I’ve heard of these but haven’t given them a long look. What is it about mullvad or librewolf that people prefer over Firefox?

Thanks. I currently use hardened Firefox (Arkenfox) and yes I do use unlock.

If you don’t think Mozilla cares about your privacy anymore, yet you use Qwant, you’re probably not going to want to hear that the two partnered up last month.

I’ve been using Startpage with positive results.

There’s also hardened Firefox solutions.

I second Proton… I love 'em. I use them for email and VPN. I always have a hard time putting all my eggs in one basket though, and try to avoid using any one ecosystem for all my organization. For example, I use an offline app for my calendar, and a self-hosted home solution for file management.

Great to see another person giving the one finger salute to big tech. Not sure about your ideas on Apple respecting your privacy though - they haven’t given me that impression but maybe I’m misinformed.

Is SELinux enabled by default in Fedora? I’ve tried researching it but everyone seems to be wanting to do the opposite and disable SELinux (presumably because it restricts ease-of-use)?

Valid point. I do prefer the UI with Proton, I find it nicer to click through. Also, Tuta usually makes you wait 2-3 days before you can use it - not a big deal really, unless you’re trying to sign up for something new.

I don’t know if what I do is the right way around this but, as stated Proton will reject disposable verification emails and you cannot use another proton account to verify a new one.

My workaround for this is to verify proton with a Tutanota account which is also created with as little to no identifiable information as possible.

TLDR: Proton accepts Tuta emails for verification and Tuta emails can be created anonymously.

Possibly, but other than that there aren’t any real verification steps when entering info to create an account (you can just add bogus info).

If there is a phone number required, I have used burner numbers in the past which may work.

This argument (to me at least) assumes that the other 4 non-voters would have all voted for ice cream which, by just using basic logic, is false. If 3 out of 5 have already voted to drive off a cliff, one has to assume that at least 2 of the remaining 4 would also vote to drive off a cliff. Now this argument is back to square one… How do we find a solution which doesn’t give ‘driving off a cliff’ as an option in the first place?