Fox yeah that makes sense. Firefox has lots of settings that when enabled will protect you, but when an average user reads that Firefox is the best option for protecting their privacy they won't even bother on wasting their time changing their settings. It takes lots of time and knowledge to do that. I love Firefox as a browser, but you're right. It isn't the best option for privacy for the average user.
On the other hand, I don't mind if they don't block certain features by default. Obviously they are there for a reason and it's the user's responsibility to educate and protect themselves. From my perspective Mozilla's responsibility is just to make everything transparent, easy to configure and understand. I think they've been doing a decent job in this sense. Is like protecting your home, you can't have the police or some other entity there doing that job 24/7 for you. You have to use your common sense and educate yourselves to learn on how to do it.
Anyways, I've come to the conclusion that for the average user the best option son far is Brave. The transition is really easy for people since it's pretty much the same experience they have with Chrome and it has a bunch of privacy settings enabled by default. So I find it very easy to convince friends and family to switch to Brave.
Regardless, my question was mostly focused on the different methods for RFP.
- Brave uses randomization, and works great by providing strong protection.
- Firefox doesn't randomize the values. Instead it normalizes them so your browser has the most standard values out there. This works, but when testing the protection it usually doesn't rank as high as Brave.
Why wouldn't Firefox use the randomization method. Which also eventually allows for better user experience, since you wouldn't have to worry that much about using certain add-ons or features (like exposing the system color scheme).