Give me one good reason not to use it

mom why are you posting here

>>56445902
they sell your browser history to third parties

You don't need it.

>>56445902
Read their updated TOS

it's spyware

Some of the worst detection rates in the industry.

What's the best alternative? I use AVG, Malwarebytes, and Common Sense 2016 and have never had a problem.

>>56445916
Proof?

>>56446240
>AVG
>Common Sense 2016
Choose one.

>>56445902
don't do it op it creates mustard gas

>>56448405
Yeah never had a problem because it doesn't detect them

>>56445902
Depends.

Do you share your computer with idiots?
Are you a soccer mom?
Do you double click on shady shit?
Is NoScript "too complicated"?

Then you should use it.

Linux. There you go op.

Useless bloeated shit
If you need an AV use Avira instead

maybe if this was 2008

no bruh, avg is kill

bitdefender

I've heard AVG has pretty shit detection rates. I've been jumping between avast and avira. Used to use malwarebytes along with it, but kinda stopped using it since I realized I don't need that much security when I have common sense.

>>56446240
That's not true at all, in fact AVG has one of the best detection rates of any antivirus

Check av-comparatives, etc.

>>56450367
AVG actually has one of the best detection rates

>>56450609
>>56450599
maybe if it didnt have a shitload of false positives that would mean something

Avast bought AVG like 2 months ago. AVG will run on Avast's core, so there will be little to no differences in detection rates.

>>56448538
http://www.avg.com/gb-en/privacy?A#how-do-you-collect-my-data

>>56445902
snake oil

>>56445902
GNU/LInux
Hosts-File
Stop browsing fucking sites.

Ran without any av for 3 years now baka

File: av.png (436KB, 782x1013px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 782x1013px

>>56446240
>>56450642
Based on what?