Even though it's not, it certainly looks like one. It's what your readers perceive that matters. I write a little blog about family life in a local newspaper. I write the content before it is published, but after publication, the text belongs to the readers. I have no possibility of altering the content after reading the comments and understanding what the people think the text is expressing. It wouldn't matter, anyway, as none will come back later to read the updated version and almost everyone will read it in the first few hours after publication. Editing after publication is futile. This is just to underpin that, explaining a graph on a different website is bonkers, as only data analysts will actually follow the link to understand the data behind the graph. "Normal" people will take the graph as is and jump to the most obvious conclusion: "Librewolf, Mullvad, Brave, Chromium are all better than Firefox, and Chrome is the worst!". Or even better, "Ah, a list of browsers. Chrome seems to be the best one. Cool! scroll". Those are the ones that didn't even comment or up- or downvote the post. You won't ever know who or how many those people are. The best approach might indeed be to delete the post, build yourself some data visualization knowledge, and come back with an improved graph. Also, even though you say it's impossible to weigh the individual points in the tests, this might still be something you have to do to get your message across, whatever that might be. It involves work. You'll be ok. Making mistakes like this and posting them publicly is what will give you the information you need to improve.
They are FF with the defaults set to "I don't care if enabling this breaks my websites".
Telemetry is personal preference. Sending that data to a company you trust to use it for the stated purpose (making Firefox better) is a choice, and FF lets you easily disable it.
I haven't experienced any website breakage with Librewolf. Mullvad breaks websites because it has noscript by default (even though uBlock Origin has noscript built in).
If you’re already used to running an assortment of privacy-oriented additions on another browser, librewolf breaks in familiar ways… but it still breaks.
There are many things measured in those tables around preventing URL tracking, cookies, and storing data in session storage etc which none of the mainstream browsers are doing, including Firefox.
Some of them are decisions made for good reason, because although preventing them would improve privacy it would also massively impact usability, and so only the most all-in privacy-focused browsers are doing that.
OP themselves notes that they have weighted each 'check' as a 1 and each 'cross' as a 0 in calculating the size of the bars in the chart, without consideration of how relatively important or not those features are against other.
Personally I believe the approach to generating the chart is flawed and does not give a fair measure of browser privacy.
Yes, this seems like a really flawed method, and the only reason I could see someone using it would be if they were trying to make one browser appear better or worse than it really is.
The truth is this chart is misleading and not very helpful.
How? Firefox 121 has that score because it "failed" on 86 of the 143 tests, you can see which tests if you go to the source.
As someone already commented, Firefox actually lets a bunch of things through and has telemetry. But it can be hardened and it is (IMO) the best browser all-in-all.
But it is not perfect.
Please note (AGAIN) that 1 test (1 point) here is NOT equal to all other tests. But I have no way to weigh one test against another, there are 143 tests (points) to consider. I thought it was obvious but for some reason people chose not to read the description, or misunderstood it. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
I appreciate your effort in doing the work and putting the chart together :)
You fairly disclosed how it was all generated, but sadly not everyone will read that. A lot of people are going to look at that chart and their conclusion will be "Wow, Firefox is like a tenth as private as Brave!" - which you and I both know is not a true statement at all.
Even if people did read it, things get saved and shared out of context all the time, and before you know it this chart is going to pop up in some Discord argument as evidence for why Firefox sucks just as much as Chrome, completely divorced from your comments or any reference of where the data came from - the source website URL isn't part of the image either.
I guess that's the danger of visualisations. Data Viz can paint a complex picture clearly in an instant, we just have to make sure its painting the right one.
Thank you so much for writing this, the mindless comments made me kind of depressed and I considered never posting anything to Lemmy again. :D But your comment made me think otherwise, and I should not forget that fanboys are not known for even reading the entire headline.
I say this as someone who has always used Firefox and would never use Brave or any Chromium based browser.
But that is just not what this chart shows.
Your second point about taking things out of context is VERY true and I consider if I should delete the image for this reason alone. The image is not good without the description and the source link which explains what it means.
Firefox tries to keep its defaults on the 'functional' side of safe. Firefox will pass almost every test on here by changing some settings away from default to more strict (like the enhanced privacy tracking), but doing so can actually break some websites. That said, this is a brave ad. A big tip off for me is GCP. Its development was supported by the Mozilla foundation but Firefox gets a 'fail' here because it isn't on by default. No test that expects a user to know what all these things are could also reasonably expect a user to not check if they're enabled. A fair test would have been to rate all these browsers with their defaults AND hardened (without plugins). Keep in mind Brave doesn't give you the choice to disable GCP, they dictate what you can and cannot do in this regard, so it isn't possible to A/B test Brave's behavior in a lot of these cases.
I can guarantee you it is not a “Brave ad” (again, sigh), I am a Firefox user which found this website with a bunch of tests. I am not claiming it is perfect, the best thing would be able to weigh different tests based on importance. But I am not aware of any website with more accurate data. Do you a link to one? I’d be happy to make another, better one.
Ya know. Seems like a good time for another constitutional convention. Governing our country federally with a document written by rich slave owners pre train let alone pre internet doesn't seem max optimization for hamburgerland
So a box means that the duration of time doesn't affect the lengths we can perceive, and the sizes don't affect the duration of time we can observe something.
A circle would imply that the amount of time we perceive something affects the scales we can perceive, and most weirdly of all, vice-versa.
The circle sounds like a really interesting—if mind-bending—science fiction book. If it was written well enough I'd give it a shot, even if I can't intuit what's going on.
Seems you’re getting frustrated by folks misunderstanding. I think it comes down to the oversimplification of a bar graph. Gotta offer data visualization that says what you mean it to. The bar graph says brave>tor. It’s probably best to avoid the bar graph or accept that people will misunderstand it. I’m a fan of privacytests. It’s a great starting point.
Nuts are interesting. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought certain types of nuts (like almonds) require massive amounts of water. I think almonds require more water than an equivalent amount of chicken. I know this chart is about CO2, so kinda a apples to oranges comparison, but I'm curious if that is something that should also be considered when discussing environmental impact of foods?
The visual, neutral looks like no graph, and coloured parts have one of their sides highlighted. It looks like there are two independent graphs stacked on top of each other
Big yes to those data labels! The trend lines don’t tell much of a story when there’s only two points along the x-axis. Actually the red trend line is confusing since it trends up I’d expect “more” of a disagree but the data labels show there were 5% less disagree.
Certainly, columns will even be clear without reordering. Also, darker shade of grey for n/a would be good, maybe, but here it is already much easier to understand that it's not background
I’m not full vegan/vegetarian, but I’ve cut out all the beef/dairy that I can from my diet, just because of how bad cows in general are for the environment with their methane farts, though I think there may be methods to reduce emissions. I’m guessing that costs money though, so fuck that, we need cheap beef. I think if people just took that step of cutting that one animal out of our food chain, it’d be alot easier for people to do, rather than trying to cut out all meat and going vegan.
similar here - graphs like this helped the push to cut out most red meat from our menu. Emphasis "most" as we are neither vegan nor do we refuse beef items at restaurants or as guests.
but like you said, by just cutting out most beef, while allowing occasional items, would be a big step forward. We also cut out some pork, and try to get most protein from poultry and plant-protein. The reason for pork then adds seeing how terrible their conditions are and knowing how smart they are.
At first glance it would seem like lots of NYT readers would be bad news for Trump but there's also some moron who reads the Daily Mail and the NY Post. Could be hung jury.
This visualization would be better if it showed, for each juror, what their data sources were.
Clearly there are some jurors who have more than 1 news source. But it's not clear what the distribution is. It's possible that the NY Post / Daily Mail / X-Twitter / TikTok news reader is one person. Or it's possible that each NY Times reader is reading one of those sources "to see the other side."
A better visualization would be a table with each row being a news source and each column being a juror. Each cell of the table would be checked if the juror used that news source.
Does staring at the sun actually make your eyes hurt? In other words, does it cause pain in the eyes that persists after you look away? I know it can damage your vision but that's different.
Its a good watch and entertaining throughout but my biggest question was why Fanta Cake didn't have links to Fanta and Cake added as part of It's first 24 versions.
It looks like it was cleaned up by a couple a project teams but I would have thought the original author would have added the obvious outbound links organically.
Edit: Its now in the cakes template and linked from 370 pages. I wonder if the OP video was counting template links? If so they would be adding strong community links.
Data is Beautiful
Top