it's good. think of it like adding a different kind of lock that requires a different key (method) to open up first. at worst it's no less secure than before. If it works as intended it's a huge disincentive for anyone collecting encrypted data with the hopes that a quantum computer may break encryption the "old" method in the future.
on mobile so can't provide source but look up why privacy badger no longer uses a dynamic "learned" list of trackers to block, the way you mention safari works and instead uses a list that everyone else uses. it basically reduces privacy because your list of blocked sites is likely to be unique among other users (along with other data points) and unintuitively makes it easier to track you across the web.
>By default, Privacy Badger receives periodic learning updates from Badger Sett, our Badger training project. This “remote learning” automatically discovers trackers present on thousands of the most popular sites on the Web. Privacy Badger no longer learns from your browsing by default, as “local learning” may make you more identifiable to websites. You may want to opt back in to local learning if you regularly browse less popular websites.
Huh an interesting issue to have to deal with. I'm not sure it makes it easier to track you in practice, though I can see in theory it could absolutely work, so if you did have the choice of have a static block list it would be better.
That said, my point stands that the bigger "reputable" trackers (e.g. the ones that exist on basically every website) are all blocked by the learned trackers techniques, and so should be listed as blocked on that site.
