peoples’ interests” on a zinc platter to the hungry marketing giants.
Despite of our irresponsibility to use this bandwidth to promote such crap, we apologize once again and commit to try harder to abide by the rules of ethical hacking from now on. We are going to try to give gnu-icecat a try next since those two others seem to be self-condemned. We will report any interesting findings after some trial period, but those two links above seem to be more reliable in their comparison than we have ever been.