I agree the claim requires more evidence and it would be foolish to just take it at face value, but even if my intuition told me it was intrinsically safe I wouldn’t place any degree of trust in my own logical conclusions, or discount someone else’s warnings, however spurious.

The burden of proof should never be on the accuser when it comes to safety, in my opinion, or anything else of public concern. And the standard of proof should be higher to show that everything’s ok than to show that it’s not. At least in an ideal world.

I mean, it sounds like you’re saying, “I don’t know how it can be dangerous, therefore it’s not dangerous.”

Both perspectives are defensible. The question could be interpreted generally on its own, or in the context of OP’s new-user experience. Personally I would lean towards the latter, but that makes an assumption that the] look

God I hate camping

Hot take: their browser is good.