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?
We had dedicated much energy in the past, 2 years ago, to advocate for Palemoon and you should at least read the piece about the NoScript parody, and how we gave up on it for specific suspicious reasons (still holds unchanged, Palemoon has branded NoScript as “dangerous” because it breaks pages). We had seeked refuge at Waterfox, retaining some old firefox functionality and ensuring us it is blocking all of Mozilla tactics of robbing you of private data and feeding it to “who knows who”.
Waterfox officially was sold by mr Alex Kontos to System1, a UK payperclick ad company, which it would be absurd to believe that it wouldn’t utilize the browser’s ability to feed their other interests with private data. Or why else would they buy to promote their own browser, to make all others break while they are getting robbed?
Thank you Alex for your sincere efforts and sleepless nights of coding, all these years, it has been a great ride, and it is too bad it had to crash in such a bad time for browser variety and period. Goodbye and good luck for all that you had done up to now.
Palemoon points to this discussion on its forum about noscript if you try to install noscript from its source page. Although palemoon, as far as we know, has provided 0 evidence to classify noscript as malware, in the discussion itself that they are promoting as “reason”, their claim is “just a warning“, and that you are free to choose otherwise. NOT TRUE ANYMORE The matter that noscript breaks pages is really no reason as people “choose” to break such pages to protect themselves. Continue reading
Waterfox doesn’t sell access to your personal information like other companies. In fact – they don’t even collect any. From privacy tools to tracking protection, you’re in charge of who sees what.
Here’s how Waterfox protects your privacy
This sounds like a pretty good commitment compared to what is going around these days in the front of “selling users’ personal information”. Most browsers today seem to cater to the needs of internet controlling corporations and less to users’ needs, making it harder for them to control the flow of personal information outwards, Continue reading
Yesterday our readers discovered problems with the Pale Moon web browser, which according to the NoScript website has either security, compatibility or usability issues when using popular add-ons like NoScript:
One reader who uses NoScript found the plugin was displaying the above window and offering to disable the Pale Moon browser, rather than have it cause users any further trouble. Continue reading