LibreWolf.
“The browser built to be yours”
Hahaha sure thing Google
“The browser built to be piping your data into our hands”
There, fixed.
I’m in the process of switching to firefox on all my devices.
I’ve had enough of Google pushing features like this.
Having ublock on mobile is such a breath of fresh air. I wish I had made the transition sooner. I knew this was coming and completed my transition a few weeks back so I could abandon Chrome on my own time table and not on Google’s. Other than a little headache trying to find extension replacements for pc, I’m LOVING it.
I switched from Chrome to Firefox in 2019 because that’s when Google adopted Manifest V3 and I never looked back. There were already articles then describing how it’d break ad blockers, and Firefox had at the time just recently released their “Quantum” overhaul which drastically improved responsiveness.
I’m a bit surprised it took five years for Google to drop support for Manifest V2, but the threat has long been there.
I use Firefox as my main on my home pc. I keep running into things that don’t work on Firefox. Not by saying they don’t, just by throwing errors that make it sound like I put the wrong data in a field. Is there some magic extension to fix that?
I remember the Quantum release. They remade how the browser handled tabs, and with the new release you could handle (almost) unlimited number of tabs. I tried this buy opening as many tabs as I could, it worked flawlessly. I can’t even remember how it was before that, except that it was RAM intensive.
Simple solution. Don’t use Chrome.
Ive been testing out ungoogled chrome with uBlock, and it still seems to be working. But I think I’m going to add Waterfox along side of my Firefox to look at that one also.
But I’m also not sure you can install uBlock anymore from the Chrome repository either.
I imagine most of us here already don’t use Google Chrome, but I’ll be spending some time proselytizing on the behalf of Mozilla for Firefox with the folks I run across.
FirefoxLibrewolf
Huh… I couldn’t tell with all the Firefox I use.
Huh… So you’re not using the product the article is referring to?
No I use u-block origin. The very product the article is referring to.
I just use it in Firefox so I am completely unaffected by this.
It’s a great feel.
It’s about Chrome. Using Firefox is unrelated to the article.
It’s about uBlock Origin not working on chrome.
So what does Firefox have anything to do with it then?
Nothing…
Weird. You spent 3 days defending Firefox for an article that has nothing to do with Firefox… You just wanted to say Firefox for some weird reason…
Is ublock origin still operable for YouTube? Could this be related?
As long as chromium keeps it I’m fine. I use edge, why should I bother with downloading another browser when the one it comes with is identical?
The reason you’re utilizing edge is valid, but why not use Firefox?
I pulled the plug on allowing chrome user agents on my domain.
Granted its tiny but I’m making people switch.
This is the juncture.
P.s. yes I know the cavaets all my services work fine tyvm.
404 Ethics not found. Go be evil elsewhere.
Has a nice ring to it. Though google deserves their own special fuck-you http status. Maybe we can crack the 600s
1xx: hold on
2xx: here you go
3xx: go away
4xx: you fucked up
5xx: I fucked up
6xx: Google fucked up666 doing evil
With Google providing 80% of Mozilla’s finding, I think we can all see whats going to happen next.
I feel like this isn’t talked about enough. Sure
just use Firefox
But for how long is it gonna work that way until they too deprecate v2
Don’t worry. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Personally I feel like I’m too addicted to Youtube (and Reddit, which is what brought me back here), so if I can’t block ads, perhaps I’ll be able to quit. To be honest though, even just disabling watch history and reducing subscriptions makes a massive difference to how addictive it is.
I’m more worried that sites will start to demand it for “security purposes”.
It will be either of those two. The effort required to circumvent the restrictions will get increasingly higher. As someone fittingly said a few days ago. Let the 1984 commence.
They’re the only alternative for now.
The Google payments were never guaranteed for Mozilla. If they didn’t have a backup plan in place to reduce spending, that’s on them. Let Mozilla return to its garage opensource roots.
Firefox downloads a spike by 30 million. Will be the next headline.
One would hope but nothing much will change in reality.
Followed by shocked pikachu face.
Although searches for Firefox only ticked up slightly.
This was the plan all along
We should all probably start donating to Firefox. Isn’t Google their main source of income?
There might come a time when they prefer to gut Firefox, forcing Mozilla to either reject uBlock Origin or die (or they could simply pull the plug on funding knowing they’ll earn more when people go back to Chrome-based browsers)
If they can pay 5-8 milion the CEO while laying off employees, they do not need donations.
Possibly when the US government decides to break Google up next week.
You’re absolutely right, ~80% of Mozilla’s revenue is from Google’s paying to be the default search engine in Firefox - and the US is going after Google for it’s anticompetitive behaviors as we speak. Ad blocking aside, Mozilla is going to need help pretty soon anyways if Google gets their monopoly broken up.
Screw the mozilla foundation. My only hope at this point is that Ladybird or one of the other projects produces something viable one of these days.
Mozilla still does pretty good without any donations, and your donations will most definitely not be spent on Firefox.
Mozilla still does pretty good without any donations
because Google pays them so that they keep offering Google as the default search engine. now that Google has been declared a monopoly, they might not be allowed to do that anymore, which means Mozilla loses its funding.
Mozilla’s funding did mostly consist of the Google partnership (86%), but as you can see, it’s not their only source of income. And you really don’t need half a fucking billion just to develop a web browser, which is open source, which also gets community contributions. This is made pretty obvious by their current revenue (>$1,000,000,000) and their CEO’s whopping $5.6 million salary.
Don’t donate to a shitty for-profit that masks itself with their non-profit company. Instead donate to something like Ladybird, whom are currently in early development but have no plans on adding features that actively spy on you (FakeSpot, Pocket), and they don’t need $500 fucking million to develop a web browser.
And if you’re going to talk about Mozilla’s social work, just don’t. I’ve already seen it.
You have zero idea how much engineering it takes to create a standards compliant engine and then maintain it. “And you don’t need half a fucking billion just to develop a web browser”. Technically this is true if you are willing to use someone else’s web engine. Firefox aren’t doing that, and it requires huge investment to maintain their own engine. There is a reason only large companies these days (Apple, Google, Mozilla) have their own engines. The actual browser part is tiny compared to the engine. We are talking about something the size of the Linux kernel or bigger, that gets far less contributions from outside sources. It actually makes perfect sense they are looking at starting other projects when you think that all other companies that do this kind of work need those other projects to remain profitable. Web engine development from my understanding does not pay. You get almost the same amount of money using somebody else’s engine as you do developing your own, yet one costs way more.
The fact Mozilla manages to maintain a better web engine than Apple’s WebKit only from Google’s advertising money is actually incredible. Did I mention Apple didn’t even start that engine themselves? It’s based on KHTML. Chrome is in turn a WebKit derivative. Firefox on the other hand actually comes from Netscape, and was first developed under the name Mozilla based on Netscape’s code. So Mozilla has put in more work than Google in modernising their engine.
Thank you. Yes, they are also developing their own web engine, which is a very complicated piece of software because of the current sad state of the web. But it doesn’t excuse any of the things I mentioned, and web engine development still doesn’t suckle up that much money as we can see from their current revenue and other efforts to make an independent web engine such as Ladybird.
I do not mind Mozilla starting other projects, but if you’re talking about FakeSpot or Pocket which are getting integrated into the “more private alternative to browsers like Internet Explorer, and now Chrome” by the “non-profit” whom “prioritize people and their privacy over profits”, I think you need to take a look at those privacy policies I linked in my previous comment.
I agree with you on your last paragraph, but there are some things I’m bothered with. Mozilla is (or was) a company that focused on one thing, their web browser. Apple and Google are (and were) different, in that they have a vast range of products to maintain. And Gecko is most definitely inferior to Blink in terms of speed, although I’m not familiar with any of their “modernity”.
other efforts to make an independent web engine such as Ladybird.
Notice the word efforts here. No one has actually succeeded yet despite multiple attempts, some even by Mozilla themselves like Servo. Ladybird is not a fully functioning browser yet. Are they anywhere even close yet? Even if they are close it also has to be fast. Google and Mozilla have spent quite a bit of time, money, and effort making their JavaScript engines as fast as possible.
I will have a look at some of the links you have given, but honestly I think most criticism thrown at Mozilla isn’t anything close to what the alternatives are guilty of, and is mostly done by conspiracy nuts. The kind of people were Mastodon and Lemmy is their only social media, and refuse to own a modern smartphone that isn’t running custom firmware.
Ladybird is fairly new. Just like how Mozilla didn’t get Gecko to this point in 1 year, Ladybird will take years of development to become a reliable browser and browser engine.
I pretty much agree with you. The alternatives are far worse. Seeing Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge being literal spyware, other Chromium-based browsers cutting out support for content-blocking extensions Firefox is vastly superior to them in terms of privacy. Although that still doesn’t mean Firefox is good, at least if we’re past talking about web browser engines etc., using another Firefox-based browser which is less bloated (Firefox Sync off by default, no Pocket, no recommendations in Addons tab), more privacy-friendly (all telemetry off by default, uBlock Origin installed by default, some hardening options from about:config enabled by default) seems to be the best choice currently, since other options like GNOME’s Epiphany and KDE’s Falkon sucks, if we’re being honest.
And I do kind of fit your description, if we exclude being a conspiracy-theorist.
Oh also the devs behind Ladybrid are apparently against anyone who isn’t male using their technology. People tried to change masculine pronouns in the documentation to neutral pronouns just to be more grammatically accurate, and it started a whole chain of GitHub arguments arguing the change is “political”. Apparently it’s political not to imply that every computer user is a man.
There are many software from bigots and shitheads that still get used, being seperated from their creator (e.g. Hyprland, I guess you can put here some social media platforms like Xitter if we’re not only talking about open-source software). Although I prefer not using or supporting such software, I’ve not been able to find what you’re talking about. I’ve tried searching “ladybird pronoun controversy (forgive my search engine skills)” and other similar sentences but nothing really related pops up, so it would be great if you told me your source. Thank you!
I’ve read the one for fakespot. Given what it’s designed to do then having your purchase history makes perfect sense. How else are they meant to make recommendations? If you really have a problem just don’t use that service. The only real criticism here is the name doesn’t imply they also make product recommendations. Nevertheless they explain that on the website.
I have skimmed the pocket one, and as far as I can tell they aren’t doing anything dodgy. Keeping information only to provide the service, and some anonymised analytics to see how it’s actually being used. The later is needed to direct development effort.
In summary: Not everyone is out to get you. Some information is needed to provide services.
Edit: sorry for there different comments, wanted to come back and do more research before I finished making a statement.
Okay, what does a sweepstake or a contest have to do with a browser extension, made to spot fake reviews. Trade shows? What?
I did take a look at this privacy policy before to check if the extension was worth installing, but holy fuck I didn’t see that.
And they collect a lot of things, supposedly “automatically”. I have never developed a browser extension, but does the browser force this information on the extension? Do they just look at their data collection and find the geolocation of their users, how they accessed the extension download page, browser specifics etc.?
They also sell your “automatically collected” geolocation data, “internet or other electronic network activity”, “inferences drawn from other personal information to create a profile about a consumer”, and “commercial information”. I’ve quoted the three data selling points I really don’t understand, since their “descriptions” aren’t very descriptive. But if we are to fully trust the lawful descriptions they provided, I hope the extension stays at 40,000 users really.
Yeah, no problem at all. This is a lot better than people downvoting and not actually talking about what they disagree on. Felt like r/apple.
Reading it again, Pocket’s privacy policy is actually not that bad. Thankfully it was not one of those 100 page ones that are made to confuse the shit out of consumers, but I have a slight problem with it.
“Personalized Advertising: Some Pocket web pages have ads. With your consent, Pocket’s ad partners will place advertising cookies on your device to personalize the ads you see here and on other websites.”
How does this consent exactly work? Is it just a simple check you have to tick in your account settings, or is it one of those cookie banners that require you to untick 800 advertising partners to “not give consent”? I’m not exactly a Pocket user so I’m a bit ignorant about it.
Though there doesn’t seem to be another privacy concern with Pocket. It seems I had misconceptions about their practices.
The one other problem I have with Pocket though is, it’s not a feature that should be in a browser, it should be an extension. They have already made a lot of extensions for features that not all of the userbase might need, even FakeSpot is currently an extension (approximately 40,000 users). I guess this is a whole another argument though.
I will write my thoughts about FakeSpot in another reply.
If you have anything to say against the things I have said, please follow these instructions; stop downvoting, slowly take your mouth off of Mozilla’s balls, and try to actually engage in a constructive conversation on why the things I said were wrong.
This is what drives me mad about Mozilla. Let me donate to Firefox! I don’t want to donate to another hairbrained idea to “diversify your revenue streams” - I want to donate to Firefox.
As I’ve said many times before, Firefox would be better off as an opencollective-driven, smaller (50-ish) team, with code on Codeberg, than driven by a 600 strong org who needs to compete with SF salaries and fancy offices. They have become Google by another name and it ain’t healthy.
I actually think it’s a good thing they are seeking other income sources. After all Google is both their competitor and main income source while being under investigation by the government. Firefox barely manages to keep up with Chrome as-is. Nevermind if they had a team a fraction of its current size. It’s just not really practical for a project this size and scope to have a small plucky team. It needs a big organisation of some kind behind it. Ideally one like Google or Microsoft who can pull income from more profitable projects to pay for better browser engineering. It’s also needed so they can have a say in web standards. An organisation like that also has more ways to make money from their browser like with ChromeOS and Android. Firefox actually tried to make their own smartphone OS, to be honest I am annoyed they didn’t succeed. It would have given us a real alternative to Android while giving them needed income.
LibreWolf exists, and is already on Codeberg. If and when push comes to shove, they may stop depending on Firefox altogether.
I like LibreWolf! But while they may be the natural successor to a folded Firefox, they would need to beef up dramatically to actually be the stewards of the codebase. Right now they do a good job at removing stuff, but setting a direction for a browser than zings with users requires a fully fledged product org.
Firefox is caught between those two worlds.
Fair take. I agree 👍
Your money is honestly better spent donating to new efforts like Ladybird or Servo.
Is Servo independent of Mozilla now? It’s instructive how much they swayed when Mozilla cut them away, but seems they’ve found a new team to steward it.
Ladybird I hadn’t heard of so thank you for the suggestion. I’ll check them out.
I really couldn’t agree more.
Stallman was right.
who
It’s a very searchable name
It’s pronounced GNU Stallman.
I can’t listen or look at this man anymore after seeing him scrape shit off his feet and eat it in front of a bunch of people. 🤢
He has went on record multiple times saying having sex with children or family pets is fine. Eating his foot gunk is the least of my issues with him.
That said, when it comes to warning about software, he was pretty bang-on.
How is it that you’re so well-versed in all of Stallman’s negative quotes (from over a decade ago), yet conveniently omitted the fact that he later retracted those statements?
On September 16, 2019, Stallman announced his resignation from both MIT and FSF, “due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations”.[124] In a post on his website, Stallman asserted that his posts to the email lists were not to defend Epstein, stating "Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve called him a ‘serial rapist’, and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him—and other inaccurate claims—and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said.
The FSF board on April 12 made a statement re-affirming its decision to bring back Richard Stallman.[133] Following this, Stallman issued a statement explaining his poor social skills and apologizing.[134]
Those issues are ones that it’s hard to just walk back with a mea culpa, especially when the apology comes precisely when it starts to impact your career.
Stallman spends decades publicly-championing adult-child sexual relations on his personal blog and using his work email address.
Stallman later comes under fire for strange comments about Epstein’s underage girls/clients. Some people say he should step down, as his poor image jeopardises the effectiveness of the FSF.
2 days later, Stallman has a sudden change of heart. Child/adult sexual relations are wrong. Children can’t consent.
Some Linux nerds: “see, he’s changed his mind, he’s a different man!”
How ready people are to treat celebrities as deity-like figures is scary to me. Just because Stallman has some great FOSS credentials doesn’t mean he can’t be a total POS in other areas. People bend over backwards to defend him as some saint who can do no wrong, even to the extent of trivialising child rape. It’s scary what a bit of celebrity worship can get people to do.
You mean when he had an epiphany and changed his mind 2 days after his job became under fire?
Gee, I dunno. Maybe because it was a clear last-ditch effort to save his job, rather than because he genuinely went from his decades-held (and publicly-championed) view that sex with children is ok to sex with children is rape, by sheer coincidence, 2 days after people started requesting he step down over Epstein comments?
It was about as convincing a statement from Stallman as when Zuckerberg says he cares about privacy.
Do you genuinely believe him when he says he changed his mind? It’s an awfully convenient timing, even you would have to admit.
And can I also ask - are you only looking favourably at him because you like him? If Andrew Tate, just before his court case, came out and said that his views on women are wrong and he doesn’t believe that stuff anymore, would you believe him? It seems to me that you’re likely sweeping Stallman being pro-childrape under the rug, because he happens to have cool ideals when it comes to software.
Well, this was quite a ride. I’ve spent far too long thinking about this than I’d like to admit, so I’m just going to cut it off here and see how it goes. My apologies in advance if it’s a bit incoherent, but I to be succinct, yes, I stand by RMS because I think he’s a special character and worthy of further consideration than most other people. If you’d like to understand why, well then read on…
You mean when he had an epiphany and changed his mind 2 days after his job became under fire?
I think you’re being a bit uncharitable. He was fired by the FSF, then hired again a couple months later. There was plenty of time for reflection between that period. And I think it’s safe to say that the many people that support his ideals had discussions with him, and hopefully educated him on why many of the things he said was wrong, and why many of the things he thought were misguided, and how they could have caused harm.
Gee, I dunno. Maybe because it was a clear last-ditch effort to save his job, rather than because he genuinely went from his decades-held (and publicly-championed) view that sex with children is ok to sex with children is rape, by sheer coincidence, 2 days after people started requesting he step down over Epstein comments?
RMS has always had terrible social skills and a terrible inability to understand other people’s emotions. He has always thought other people are like him, and think and act and feel the same way he does to everything in the world. He hasn’t (or hadn’t) yet realized that not everyone is like that.
But perhaps after talking with others and learning about it, he decided to change his mind and his ways. So yes, I think it’s entirely plausible that’s what happened, similar to how Linus Torvalds did when he realized he needed to calm down his tone on the LKML.
I’m not telling you what to believe and people are free to believe whatever makes them happy. But personally, I think my proposal is far more realistic. RMS has always been a man of principle, so if you think he would just forget all of his principles for a few moments to get a job, then I don’t know what to tell you.
It was about as convincing a statement from Stallman as when Zuckerberg says he cares about privacy.
I don’t think these are comparable. Zuckerberg has a very well-vested conflict of interest when it comes to safe-guarding privacy. I don’t think RMS’s beliefs on paedophilia influence or affect his opinions on Free Software in any way whatsoever, regardless of whether he works for the FSF or not.
Do you genuinely believe him when he says he changed his mind? It’s an awfully convenient timing, even you would have to admit.
Sure, I could admit that - I could imagine nobody would want to have to explain to him why paedophilia is wrong, but maybe when people realized how important he was to the Free Software movement, they realized how urgent and crucial it was to make him understand these things. I can easily see why it didn’t happen earlier than that.
So yes, people do change their ways. I myself have evolved a great deal over my lifetime and have no reason to believe that others can’t as well. Has RMS gone back to championing his old pro-paedophilia talking points now that he’s back working for the FSF? How should one interpret that?
And can I also ask - are you only looking favourably at him because you like him?
I’ve met Richard once and he was a very kind and interesting person. But that said, I wouldn’t want to be around him any more than that, and a few other people I’ve met have said the same. Interpret that how you will. You are attacking me of showing bias and favoritism, but I think you’re just projecting your negative bias against him and getting angry because you want to pretend that the other side of the story doesn’t exist, or that there are less nefarious ones than what you’d like to believe. Maybe it sounds like I’m defending him - to an extent, I am - but I think it’s more important to make it clear that the situation in this particular instance could be a lot more nuanced because RMS clearly is a very different kind of person from you and me.
If Andrew Tate…
I have no clue who that is and I honestly don’t care.
But what really makes a difference to me, and why I would put RMS is a separate category, is honesty and integrity. I happen to think RMS might be one of the most honest people on the planet. Have you seen his commitment to Free Software? Have you seen how much software he’s written and how much of his life he’s dedicated to his cause? Have you read the hoops he goes through like the kinds of computers he uses, in order to live by his principles?
Can you honestly tell me that it’s all just a farce that he would give up for one measly job???
So yes, I think your accusations are way off base; I would side with you 99% of the time if we were talking about someone else, but given RMS’s demeanor and the kind of person he is, I think it’s pretty easy to see that he falls in the .001% of the population where you have to give him an honest second chance.
I don’t think the fact that he is a very… special person can be denied. I think it’s pretty clear that RMS is a very different kind of person, and I don’t in any way excuse his behaviors. But he thinks that what he says about Free Software shouldn’t be discounted because of how he feels about other things, and he’s right. That’s just an ad-hominem fallacy. Maybe that logic doesn’t appeal to the masses, but to people who understand why Free Software is important, we should still be able to make that distinction.
It seems to me that you’re likely sweeping Stallman being pro-childrape under the rug, because he happens to have cool ideals when it comes to software.
To an extent, yes, unfortunately. And it’s not because I agree with any of those stupid things he used to believe. It’s more because I don’t want to talk about RMS. What’s really more important is Free Software.
What really gets me angry is that we can’t have conversations about the importance of Free Software anymore without people talking about child rape. Yes, it’s unfortunate, and I think if RMS knew that his comments would have had such a negative effect on the Free Software movement, he probably wouldn’t have said them. And it is painfully obvious that he did not know this of course - he’s the kind of person who doesn’t yet realize that not everybody in the world is like him, and does not realize that people will attack how you feel about one thing because you may have reprehensible view about other things.
So I really wish we could keep discussions about Free Software about that, because otherwise, we are enabling the Googles and Facebooks and Twitters of the world to distract our attentions while they steal our creations and liberties to make us digital peons. I think we do a great disservice by having this conversation every time RMS comes up.
Post the link to him saying that having sex with children is okay
“The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”
RMS on June 28th, 2003
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006
"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
You can find these on Stallman’s blog, which I believe is Stallman.org iirc. Just go to the dates I provided.
Yeah, necrophilia is fine as long as both parties are consenting.
When one of the parties objects, that is when the fun starts :D
I cannot find any of this on his blog, why didn’t you just link to his blog?
I did link to his blog… It’s stallman.org
I said from there you can go to the dates I provided.
I don’t wish to be rude, but do you really need this hand-holding? It took me less than 10 seconds to find a specific link to the first quote, for example:
https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
Stallman being pro-paedophila is not new information.
You pasted the domain not an actual blog post link. And you’re the one making these claims about him on a forum, does it really surprise you when someone asks for the source? Sorry you had to google something.
Too bad he spent all his energy getting Linux users to say GNU/Linux instead of talking about the real issues
Just because that’s all you ever listened to doesn’t mean that’s all he ever said.
I miss the “dont be evil” version of google. Its like, large amounts of money ruin everything
It’s not just large amounts of money. It’s chasing more and more money each quarter, and when it starts slowing down panic sets in and they start trying to find any and every possible avenue to keep profits up. It’s how we’ve ended up in subscription based hell and it’ll only get worse.
