{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreib7lxcyymaunundnyxkdquhtwzw7tqbrrhwk5ac6mw7m4mvzka4nu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:haakkg7y3xdghcdmprxeexso/app.bsky.feed.post/3mpsrkc3xvkn2"
  },
  "path": "/t/is-secureblue-really-more-secure-if-browsers-have-to-be-installed-in-flatpaks/38287?page=2#post_24",
  "publishedAt": "2026-07-04T07:53:16.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net",
  "tags": [
    "Selecting a Browser - Chromium Hardening Guide"
  ],
  "textContent": "Setting aside that the initial question is empty if you remove the incorrect assumptions and that there is too much misinfo in this thread to respond to piecemeal, the takeaways from this thread should be:\n\n  * Do not use Flatpaked browsers of any kind until nested namespaces are supported and adopted (probably 2 ish years away) if you care about security\n  * Do not use Firefox or any Firefox-based browser if you care about security\n  * MV2 availability is a sign that a browser’s developers are not prioritizing security, since MV3 is a substantial security improvement\n  * Anti-fingerprinting outside of Tor Browser is largely snakeoil and has nothing to do with privacy\n  * If Trivalent isn’t for you, Trivalent developer RKNF404 has a browser hardening/selection guide Selecting a Browser - Chromium Hardening Guide, and yes, Google Chrome is a solid option.\n\n\n\n> don’t care about open source\n\nYup that’s why every secureblue project is FOSS\n",
  "title": "Is secureblue really more secure if browsers have to be installed in flatpaks?"
}