Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

Post by LtWorf » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 12:00 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #105

lol768 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because Google has more resources to secure their browser They've kneecapped ad-blockers, when ad networks are perhaps one of the biggest causes of malware installs/page hijacking/other unwanted behaviour. I'm not sure how you can consider Chrome remotely secure in this light.

My org (or rather, the org they pay to run their IT) blocked browser plugins with a security justification. I find this incredibly amusing, and at a different point in my life I'd already be gone. When you outsource IT, there are many, many misaligned incentives.

Post by handoflixue » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 12:46 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #91

redwall_hp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Sherman Act says that any action by an individual, or conspiracy of a group of individuals, to "restrain trade" or seek a monopoly is illegal. Monopolies aren't a prerequisite for antitrust action, they're the failure state when you should have acted sooner.

Taco Bell is a monopoly because they restrain the trade of tacos because they ask me to take my taco truck elsewhere when I park in their parking lot to sell tacos. Never mind there are other places I can set up my truck, never mind there are tons of other taco shops, Taco Bell is a monopoly as now I need to go find a different corner to sell my tacos, they're restraining the trade of tacos. Everything is a monopoly…

Post by xnx » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 2:46 PM UTC

jchw wrote: post #60

ktm5j wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's their organization. They are allowed to make decisions about what software their employees use. I'm a die-hard Mozilla fan, but I don't find this unreasonable.

Note that making lock-in features like this effectively proprietary to the Chrome browser is only possible because of the fact that it's the same company making Google Workspace and Google Chrome. I absolutely see many problems with this and you really ought to as well.

Post by NewJazz » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 3:30 PM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #131

NewJazz wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pain that when you cannot do what you want to do. But it's not your laptop. It's the company's. But it is my craft, and to be limited to what tools I can use in my craft can decrease the value of my work, and in doing so decrease the company's productivity.

Let's say you earn a million dollars a year (most of us earn far less). At quite a few companies, a 50% decrease in your productivity (and changing browsers is nowhere near that) would cost the company significantly less than dealing with the fallout of any of the following: * A user intentionally leaking sensitive documents outside the corporate network * A user installing an infected browser extension that gives at…

Post by flir » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 4:46 PM UTC

nazgul17 wrote: post #134

remus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find this incredibly amusing, and at a different point in my life I'd already be gone. How so? Bad actors buying existing extensions with large user bases then publishing a new version which does bad stuff is a pretty common pattern. It certainy seems like a reasonable concern for a corp IT department.

Not GP, but I think the point was that no extensions => no ad blockers => major malware vehicle unlockable, short of disabling JS