

Or both! Don’t consume where possible, seek out the most ethical option when you must


Or both! Don’t consume where possible, seek out the most ethical option when you must


NYM seems promising, they are trying to build a decentralized VPN with multiple nodes, same as TOR but faster, so no one has full data who talks to who and what type of traffic.
However it’s only been around for a year, so we still don’t have enough data if their approach works or not compared to traditional VPNs.
iVPN is a good one, it has been around for 15 years now, and is also privacy and FOSS focused like Mullvad.
However they lack some security features that Mullvad has: DEITA, diskless servers etc.
Ultimately I would say go with:
NYM if you want to gamble (high risk high reward),
Mullvad for good security, but yeah your money goes to a far-right party in Sweden,
iVPN: worse security than Mullvad, but more trustworthy than NYM, and your money doesn’t fund right-wing populism
Its my crack I can’t stop coming back to all while hating every second of it

AFAIK Firefox forks aren’t too different from Firefox feature-wise. It’s hard to make substantive changes to Firefox, so most forks like Librewolf or Waterfox slightly change default settings and extensions, but not sidebars and other cosmetics.
So unfortunately, there is probably no Firefox browser that would have Vivaldi’s features.
Maybe you could try uBlock Origin Lite? It’s Manifest v3 compliant, and I don’t remember having any issues with YouTube shorts using it. I use it on “optimal” filtering mode

deleted by creator

Uh, it’s like comparing the best life you could have in Western Europe with the worst life you could have in American suburbs.
It’s no different from comparing an American surgeon earning 400k yearly in Manhattan to a person surviving in Belarus or Albania. Same bias but flipped in opposite direction.
Both comparisons would be unfair.
I am not saying life is worse in the EU than in the US, but there are many better ways to argue that more logically using data.


deleted by creator
Ethics exist independently of any deities even if they did exist.
If ethics didn’t exist separately, and God is actually the source of good, then we would have a lot of logical paradoxes to solve.
For instance, let’s assume God is who defines goodness and educates us on it, and goodness does not exist without God.
Thus, we recognize we don’t have inherent ability to define what’s good or bad. But that also means we can’t prove God is good, because we already recognized only God can define what’s good.
I might have butchered the logical fallacy a bit, logic is hard, but I remember it roughly being stated this way.