With FF, Its easy to pass your threshold and come back using chrome. So, FF, by being so lazy and inefficient, kinda betrays all these people who advertise FF to others as privacy friendly browser.
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
-48 points (31.2% liked)
Privacy
31993 readers
439 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Come back?
I've been using FF since before chrome was a thing. There's no "coming back" to chrome.
I only use chrome if absolutely necessary, which is incredibly rare.
I meant general user who seeks comfort experience. Chrome is beautiful, well and actively developed, thoughtful, and gives a smooth experience to user in compare to Firefox. Though, it's not good for privacy. The same case with all big techs products.
This is only anecdotal, but I did go back (and stayed!) on Firefox due to the comfort and experience. When I use edge at work I miss a lot some features and usability of Firefox, very rarely I miss something of edge/chrome while on Firefox.
You can apply a chrome or Safari theme to Firefox, if its the looks you don't like.
I was all ready to roll my eyes at yet another attempt to blame all the Firefox problems on one thing or another based on superficial and emotional considerations without any data or serious analysis, but it turns out it's just the same video from a few months ago being posted yet again.
Criticizing this video for emotional arguments doesn't make sense. It lays down statistics, quotes privacy policies, and chips at the way Mozilla uses emotional arguments in its marketing. And I've seen many Firefox people simply argue "the CEO deserves to be paid well" and "Firefox is the last bastion of the open web" - arguments that I myself have at least semi agreed with, which means I might have proclivity to emotion myself.
So if there's a problem... Can you cite specific examples in the video?
I criticized the video last time it turned up in my feed. I don't feel it's worth doing again. The former over-paid CEO has since departed from that post, FYI.
She switched places with another CEO that promptly fired even more workers, yes.
Can you link to your critiques? I looked for them on your behalf and found three other posts of this video, but no comments from you on them.
I dunno, it might've been on mastodon. It's not as if I said anything that's likely to change your mind if you think this video is interesting and insightful. I'm not going to watch it again, but I remember it well enough to say that the only real questions it raises are that of how it got so many views and why it is still doing the rounds so many months later. It misses the mark. Stop to consider it carefully and I've no doubt you'll find for yourself much better things to say about the real problems at Mozilla.
I have carefully considered the arguments. Perhaps I have even contributed to them indirectly. I find them to be incredibly legitimate and in dire need of Mozilla's action.
I'm kind of surprised your comment on this post got so much attention because it says so little; it should be dismissed out of hand as purely rhetorical IMO.
Yup but people dont read to the end of the thread
Indeed my comment seems unworthy of as much attention as you've given it. But you obviously care a great deal about the subject, so I suppose you must've noticed that in general much of the rhetorical abuse directed at Mozilla is even more unfair. I suppose it's because people like to look for easy targets.
There are definitely bad actors who have "Mozilla must fall" ideology, like Brian Lunduke (who gets one hell of a shout-out in this video despite doing nothing but reposting already publicly accessible documents and speculating about them). Lunduke is clearly ideologically biased and doesn't care about whether things are true or false as long as his statements back up his personal agenda.
But the flip side to this is the "Mozilla mustn't fall" arguments that dismiss all criticism of Mozilla and insist that continued compromise (throwing money at every shiny new object, overpaying the CEO, cutting jobs, ignoring their officially stated principles) is necessary for Mozilla to survive, as if survival in itself is a valuable end goal.
And I don't think it is. A Mozilla that abandons its founding principles would be about as bad as a Mozilla that has ceased to exist entirely. We aren't there yet, but it's a death by a thousand cuts.
Ah I see, you mistook me for one of those "Mozilla can do no wrong" people. Yeah they're pretty annoying too.
My own explanation for why Firefox market share is down would primarily consist of two things: 1. Abuse by Google and Microsoft of their monopoly power in other markets to push their browsers, and 2. A long list of individually small product design decisions that slowly eroded its reputation over the years.
Google's influence on all web browsers (including Firefox) would definitely remain a constant even if Mozilla wasn't accepting money from them. Which is also why I have no problem with Mozilla accepting money from them. It's not the first time a company in fear of becoming a monopoly just threw money at a competitor; Microsoft did it with Apple.
The whole FakeSpot thing to me reads like a company pursuing new things on multiple levels. Back in 2022, FakeSpot was trying to get into NFT verification, and they only added the "with AI" label onto their product recently (with no changes I could detect). And given Mozilla's willingness to shift from random project to random project, I'm not excited about what this AI shift is going to do by early 2025.
Related: Mozilla's Biggest AI moments, published January 31 2024, may not age well
The world is full of surprises!
You never know what new to expect from old
The video is probably factually correct, but very disingenuous with its interpretations and conclusions imo.
Of course Mozilla and Firefox have their own share of problems and bad decisions, and they are pretty well known and talked about from what I've seen, but equating it to Google and Chrome is just pure cynicism. Mozilla having to earn money somehow (1% donations!) and Google trying to maximize profits at all costs is not the same thing, even if it might look similar sometimes.
Yes, the result is: FF is the only thing we have. I tried to manually ungoogle Chromium, it sucks. Brave is shady, Vivaldi too.
Use Torbrowser, Librewolf, Arkenfox, Mullvadbrowser and contribute and donate.
What makes Vivaldi shady?
AFAIK, just that it isn't fully open source. It is source available however, but that's not the same. It's sad that they dont go through with it as Vivaldi is by far the most feature rich browser out there.
Go to hell Mozilla. I couldn't care less if your browser fails at this point.
Amen. I use Firefox, but not because it's great or anything. It's just because Chrome/Chromium is worse in just about every aspect I care about. Seriously, I hope Mozilla dies so that it can be reborn by a different org that gives a fuck about browsers, because Mozilla sure as hell doesn't.
Mozilla only wants that sweet Google money they get paid to be the only "mainstream" alternative (500 million dollars per year). They could make the greatest opensource alternative browser and experience out there with that money, but instead they pay their CEO at least 5 million a year.
Fuck Mozilla.
Seriously, I hope Mozilla dies so that it can be reborn by a different org that gives a fuck about browsers, because Mozilla sure as hell doesn’t.
And why do you think that would happen as opposed to Chromium just becoming the only browser engine available?
Why do you think Google is keeping Firefox alive? Why would the monopoly give even a cent to it's competitor?
To be able to claim they're not a monopoly. But I'm not sure what you're getting at. You want Google to create a new org to compete with Chromium after Mozilla dies? That seems neither realistic nor something to hope for.
To be able to claim they’re not a monopoly.
Precisely. They are afraid of being perceived as a monopoly because of the consequences that come with that. Microsoft suffered it before with Internet Explorer and other products. The US DOJ is currently suing Apple/Malus for monopolistic practices. The EU passed multiple acts against large tech companies this year and has been on their heels for years now.
There currently is no well-funded effort to compete with Chome/Chromium that seriously cares about dethroning it. Were that to disappear, even the illusion of competition would too and suddenly Google's direct siphon of private data could become the focus of 2 major economic regions.
You want Google to create a new org to compete with Chromium after Mozilla dies?
Nope. It wouldn't help Google at all if they themselves created a new org. Lawyers wouldn't be dumb enough to fall for shadow competition (at least I hope not).
I want a new org to be established by people who actually give a shit about competing with Google, not just sucking on Google's tit and living off of their bare existence.
Check out the Ladybird browser (by the same people making SerenityOS), it's a new browser with its own engine. It's already functional enough for me to use it to post this comment (though it is still in very early development).
I saw that a while ago and two things made me go "nah":
- it's C++ . 70% of CVEs on Chromium are related to C++ and faulty memory management. Google is actively trying to get away from it and these guys are building a brand new browser in it. There's Rust, Go, and probably other memory safe systems programming languages to use for this
- Discord for support - no thanks
I appreciate that it was probably started in 2018 or something when other memory safe programming languages weren't as popular, but it simply isn't for me.
They're building their own memory safe language, Jakt, but it's not mature enough to be used by Ladybird yet. Dismissing it at such an early point for this reason is pretty dumb IMO, especially considering this is by far the most complete alternative browser engine, and it's getting better at a very rapid pace.
You're right about Discord though...
edit: BTW, I'd wager the complexity of Chrome's code base is still largely responsiblefor the introduction of bugs, even if most are of a certain type. Ladybird is extremely simple in comparison.
It really is crazy if you see the hype for the "sovereign tech fund" for GNOME, that was literally just 1mio€.
It is so insane how people can waste so much money.
When donating, nowadays I am often very certain that giving money to homeless people will always be better than giving it random "nonprofit" "charities" that will simply sustain their 1st world lifes as "operation expenses".
I don't remember exactly what i've seen but it's was a research on how many non-profit org and the like you could really trust and it's like 10 for all the thousand there is
Go to hell Mozilla. I couldn’t care less if your browser fails at this point.
I share this sentiment to some point. Mozilla taking millions from Google, and making it difficult for users to DeGoogle or remove the sponsored shortcuts from their Firefox browser. But hard forking Firefox will not be a light weight task for a new project to take on for a long time. I hope the stronger pushing of ads by Google in the Chrome/Chromium browser will make some more people switch back to Firefox.
But hard forking Firefox will not be a light weight task for a new project to take on for a long time.
This is why I'm not hoping for a fork. I'm hoping for the old to die and a new one to be reborn from the ashes of the old one. Mozilla must die in order for Firefox to become great again.
Maybe the firefox developers don't know where to go to, or it would be inconvenient for them to leave. Maybe they just need a new home at a new foundation, that makes it easy and compelling for them to switch. But the death of Mozilla would be a very compelling reason for them to switch.
Maybe the firefox developers don’t know where to go to, or it would be inconvenient for them to leave. Maybe they just need a new home at a new foundation, that makes it easy and compelling for them to switch. But the death of Mozilla would be a very compelling reason for them to switch.
I sincerely hope you're right, and we'll see a new and truly privacy friendly Firefox, and the decay of Google Chrome.
I dont think Mozilla makes degoogling hard. It is very easy to keep track of the changes and simply flip some switches.
But it is of course ironic that their product is useless.
People used Firefox because Internet Explorer sucked. Now they get ads for Chrome everywhere, have Android and whatnot devices, and Edge is working okay.
People are using devices as appliances, they dont expect needing to repair something they bought new.
I dont think Mozilla makes degoogling hard. It is very easy to keep track of the changes and simply flip some switches.
Some switched ? Have you checked all the connections a Firefox browser makes ? In case you didn't know Mozilla push notifications is hosted on a Google server.
Arkenfox, Librewolf, Torbrowser, MullvadBrowser.
Those switches. It is not easy but it is possible, unlike on Chromium, where after applying even policies it constantly pings Google.
Arkenfox, Librewolf, Torbrowser, MullvadBrowser. Those switches.
I stand corrected.
view more: next ›