Yes, because those numbers are different -- there's actual competition among the providers, which is not so for ISPs. I agree it's still a gamble, and still requires trust, but if/when that trust is broken, there's someone else ready to fill that void.
There's simply no way for customers to tell if their VPN provider is selling them out.
By siding with you they can certainly pave over the asymmetry in the relationship between provider and users.
I trust Mozilla, not ProtonVPN, and I trust Mozilla vetted them and will continue to look them over the shoulder.
That's more than I can say for my current VPN provider.
There is a lot of passionate privacy activists at Mozilla. Many of whom to would leak an NSL at the risk of persecution. (In fact I dare say the lineup would be long)
This puts them in the same boat as say, IKEA.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo...
But keep in mind that while it was pushed out into people's browsers in a stupidly-lacking-in-foresight fashion, it still required use activation before it'd do anything...
I'm at least four nines sure Google have got worse privacy-eroding code in Chrome that does way worse things that flip some text upside down after you specifically activate an add-on...
The entirely justified outrage was its purpose for being put there (which boils down to advertising) and the lack of consent for its being put there. That's it.
(At the same time, how much of the automated Chrome updates end up being audited for their "boils down to advertising"ness?)
> lack of consent
Pretend it was a copy of about:blank when you answer this question: What makes this different from the giant pile of patches merged into each release of firefox that you don't read?
Again. Purpose.
If they had done it correctly, it would have been invisible and it would not have advertised anything to firefox users. That is the purpose. It showing up the way it did was an oversight.
This one hit me hard. And that was after I knew about it. I logged into Gmail on Chrome on my personal computer, without realizing I had been logged into Chrome itself, which then ended up mixing my personal browsing history with my work account, something I’ve tried very hard to avoid.
One slight privacy infraction from Mozilla, vs. the countless others from Google, or Facebook, or whatever. It wasn't a good move, it also wasn't as bad as people make it out to be, and it's defeinitely better than any competition.
It was a breach of trust, but there was no privacy infraction.