This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I took the liberty of reading the article but I'm gonna say the title is quite... tendentious. Makes it sound like it's yet another one of those FUD / nutjob clickbait that have been coming at the privacy community for a few days with sensationalist titles such as "The CIA will stop funding Signal" (never has been) or "FBI wants to sell Wikipedia" (never has been).
What is going on?
EDIT: Cosmic Cleric has provided the definition of "tendentious", which I have linked.
Your adroit incorporation of the term “tendentious” exemplifies lexical virtuosity. Impressive articulation. Truly seamless weaving of a sesquipedalian polysyllabic term.
Someone call 911, I think I'm having some kind of medical issue with how this post looks.
Horrific but strategically inevitable, switch to chromium engine, and do your own privacy related fork . Like all the other browsers.
fork
what if google chrome decided to close the fork by changing the license to something restructive, i mean the fork can goes on for a little while but we are still depending on the resources of a Big $$ corporation....
firefox is the only way for a free web....
Then they'd be alienating the open source community that makes a lot of contributions (though much of chromium is still essentially built internally). They also wouldn't be able to lock down the code that's already been released under the more permissive BSD license.
Now, a fork of Chromium is its own beast. Some searching shows that just to build it takes 30 minutes on a decent workstation. It's huge, which makes me think it's the kind of project that could only really be maintained by a large company. Not necessarily a Google sized company, but a large one nonetheless if you seriously want to remove the dependency on Google.
EDIT: turns out it's Chrome that takes that long to build, which includes things not in Chromium like Widevine, licensed codecs, telemetry, sync, that kind of thing.
redacted
