machiavellian

It appears that I was mistaken. After looking through Mullvad’s documentation, it truly appears that it has really good fingerprinting protection.

The downsides I see with Mullvad Browser:

1. it makes a lot of automatic connections on startup (which Pale Moon does not (with some caveats));
2. the choice of uBlock Origin and NoScript over the superior uMatrix is also a bit of a disappointment;
3. it forces pointless DoH when the same privacy effect could be achieved for cheaper (resource wise) with just configuring your local resolver.

Sure, you could argue that these automatic connections are necessary and they are to trusted sites but you are still dealing with telemetry which should be disabled by default.

Nevertheless thank you for enlightening me. I will definetly now try out Mullvad Browser to replace Arkened Firefox.

As far as I know, no it isn’t.
My recommendation is that if you want better browser privacy than Librewolf, look into Pale Moon or GNU IceCat which are independently maintained older forks of Firefox (and thus untouched by the plague that is Mozilla). Use uMatrix and JShelter. You can also read these articles on browser privacy. Although many of these articles haven’t been updated in a while, most are still relevant.

Your argument is, correct me if I’m wrong, that the demand for product X always necessetates its production/supply and that supply will cease when there is no more demand.

A valid argument based on basic market economic principles.

I argue that there are times, when the demand for something does not outweigh the cost incurred (by the society) from the production and supply of a product. Meaning there are cases, such as this one, when it is almost impossible to decrease demand and thus influence the production which in turn would decrease the cost incurred by the society. In my view, the State has to protect foremost its citizenry, not ginormous enterprises. If this protection means going against “market forces”, then so be it.

Both “products” cause harm to society while only a few benefit, so no, it was not a false equivalence.

But then again, I could be mistaken and feel free to correct me on anything. :))

There was/is a demand for slavery. Should we wait for these people to realize that maybe owning slaves is not okay and morally wrong? Or should we just outright ban slavery and not give two fucks how “the market forces” view such action? You tell me.