Summarizing this thread:
I dont think anyone is arguing that Brave’s recommendation should be revisited, or that it should be considered a golden standard against all other browsers. So I’m inclined to disregard points that depend on comparisons to Brave
The main issues I see remaining with Vanadium:
- GrapheneOS exclusive
- Questionable fingerprint mitigation
As others have said, PG already recommends OS - specific browsers, in situations where using a particular browser on a particular system is the best option for privacy & security. GOS team recommends Vanadium on GOS for this reason. I feel a strong counterpoint is a prerequisite for this objection to carry weight. I have not yet seen any such points made
The latter is an interesting point. It’s worth mentioning that fingerprinting is not currently PG criteria for browser recommendations. There is an argument to be made that it should be, but that would require a defined methodology for assessing browser fingerprinting. I do not believe this has been standardized; I see different 3rd party tools recommended, some debates without definite conclusions. I struggle to assess Vanadium on these grounds when the criteria is up for debate. Perhaps this is worth its own discussion thread