# Should "Worth Mentioning" recommendations make a return? **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/should-worth-mentioning-recommendations-make-a-return/29941 **Category:** Site Development **Created:** 2025-08-10T20:58:41Z **Posts:** 36 ## Post 1 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-10T20:58:42Z _Poll: Poll (view on site)_ > [@Remove Non-Hardened Firefox / Firefox Without Arkenfox](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/remove-non-hardened-firefox-firefox-without-arkenfox/29260/7): > > Personally, I think worth mentioning recommendations need to make a return to the site, at least to certain categories. Being unwilling to guide people when it comes to options that are less than perfect out of the box seems to be holding us back, when the reality is that most people would be far better off using a browser like Librewolf, provided they understand the potential implications, over Chrome, Opera, or even plain Firefox. Educating users is something we have the luxury of doing here,… I think bringing back worth mentioning for some categories could be beneficial in several cases: - Recommendations which satisfy certain threat models, use cases, or ideologies but aren’t recommended either because they don’t meet all of the criteria (but still meet most of the minimum requirements and are better than mainstream providers and apps) or they aren’t really accessible for most people (most CLI software and advanced Linux distros) - Requiring open source for all categories (except search engines, hardware, and anything else where doing so isn’t feasible) then demoting proprietary software **already recommended** to honorable mentions (1Password for password managers, Apple Mail for email clients since I don’t know of any open source mail clients for iOS) Until recently I would have suggested a next best Android ROM and non-Pixel phone, but since CalyxOS is no longer available and will likely end development soon, there isn’t anything left but stock Android and iOS (I expect all custom ROMs to end development soon with the possible exception of GrapheneOS). This could also mean more recommendations for categories which don’t have many recommendations already. PG could recommend a best tool for each use case then provide honorable mentions for those who aren’t satisfied. PG could promote software freedom while still focusing on security. --- ## Post 2 by @anon42475305 — 2025-08-10T21:36:32Z > [@anon11657877](#): > > provide honorable mentions for those who aren’t satisfied. Why would that be even remotely desirable? Privacy Guides recommends tools based on merit not weird ideological reasons. Recommending tools so that people feel validated completely undermines the point of making recommendations in the first place. --- ## Post 3 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-10T21:54:02Z > [@anon42475305](#): > > weird ideological reasons Point is honorable mentions would still meet most of the criteria if not all of it but would cater to FOSS advocates, software minimalists, and DeGoogle. Those would still be recommended based on merit, but it’d be the least bad option like what DivestOS and CalyxOS used to be, or Firefox vs Chromium. In some categories, no new recommendations would have to be made. For example, password managers. PG could downgrade 1Password and Gopass to honorable mentions since the former is closed source (thus making open source a minimum requirement for password managers) and the latter is a CLI password manager thus not really accessible to most people but still an option for those who prefer to use CLI programs (there’s nothing wrong with CLI password managers by the way and they shouldn’t be excluded just because someone thought nobody would ever want to use it over Electron bloat). --- ## Post 4 by @jordan — 2025-08-10T22:17:38Z What’s the point of having requirements if you don’t actually apply them though, honourable mentions just seems like a way to list things that don’t actually meet the rigorous standards to be listed. It will also make it more confusing for people to understand as it will be harder to understand what is actually recommended. It makes more sense to just have high standards and to not list tools that don’t meet them imo. --- ## Post 5 by @anonymous390 — 2025-08-10T22:20:05Z If people aren’t able to use some of the recommendations, they can just ask the forum instead of having the website be more bloated > [@anon11657877](#): > > Point is honorable mentions would still meet most of the criteria if not all of it but would cater to FOSS advocates, software minimalists, and DeGoogle. If Privacy Guides has an ideology, it would be one that emphasizes the value of information. Arbitrarily having honorable mentions that compromise the safety and confidentiality of this information, along with catering to ideologies that intentionally compromise this safety, would conflict with PG’s ideology > [@Secureblue: Is This the Most Secure Linux Distro?](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/secureblue-is-this-the-most-secure-linux-distro/29432/76): > > PrivacyGuides’ [Why Privacy Matters](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/why-privacy-matters/) page highlights how essential information is in our lives, and I would agree this information can be just as valuable as enterprise data. Privacy is ultimately about human information, and this is important because we know that human information confers power over human beings. If we care about our ability to be authentic, fulfilled, and free humans, we have to care about the rules that apply to information about us. So much of our modern society is structur… --- ## Post 6 by @anonymous378 — 2025-08-10T23:10:28Z > [@Remove Non-Hardened Firefox / Firefox Without Arkenfox](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/remove-non-hardened-firefox-firefox-without-arkenfox/29260/7): > > Being unwilling to _guide_ people when it comes to options that are less than perfect out of the box seems to be holding us back This is a criteria issue. If the community feels there are recommendations not listed because the criteria is to rigorous, then the criteria can be changed via the same way its always been changed. There doesn’t need to be a new lesser recommendation created. I would also point out, PG should not be users one and only source. People need to make choices based on multiple sources and their own threat model. **It is ok to use tools and apps PG does not recommend.** PG does not need to bend over backwards so that everyone feels like a tool they like is included. > [@anon11657877](#): > > For example, password managers. PG could downgrade 1Password This is the real reason this poll was created :joy: @anon11657877 you understand even if there were honorable mentions there is no guarantee this would happen. --- ## Post 7 by @No_Name — 2025-08-11T00:30:13Z > [@anonymous390](#): > > If people aren’t able to use some of the recommendations, they can just ask the forum instead of having the website be more bloated I disagree with this statement. I believe that most people will look through the recommendations and when they find that the recommended software in the category they’re researching will not work for them for whatever reason, they’ll likely just use either whatever their favorite search engine recommended, or maybe even what some guy on reddit told them to use. I just think they’re more likely to do something like that rather than make a post on PG about it. I don’t think it would be confusing at all to list something like honorable mentions and maybe list the reason/reasons that it didn’t make the “recommended” list. --- ## Post 8 by @anonymous390 — 2025-08-11T01:41:28Z > [@No_Name](#): > > they’ll likely just use either whatever their favorite search engine recommended, or maybe even what some guy on reddit told them to use. That makes sense! Maybe, to help people choose if they can’t select a recommended tool, PG can cite the [Common Misconceptions](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/common-misconceptions/) page and showcase it as a guide to help people evaluate the privacy and security of other tools --- ## Post 9 by @fria — 2025-08-11T03:20:20Z > [@anonymous378](#): > > I would also point out, PG should not be users one and only source. Yeah I never really thought of PG as some exhaustive list of every piece of software you would ever even consider using, I’d like it to be more like info on how to form your own threat model and apply it when looking at software, with our own criteria applied and some tools we really like. It’s more useful I think to have a site that gives you the tools you need to make your own decisions about software than to just have people blindly follow whatever is listed on the site. --- ## Post 10 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-11T14:36:39Z > [@anonymous378](#): > > This is the real reason this poll was created :joy: @anon11657877 you understand even if there were honorable mentions there is no guarantee this would happen. I was posting about this for as long as I’ve been here. The whole reason this started is because @jonah suggested recommending LibreWolf and Zen Browser with caveats. --- ## Post 11 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-11T14:42:14Z One more thing I’d add to clarify, is that honorable mentions that don’t meet the minimum criteria would still have caveats, like LibreWolf’s inconsistent updates or 1Password being proprietary for example. --- ## Post 12 by @jonah — 2025-08-11T14:49:34Z I think the problem frequently identified is that information about why a tool isn’t listed isn’t easily found. I wonder if we could have a central wiki post here on the forum that’s just a list of notes/citations about other tools to serve as a reference point. It would be useful for quickly finding relevant points about other tools. --- ## Post 13 by @anon63378630 — 2025-08-11T14:49:52Z > [@anon11657877](#): > > like LibreWolf’s inconsistent updates Are they actually inconsistent? Why hasn’t someone ever made a date table for it like I did all the Android forks? --- ## Post 14 by @jonah — 2025-08-11T14:51:54Z Any time I’ve looked in the past it was trivial to see just from their latest releases, but I haven’t looked again recently. Probably not a bad idea to track how they’re trending. --- ## Post 15 by @KevPham — 2025-08-11T14:55:25Z That could be a great contribution for anyone interested in authoring that. But how accessible would that be for people searching for this information? Wouldn’t it be buried under other topics as time progresses? --- ## Post 16 by @Astatine — 2025-08-11T14:59:27Z Personally, I don’t think this is necessary. Even after I’ve reading everything, [this](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/librewolf-browser-firefox-fork/148/44) post still stands. Specifically: > Either we recommend something and can provide concrete reasons as to why, or we shouldn’t recommend it at all. --- ## Post 17 by @jonah — 2025-08-11T15:02:34Z I’d want to make it first and see how useful it actually is, but we could probably give it some visibility on the main website. If each category had a wiki post detailing the unlisted competition we could link to those posts with a button at the bottom of each category page. --- ## Post 18 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-11T18:12:18Z Having a central wiki post wouldn’t be a bad idea to keep up with tools that have since been removed or rejected, but wouldn’t it be redundant with the forums and Github? If this were to happen, I’d suggest a “for advanced users” section for tools that weren’t user-friendly enough for PG to recommend but still meet the criteria. > [@Astatine](#): > > Personally, I don’t think this is necessary. Even after I’ve reading everything, [this](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/librewolf-browser-firefox-fork/148/44) post still stands. Specifically: True but privacy and security aren’t black-or-white. Not everything is either super secure or a security nightmare. There are varying degrees of goodness or badness. --- ## Post 19 by @anon83428815 — 2025-08-11T19:02:27Z > [@anon11657877](#): > > “for advanced users” section for tools that weren’t user-friendly enough for PG to recommend but still meet the criteria. What tools are you referring to? I did not realize there were categories that had some sort of user friendly criteria outside of the UX not being total doo doo --- ## Post 20 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-11T20:15:56Z > [@anon83428815](#): > > What tools are you referring to? Pretty much any CLI tool which got removed at one point despite there being nothing wrong about it, and Alpine and Gentoo Linux. --- ## Post 21 by @jonah — 2025-08-11T23:09:47Z > [@anon11657877](#): > > wouldn’t it be redundant with the forums My idea would be that the wiki would basically be an index and link to relevant forum posts people could read for more details. It would be more accessible than performing a search, which is what you currently have to do. --- ## Post 22 by @ImTooPhaT — 2025-08-12T15:32:39Z I don’t see the point. Even for certain categories where there’s only one recommendation e.g. Cryptocurrency, the criteria is privacy by default. So even using BTC with your own node or CoinJoin would not fit the criteria. Or even custom ROMs, if you can’t install GrapheneOS, then isn’t stock Android generally recommended over any other custom ROMs? If there aren’t many recommendations, then maybe there’s a reason for it. --- ## Post 23 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-12T16:58:34Z This is why there’s an option to only bring back worth mentioning recommendations for certain categories. > [@ImTooPhaT](#): > > e.g. Cryptocurrency, the criteria is privacy by default. So even using BTC with your own node or CoinJoin would not fit the criteria. I can’t see any reason to use any other crypto over Monero. > [@ImTooPhaT](#): > > if you can’t install GrapheneOS, then isn’t stock Android generally recommended over any other custom ROMs? It is now that DivestOS and CalyxOS are both unmaintained. --- ## Post 24 by @ImTooPhaT — 2025-08-12T21:19:40Z I’m using Crypto and ROMs as examples because they only have one recommendation. That seems to suit “certain categories” which “don’t have many recommendations already”. For web browsers, we have three good ones. Librewolf seems to be a no-config Arkenfox, which could be a decent honorable mention and seems more usable. But if someone wants a hardened browser, we already recommend Mullvad. And if they have a lower threat model, I think I would be more comfortable recommending stock Firefox. I’m not completely against this idea. I just don’t see a reason for it, yet. Using password managers as an example, if open-source becomes a requirement for password managers, and honorable mentions don’t require open-source so that 1Password can be considered as an honorable mention, that’s fine since it’s in a different category with a different criteria. But I’ve tested Proton Pass, Bitwarden and KeePass. Is there a reason to use 1Password over the others? We have many different options already that an honorable mention seems pointless. --- ## Post 25 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-12T21:32:21Z > [@ImTooPhaT](#): > > For web browsers, we have three good ones. Librewolf seems to be a no-config Arkenfox, which could be a decent honorable mention and seems more usable. But if someone wants a hardened browser, we already recommend Mullvad. And if they have a lower threat model, I think I would be more comfortable recommending stock Firefox. Stock Firefox without hardening isn’t any better than Chrome for privacy. For those who aren’t concerned about fingerprinting but want to use Firefox hardened, the choices are either to install custom user.js/policies like Arkenfox or Phoenix, or use LibreWolf. Both have their advantages and disadvantages with LibreWolf being more convenient and easy to setup but with slower updates. > [@ImTooPhaT](#): > > Is there a reason to use 1Password over the others? We have many different options already that an honorable mention seems pointless. Yes it is pointless, which is why 1Password should be removed entirely. --- ## Post 26 by @ImTooPhaT — 2025-08-12T22:24:18Z I think it’s pointless to recommend Librewolf as well. And Apple Mail. If someone is entrenched in Apple’s ecosystem, they’re most likely using Apple Mail anyway. And sure, stock Firefox may not be much better than Chrome, but the problem with Librewolf isn’t slower updates, it doesn’t support auto-updates. For Linux users, you can auto-update through package manager, but for everyone else, most people don’t bother with updates. So for convenience (and even security), isn’t stock Firefox arguably better? But if we were to bring back Honorable Mentions with looser criterias, we would also have to decide if “must support automatic updates” should be exempt from honorable mentions. --- ## Post 27 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-12T23:32:07Z > [@ImTooPhaT](#): > > And sure, stock Firefox may not be much better than Chrome, but the problem with Librewolf isn’t slower updates, it doesn’t support auto-updates. For Linux users, you can auto-update through package manager, but for everyone else, most people don’t bother with updates. So for convenience (and even security), isn’t stock Firefox arguably better? - [Windows Installation – LibreWolf](https://librewolf.net/installation/windows/) > If you want LibreWolf to be automatically updated (recommended), you can choose to install the [LibreWolf WinUpdater](https://codeberg.org/ltguillaume/librewolf-winupdater), which is included in the installer. You then can open the WinUpdater program and enable automatic updates by checking the box “Schedule a task for automatic update checks…”. --- ## Post 28 by @ImTooPhaT — 2025-08-12T23:59:45Z So it doesn’t \*include auto-updates by default. But it still doesn’t meet “must receive engine updates in 0-1 days from upstream release” criteria. So we would have to find a compromise that’s acceptable for honorable mentions. If that’s agreed upon (hypothetically), I could agree with Librewolf as HM if labelled as “advanced” option, just like with Arkenfox. --- ## Post 29 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-13T14:48:46Z Compared to most other Firefox forks, it’s more popular among privacy enthusiasts, has a stronger focus on privacy, has been around longer, and delivers updates more reliably (although still inconsistent at times). Afaik, IceCat is constantly behind and they haven’t distributed official binaries since 2019. Most other forks are based on ESR meaning not all security vulnerabilities are fixed each release. I haven’t tested Zen but it appears relatively new. Simply put, LibreWolf is the least bad option for this threat model and use case. I’m not sure I’d label it as an “advanced” option since there are ways to auto-update it for each major OS. Some browsers will disable automatic updates for privacy reasons despite the enormous security tradeoff because checking for updates makes connections in the background or browsers could be compromised at any time and auto-updating to a new malicious version could put users at risk, and automatic updates aren’t necessary for Linux at all since package managers can handle that. But for most people, automatic updates are necessary depending on how they installed the browser. It’s not always about changing the criteria to find compromises, but about finding the least bad solution. --- ## Post 30 by @lumino — 2025-08-15T00:31:01Z Very interesting thread indeed. I cannot vote but that’s OK. If people actually read, maybe the “worth mentioning” could make sense. HOWEVER, the sad fact is that people do not read. Most just look for whatever is “recommended”, even without checking why or without verifying the source. That’s why so many paid review sites exist. I also believe that there is a reason we have a criteria and should be applied without other considerations such as politics - if a product passes the criteria it gets listed, if not, then… no. And that’s not a bad thing and doesn’t mean that such product is bad. --- ## Post 31 by @No_Name — 2025-08-15T01:01:02Z > [@ImTooPhaT](#): > > But if we were to bring back Honorable Mentions with looser criterias, we would also have to decide if “must support automatic updates” should be exempt from honorable mentions. I don’t think the criteria needs to be changed. I think Librewolf could be listed as an HM and just state the reason/reasons it’s not on the recommended list. Readers can take that into account and decide what they would like to use. --- ## Post 32 by @ImTooPhaT — 2025-08-15T13:08:32Z I would suggest Librewolf as HM with a disclaimer that it doesn’t meet the following requirements. But it circles back to the argument that recommendations are based on the criteria, so if we can make exceptions, why bother having criteria at all? And I agree with @lumino that people don’t actually read. At best, they skim for information. So to see Firefox being recommended, most people would just install Firefox because they most likely won’t read about Arkenfox. And an honorable mention would seem like a recommendation to most people. That’s why Mullvad is better because it’s great ootb, and Brave is a decent ootb option too, whereas Librewolf requires a bit of tweaking to enable auto-updates. It seems like a simple thing, but most people can’t do simple things. Just recently, I had a support call because a user couldn’t send a document. I asked what the error message was, and it was because the file was opened in another program. The answer was right in front of them, but they had to call IT support. If we’re going to recommend products to the average user, I think having fewer options will keep things simple. If an average user uses Brave without understanding the difference between that and Chrome because they only see it as a web browser, then at least that’s a small step forward. --- ## Post 33 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-15T14:43:28Z > [@ImTooPhaT](#): > > But it circles back to the argument that recommendations are based on the criteria, so if we can make exceptions, why bother having criteria at all? Again, _worth mentioning_ “recommendations” are not recommendations. As @No_Name pointed out, Librewolf wouldn’t be recommended but it could still be useful for some people. And a criteria is necessary either way because without it everything would be _worth mentioning_. --- ## Post 34 by @velsolus — 2025-08-17T22:32:33Z Because there are many cases where there is a lesser of two evils. Music apps and social media are great examples of this. You aren’t going to find all the content you want on the smaller platforms, but some of the larger ones are worse than others. There should definitely be a clear distinction between services privacy guides endorses and services that dont meet the requirements, but all or nothing mentalities dont help anyone in this space --- ## Post 35 by @jordan — 2025-08-18T00:21:07Z > [@velsolus](#): > > There should definitely be a clear distinction between services privacy guides endorses and services that dont meet the requirements, but all or nothing mentalities dont help anyone in this space I think this is a false equivalence there is a difference between having all or nothing stances and having high standards and requirements. The website serves as a resource for a lot of people so understandably the tools listed there should have to reach a certain standard. There is no rule against discussing rejected options here on the forum, in fact several times I have searched for a service and found a thread from this forum which gave a lot of good insight into why I might not want to choose it. --- ## Post 36 by @velsolus — 2025-08-18T00:34:09Z Fair enough. But I do think that this standard isn’t the same for everybody, and a lot of beginners aren’t given very good advice on threat modeling when asking questions in forums like this or r/privacy on reddit. But yeah part of what makes this website great is the standards you guys have set. Maybe a separate website or page dedicated to doing the best you can in environments that don’t meet these standards would be helpful for newbies. This could even be an article that just goes over the basics of checking the settings within these services, using more private emails for these services(at least on the ones that accept private email addresses) reading the privacy policies of services you use, and having good opsec. The all or nothing comment is more about the idea that you aren’t private if there is any weak point or non private thing that you use, which I know isn’t something you guys push, it’s just something I see way too often