It is, which is why I'm removing it. You can expect this from CNET, Techradar and bullshit outlets like that.

This is VPN marketing material mouth pieces 101.

Just be mindful decentralization doesn't inherently mean there is privacy.

Seems like a step up from "Covenant Eyes" with weirdo politicians sharing their porn habits with their children.

At this point I have to wonder whether the "Signal is CIA funded" narrative is not just butthurt Russian trolls mad at the fact it's also used by spies and informants for secure communication.

It's probably also media's fault for this. They only publish when a bad person does a bad thing on the internet with it, not all the millions of users who don't do bad things. That would be boring.

Ungoogled Chromium is my current favourite

The reason we don't recommend Ungoogled Chromium and instead recommend Brave on the privacyguides.org website is because they have proper build infrastructure managed by the Brave. With Ungoogled Chromium the binaries are produced by third parties, vary in version etc. People claim they would only use "open source software" but they do download binary versions nevertheless and don't compile that code themselves. This increases the risk of a supply chain attack, where a malicious binary is submitted and nobody has really knows until it is too late. The other issue is they disable CRLSets because of "google hate" which we think actually increases the likelihood of a MiTM attack occurring because rogue certificates are not detected and invalidated as quickly as they could have been.

This article describes a few other things https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/

ungoogled chromium exists

The reason is they have proper build infrastructure managed by the Brave. With Ungoogled Chromium the binaries are produced by third parties, vary in version etc. People claim they would only use "open source software" but they do download binary versions nevertheless and don't compile that code themselves. This increases the risk of a supply chain attack, where a malicious binary is submitted and nobody has really knows until it is too late. The other issue is they disable CRLSets because of "google hate" which we think actually increases the likelihood of a MiTM attack occurring because rogue certificates are not detected and invalidated as quickly as they could have been.

This article describes a few other things https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/

Not unless websites require certain features to be visible, that's the major concern.

I always understood it as they don't parse the actual details of emails (the body) to generate an add profile. It doesn't mean they don't track what websites you're visiting whilst logged in though.

My guess to this is that it's not accurate, for example email chains, or someone mentioning something that you have no intention of buying. As the email body is very unstructured it would be quite difficult to interpret whether those keywords should be added as an interest, having said that, with advanced AI that can parse context of a sentence they may just start doing that again if they can with accuracy.

KeyPassXC is super easy

One of the things I dislike about KeepassXC is that it exports to a unstructured CSV file, whereas Bitwarden exports to JSON. It's a lot easier to use something like jq to parse a JSON structure, if you want to import it somewhere as opposed to dealing with CSV files.

I also found the importer for Keepass CSV in Bitwarden didn't import my "notes" and I had to individually check that for each record.

I don't. I just run prefsCleaner each release and then updater.

We have a website too https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication which has decisions based on a privacy and security related context.

One of the main requirements there is that recommended instant messengers undergo auditing.