Isn’t this the crux of the product that are VPNs? Why would one not want VPNs to have the best implementation of the tech available? And if this makes a difference or a small difference as you’ve seemed to talk about it, it’s still a large enough difference to make the difference between being added as an official recommendation and not being added.
That’s why I said in my last comment about me not being sure where you’re coming from with these suggestions and why. But like I said, you do you.
x VPN supports all of the features of the currently listed ones, but even more.
I don’t know, I think that’s a pretty good argument to add it.
It’s KYC vs non-KYC to me. I think the implication is quite large even if the actual effect is unlikely (will someone actually get saved from this feature?) But then again, why have any privacy feature at all? Certainly you can just trust the provider, but if the provider gives me reasons that mean even if they did log me, they would have fewer ways to tie it to me directly anyway just by default of how the system is set up. I think more factors of protection is always better, yes. Maybe having such a high standard isn’t the necessary prerogative of this site, but I think it’s important, yes.
I don’t think there is a good argument to be made as to how port forwarding is a privacy benefit. Its a nice feature to have but I don’t see it as something privacy guides should focus on.
Since Proton already offers port forwarding, its hard for me to see why changing the criteria just to include more port forwarding options is needed.
From a privacy perspective its probably better to avoid port forwarding where possible.