I make no claims that commercial VPNs are more secure, but at least they have some level of interest in keeping their promises if people are paying them, whereas a free service does not carry the same incentive.
Pick your poison, I guess.
Cool, sounds like an organization that is heavily incentivized to make their communication hard to intercept and eavesdrop on.
They also haven't had any influence or control in the development of todays tor project that has existed for over 20 years and despite a massive amount of attacks and research there has never been found anything.
That does not mean there aren't serious drawbacks that are more worth pointing out such as why bother with a very complex and noisy backdoor when you can just covertly create enough nodes to do traffic correlation.
Winner winner chicken dinner.
FVEY's annual budget is $1.7bn + $1bn + $122mm (NZ :3) + $4.6bn + $classified billion.
You think those guys can't mount a Sybil attack against https://metrics.torproject.org/ ?!
And 50% of the time it works every time...
A lot of things simply don't work if you're using tor. You get blocked, you get blacklisted, accounts get terminated, and so on.
Google Search comes to mind as the most Tor-hostile website though, and that allows Mullvad just fine.
but if a website is working on mullvad and not on tor and you are forced to use that website , then yes compromise your opsec a little bit I suppose
so I would argue that tor + mullvad is still a worse opsec than tor and it still has roughly the same / slightly worse speed with tor.
but I would also argue that tor + mullvad is a better model than obscura + mullvad for opsec but not for speed.
TLDR: Don't use tor with vpn's unless you are forced to (like website block , because then you are kind of forced to reduce your opsec a little bit)