• ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      105
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Careful, there are some edgy people out there who don’t want to use more than one browser because Firefox doesn’t work with their cameras /s

      Meanwhile, I’ll still be using Firefox too

        • ramble81@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          55
          ·
          2 months ago

          May be bad phrasing, but Firefox doesn’t support h.265 so there’s limitations with streaming video on some camera platforms and other sites.

        • thejml@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          2 months ago

          People who have to use their browser for telehealth and virtual teller banking access.

          Sadly these are also things that require better security.

          • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yup. Firefox doesn’t work for me unfortunately, so I have to maintain Chrome on at least one device for these things

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Hey, member when you always had to have IE for one of “those” sites and it was basically just an awful browser everyone was forced to have like as a legal requirement or something?

              Heh. IE. Then when you’d use it to download firefox it’d say “Nooooo! Wait! I’m teh Best Browser!!” Hahahahah

              IE. Ded.

        • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          People who use Webex, zoom, etc for one use in try browser and don’t normally use those links. Happens at work when an outside vendor doesn’t use what we do.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          I use MS teams for meetings every day at work, in Firefox, in Linux. It’s nice that even the camera works when I need it to.

        • JustARegularNerd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          I do this with Discord and Zoom as an alternative to installing their actual apps. 99% of the functionality is there anyway, and the 1% is stuff I don’t want anyway

        • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s so frustratingly annoying. I primarily use Firefox, but switch to Chrome for specific Google services on my mobile. Once in a while, the search suggests I take a photo? Why?

    • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      55
      ·
      2 months ago

      You say that like they didn’t just remove several other adblock extensions themselves

  • fluckx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What could go wrong when you let an ad company dictate the browser standards/rules.

    I know we have Firefox and some forks like librewolf, but percentage wise it feels like a lost battle ( even if I am on Firefox ).

    If only people switched en masse to Firefox for the ad blocker. Wouldn’t that be something… One big collective FU to Google.

    Oh well. One can dream I guess.

    • SoGrumpy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      The average Joe or Jane have no idea about ad blocking possibilities. They think ads are just the normal price you pay for surfing the web.

      I have even shown people the difference between their browsing experience and mine, and still they can’t be arsed to install an ad-blocker.

      But then again, they use tiktok and Instagram and all the other brain-numbing shit out there.

      • xavier666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They think ads are just the normal price you pay for surfing part of the web

        • downhomechunk@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          My wife didn’t even notice when I turned on the pi-hole. She also told me she thinks there’s a virus on her phone.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I personally wouldn’t mind ads, if they weren’t too obtuse and/or malware ridden.

        I often turn off the adblocker for independent news sites, as theirs are less obtuse and are vetted better than just running an AI to detect nudity and/or slurs.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          By all means bring back the banner and side ads that are just one banner and a couple of side ads. Breaking every paragraph up by two more ads is just a miserable experience. Have you tried to look up a recipe lately? Trying to find a recipe without an ad blocker pisses me off and off that I just give up on the recipe. Even though I know it’s on the page, between the 5,000 word essay trying to convey their nostalgia for the recipe and the 27 different ads that break that 5,000 word essay into 25 pages, I’d rather DDOS them then get the recipe from them.

      • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        They think ads are just the normal price you pay for surfing the web.

        Which is great, offsets us who do use adblocks. It would be awful if majority of users would use adblocks.

    • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      There comes a point where one realizes that those around you cannot be relied upon to leverage solutions. Psychopaths get ahead because they’re willing to play dirty. So much of the world can be summed up as large swaths of population being induced to behave or think certain ways by psychopathic manipulators.

      • Gigasser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Data serves a great role in this. It’s a currency of control.

        Political, social, etc.

        Which is why privacy is so goddamn important.

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    We’ve known this was coming for a while now . . . but I suppose not everyone reads tech news.

  • rickdg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I used to recommend uBlock as a no-brainer, now folks really need to change towards a better browser.

    • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Or get network wide blocking. Doesn’t prevent everything but it does prevent most ads. Makes the internet tolerable at least.

      • qprimed@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        nah, lets get them switched away from chromium based spy machines.

          • qprimed@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            sadly, agreed. mindshare leads to adoption, tho - so putting Firefox in front of more faces is always a positive. after all, its how google dominates.

              • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 months ago

                Wouldn’t a company VPN bypass all that even though you are using your own internet connection to connect to the outside world?

                • kjaeselrek@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Maybe, I guess I don’t know enough to answer that. I do know that being on a company VPN isn’t always a requirement, though.

                  Either way, I’m not trying to argue for one approach to ad blocking over another as a one-size-fits-all solution, I just wanted to point out that it’s possible to have more control over the network than the computer in some cases.

                • kill_dash_nine@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Typically yes, assuming that the company VPN sets DNS to a set of company DNS servers. That is how my company’s works and several others I’ve worked for in the past.

          • shininghero@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Depends on how lax the IT department is when it comes to random executables. I was able to move the firefox installer to the appdata root, and run a non-admin install to my user profile.

      • rickdg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Something like NextDNS as a no-brainer? It works but hits the limit of the free tier if people use it beyond their phone.

        • nfh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          PiHole and a TailScale exit node so you can use it for DNS whether or not you’re on your home network.

          • Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Or a variation of this is TailScale configured to use NextDNS and a TS exit node. That’s for anyone who doesn’t want to maintain a PiHole. I’ve done both. Personal choice.

      • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Pihole is good for a private network, but you can forget it in a work setting, especially corporate networks.

      • abbadon420@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I recommended pihole to my senior webdeveloper. She didn’t know about it and was blown away by the concept. She installed it immediately and is now living happily ad free.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    And what? If someone can live with ads, they can stay. Otherwise anyone can install Firefox. I was all-in Google since the beginning of Gmail. And switching to Firefox was completely painless. Everything works the same, times of website incompatibility are long gone.

      • abbadon420@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve been been a full time Firefox user for three years now. Haven’t experience a single problem like that. Haven’t really experienced any problem at all to be honest

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          2 months ago

          Unfortunately that has not been the case for me. Some sites for buying concert tickets don’t seem to like Firefox.

          I’ve had problems with several Microsoft sites we use internally for work ever since Edge went to Chrome.

          It’s not Firefox’s fault. Mozilla is abiding by web standards.

          • Ghoelian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            2 months ago

            If you find any websites that don’t work with firefox, you should report them to Mozilla. Firefox has a list of known bad websites, and has fixes for them, usually just a user agent override.

          • abbadon420@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I know. My experience with Chrome used to be good too. And we all know what’s up now.

            If Firefox fucks up, I’m fine with abandoning ship and moving on to the next thing. I’m not sure what that would be, but I’m sure I’ll figure that out once we get there.

              • abbadon420@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                That is concerning, but Internet Explorer used to be the only option too. Of course things are different now, but I have faith (for lack of anything else).

                • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  That was for a different reason, though. That was Microsoft forcing you to use their software on something you owned. A website can say, “you have to use chrome to access our site,” and that’s not antitrust behavior on the part of Google.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                There always is a next thing. It’s called Gemini and it has the problem of guys like Google fixed by having a non-extensible standard.

                I’m not joking, too - sometimes even wide masses become practical and just want “no bullshit” Internet publishing. Which Gemini delivers.

                But - would be interesting to have something like Gemini, but serverless.

            • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Thats the thing.

              There is basically no alternative. Firefox exists on the mercy of google which is its biggest donor.

              There are very few attempts at a truly open source browser and neither can tackle the biggest problem, which is google pushing websites to adopt their standards, weaponizing ad income to guarantee compliance.

              Currently more then 80% of internet users have a chromium browser while websites creation for many entities is often outsourced out of lack of own IT knowledge. When firefox dies there will be no economic insensitive to build sites accessible by anything but chromium.

              Low key i wish this fires back into anarchy. I hate the corporate web and the only sites i like to see are those free of economic insensitive and all in on an ethical free digital world.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          try changing your user-agent to mock chrome in Firefox while you visit YouTube.

          you should see a drastic difference in UX.

          • abbadon420@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I tried YouTube in Chrome on desktop (for about 2 minutes) and I didn’t notice any difference. I’ll just keep using NewPipe on my phone though.

            • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              it takes a whole 10 extra seconds for the interface to be usable for me in Firefox. but not when I spoof the user-agent as chrome.

              at least that’s how it was about 4 months ago.

          • abbadon420@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            NewPipe exclusively. YouTube has been unusable long before I fully moved back to FireFox.

            • Fizz@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Smart choice. YouTube has been fucking Firefox users for a while now. Implementing stuff like a 5s wait to load videos.

    • Integrate777@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      What if websites decide that chrome users earn much more ad revenue and start forcing users to switch with those “This website only supports Chrome” error messages? What if this practice gets popular? I’m sure there are ways to get around it, but the average users who bothered switching to Firefox at all, will just conclude that anything except chrome has a bad browsing experience.

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s all fun and games till they check for web USB support. They don’t need to actually use web USB but it’s a telltale sign that you’re not on Chrome.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              A plugin could very easily have Firefox claim to support WebUSB, but return no devices or junk devices. Some of the anti-fingerprinting add-ons already do, iirc.

              • linearchaos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                You get my point though, all they need to do is start supporting a feature that’s not easy to spoof.

                The real defense against this is for people to refuse to use Chrome. It’s not the tail that wags the dog, Make The Firefox user base so big the developers can’t ignore it. Basically IE all over again

                • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I agree with your conclusion, but as long as they’re offering data up for download to your machine, they really can’t control how you access it or what application you use for it. That doesn’t mean it’ll be easy, but even if it requires reverse-engineering some website DRM, somebody’s going to do it. And if Chromium remains FOSS, it won’t even be terribly difficult.

                  Remember, they tried to defeat ad blockers on YouTube, and they gave up because it wasn’t worth it. uBO was updating to block their attempts within hours. They’ve tested inserting the ads in the video stream, but that’s probably also not going to last for long.

                  They’re trying to assert an ownership over the Web; and yes, the best way to defeat it is to build a strong and united resistance against it. But even if we don’t, there are ways to quietly refuse to comply.

      • gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        i never understood how those messages work? like how would using firefox ruin your website? or how they even detect firefox in the first place lmfao

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          They can in theory make tricks showing that you are using an ad blocker or a specific browser. Even if you set Chrome’s user agent in Firefox.

          I personally wouldn’t make such effort to use such websites then.

        • Rolling Resistance@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Browsers have user-agent identifiers, websites can see what browser and what version you use.

          They are mostly used to run browser-dependent code to avoid some things breaking in some browsers.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Then apple would whip out their giant throbbing cock and smack them with it because they want people using safari.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      times of website incompatibility are long gone

      I wish I could agree with that. Hell, I have to use Chrome to download my phone bill from Virgin, and a couple of others don’t work.

      And don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming FF. It’s these lazy web developers that only target Chrome. I’m sure Safari users get the same shit experience.

      • Kokesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve cried also in dev a lot in the past, but mostly don’t cry so much anymore

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Issue is, a lot of people think the only browser in existence is “google”. I even had people looking me at funny for having an e-mail address ending in outlook.com rather than the usual gmail.com, and not because of some anti-MS sentiment, but because they thought e-mail was invented by Google, hance the name “gmail”.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        but because they thought e-mail was invented by Google, hance the name “gmail”.

        Life is scary.

    • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I really wish Firefox implemented easily switchable browser profiles. I am use Firefox mainly but for work I’ll still use edge so I can use this feature.

      • cschreib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I don’t know exactly what part of a separate profile you are after, so this may not be a 100% substitute, but I found container tabs in Firefox to work quite well (with some extensions to improve UX). It’s still the same profile though, so passwords and history are shared.

    • pixelscript@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Everything works the same, times of website incompatibility are long gone.

      Not completely true. It’s mostly true. I’ve daily driven Firefox for years, and the number of websites I’ve crossed that wouldn’t function in it correctly but would work just fine in Chrome was very slim… but not zero. Definitely not comparable to the complete shitshow of the 90’s and 00’s. That’s true. But it’s not a completely solved problem.

      And with Mozilla’s leadership practically looking for footguns to play with combined with the threat of Google’s sugar daddy checks drying up soon due to the antitrust suit (how utterly ironic that busting up the monopoly would actually harm the only competition…), that gap can get much worse in very little time if resources to keep full time devs paid disappear.

    • Mwa@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      some people dont want firefox bcs its kinda slower then chromium based tbh but it aint bad am not saying firefox is bad

    • endofline@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      So you will need to have a backup browser to use only Google services and everything but Google search blocked in ff

      • Its not google services i worry about ive pretty much degoogled everything i can. Its the google bits so deeply embedded into almost every website across the internet. If they implemented some tpm bs into chrome that somehow Verity’s itself with tpm and google servers before it loads anything then that instantly makes a majority of websites juat not work on ff with no fixes backdoors or bypasses. They will try, we have little hope in stopping it, and most people wont even notice let alone give a fuck.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe we’re thinking about this wrong. Maybe we should all start running plugins that just load whatever ads that show up in the background hundreds of times without showing them to us. Every viewer is thousands upon thousands of impressions and click through rates become absolutely miserable. We can make the ads worthless or maybe even make them cost a significant amount of money to host.

      • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s mildly effective in the sense that it will decimate click-through rates, but if enough people did it, they would start filtering by IP, and you’d need to change how many ads it clicks on so it looks more human.

        It also still gives advertisers your data, since it still has to load the ads on your system to click them, so it’s not as privacy-preserving as a full-on adblocker that outright blocks every advertisement and tracker related network request in the first place.

        • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Someone who repackages/patches free software has different incentives than upstream. So generally speaking, derivative browsers are more privacy friendly, have better features, etc.

          That’s not to say that upstream isn’t important. It absolutely is! It’s just that derivatives are generally better.

  • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hopefully wikipedia recognizes this as the official Canary in the Chrome mine. I was first impressed with chrome book because of seeing them used for education, getting my own laptop during school would’ve been mindblowing to kid me. I was unimpressed with the strangulation process of the OS but again shocked when they added a linux boot mode. There needs to be better alternatives by now, I would be ok with an OS developed by the department of education in conjunction with higher educational institutions. Could have a decent non-profit approach to a browser and ad blockers could legitimately be built in as a “protect the children” aim of approach.

    • hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      I take it you’ve never been involved in such an endeavor? What you propose would take a decade a minimum due to the sheer number of nested advisory committees that would be required for those groups to interface. Better a non-profit group begins the work and then solicits these group’s input at the design stage.

      • JohnDoe@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think super-apps are the way to go, only way to prevent one company from monopolizing click-stream data for advertising.

        some apps already do this and their users don’t suffer from the same issue (granted, they have different issues)

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Think of it as an iceberg & Chrome users as a boat.

      Assuming no changes, this is landing in Chrome Canary now, so we’re watching the Chrome Canary boat hit the iceberg. The Chrome Beta boat is going to hit in a few weeks. Finally the Chrome Stable boat is scheduled to hit in mid November.

      Now Google may choose to hold back actually enabling this flag immediately. It wouldn’t be the first delay. But likely in mid November is when all the posts will start to appear of people asking where their ad blocker went.

      (Although I’m guessing it actually is delayed until after the holidays and in the new year, but that’s just wild speculation.)

    • deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes. There’s only 3 major browsers. Chromium (Chrome), Firefox, WebKit (Safari). Nearly every other webbrowser is a fork of one of these, most are forks of Chromium, including Opera. As such, most webbrowsers will be affected by the change.

        • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Chrome browser = chromium plus Google

          Samsung browser = chromium plus garbage

          Brave browser = chromium plus crypto and homophobia

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I don’t think it should’ve been opt-out, but Mozilla’s ad metrics development is very much the direction ads on the web should go in. It is impossible to determine who you are from the data. They’ve truly done a good job on creating an ad model that’s privacy friendly, and would be a material improvement to the web.

              It’s a way to still have ad revenue funding the content we all consume, while also still maintaining privacy. It’s a good thing. It’s just the opt-out aspect for existing installs that’s bad.

              That said, I’m personally a proponent of just using adblock lol

              • TerkErJerbs@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                I also use adblocking at multiple levels so it wasn’t a huge thing for me (been blocking Pocket and other bullshit for years at the dns and network levels) but I still feel like Mozilla witnessed Google going for broke with killing mv2 and inline ads on YouTube and decided wellll our existing users probably wouldn’t notice or care if we slipped in an opt-out fuckery… But we did. Immediately.

                For any browser trying to sell itself as “the only privacy browser on the market” this was a dumb fucking move by any metric. Like why not just openly admit we’re going with the Brave browser model?

              • TerkErJerbs@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                No it’s not. But if we’re hoping Firefox will be better in some way we’d expect more from them. Wouldn’t we?

          • Mwa@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Brave browser = chromium plus crypto and homophobia

            the crypto stuff can be opt out tho

      • gnawmon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Good, hopefully I can convince my friends to switch over

        • deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          DuckDuckGo’s webbrowser is somewhat unique, in the sense that it isn’t its own browser at all. It’s a “WebView”, using the OS built-in webbrowser with a coat of paint.

          This means it’s Blink/Chromium on Android and Windows, and WebKit on iOS and macOS.

        • Chloé 🥕@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          depends on the OS!

          DuckDuckGo uses the default rendering engine of whatever OS you use it on, so webkit (also used by safari) on macOS and iOS and blink (also used by edge and chrome) on windows and android

          even if it uses the same rendering engine on some platforms, it’s not based on chromium, so it’s not a chromium browser

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          You really don’t see a problem installing software from an authoritarian regime that spies on basically everyone and everything and has 0 privacy protection?

          • Chloé 🥕@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            the chinese government isn’t behind every software that’s made in china lol

            like yea, opera is spyware, but so are chrome, safari and edge, and none of these are made in china

            • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              If you think the Chinese regime isn’t using Opera as a potential attack vector then that’s just naive. Browsers are very critical pieces of software infrastructure.

              • Chloé 🥕@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                opera sure, but at that point, any proprietary software can be used as an attack vector by the government of the country the software is made in, that’s not specific to china

                i don’t see why chrome or safari should be considered more trustworthy than opera just because they aren’t made in china

                • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You really don’t see the difference between a flawed democracy with laws and regulations and an authoritarian regime? Tankie talk much?

    • Engywuck@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not this with built-in adblockers, despite someone’s wishes.