Looking into privacytests.org, the main developer behind it is someone who contributes to Brave source code. He may not be officially affiliated with the company, but it would be hard to ignore any sort of bias towards Brave.
According to the founder of the website, Brave's developers have implemented changes specifically targetting issues on this site, and thats why they're rated so highly. I believe if you look back to older releases of the test, you'll see Brave not doing nearly as well.
I don't think that that counts for much - I imagine someone that runs a website that provides privacy tests for other people, likes privacy. If you come across an option that seems very privacy friendly, and you had the expertise to contribute to it's development, wouldn't you?
Thank god you posted this! I missed yesterday's discussion of the exact same thing, which broke my 693-day streak of discussing the exact same thing, so I was hoping someone would post this link today so I could start working on beating my old streak of 693 days in a row discussing the exact same thing. Only 693 days of discussing the exact same fucking thing every fucking day to go until I beat the streak!
Firefox with one or two extensions and a resonable configuration would be at or near the top of the list. This test only compares defaults which isn't so useful if you are someone that takes the time to setup your browser.
I don't understand the ones where a browser doesn't have the feature so it gets a green dash versus a green check. I'd assume not having a feature should just be considered failing. What's the distinction?
Yes it does both of those things, Librewolf is just Firefox pre-configured for privacy. You could use Librewolf or you could configure firefox yourself to be equally private, Librewolf is just taking advantage of the features built into FIrefox but left optional for users.
Why are the three Chrome derivatives missing features Chrome has? Is it a porting issue or are they just that far behind on pulling in upstream changes?
Window sizes can vary widely and if you come from the same IP with the same exact window size (1033x832 for example) then people wanting to track you for ads etc will have a higher degree of confidence that you're the same person. It's part of "browser fingerprinting", which can also include things like the extensions you have installed: https://amiunique.org/
Tracking/advertising corporations have developed techniques called 'browser fingerprinting' where innocuous seeming things like screen size and the fonts you ahve installed on your system can be used to uniquely identify you and track you across the internet even without cookies or anything like that.
That's not about defaults. They basically say "we are too lazy to deal with any heuristics, not even deal with malware itself, as google safe list exists". Their approach is really too cautious "if some site will brake"? Of course no, there are always one button to unbreak it, they are just too lazy!
No, and no other forks of Firefox should be either. Why don't you guys get that you can do the same stuff with Firefox as all these different forks do, and still get same day updates and security patches?
Because its so hard to configure something on my mother's laptop that stays on a different continent, cannot figure out how to share screen. There is value in knowing which browser is better out of the box, so I can set it and forget it on any computer that's not mine.
There's still some value that "private" forks add to the list - you can see how well a tweaked Firefox can perform.
Specially relevant in this page because this test uses Firefox as is, without installing uBlock Origin, which is ultra basic advice for privacy. IMO they do this to benefit Brave, but whatever.