It’s time to give Firefox a fresh chance

I'd probably be saying this for the hundredth time or whatever, but I've always seen the machine crawl after Chrome opens a few tens of tabs and uses a lot of memory, while Firefox (even before Quantum) would use a lot lesser memory for the same number of tabs. Firefox has always been my browser whenever I need(ed) to have several tens of tabs open.

The extensions in Firefox also have worked much better for me, all along. Even today, Chrome wouldn't restore tabs after crashing and relaunching, and this was after it asked me if I would like to restore tabs and I said yes. Chrome, to me, is nothing but a toy browser good for some single tabbed kiosks or a open-read-close model of use. For anyone who wants a browser for heavy use, especially with a lot of tabs, I would recommend only Firefox.

But the witchunt and purge of Brendan Eich. For love of diversity and civility, can't use Firefox.

Try http://brave.com instead. They're actually developing a way to democratize ad revenue so that it is directed back straight to creators themselves. Innovative, hopeful solution for a salient long-term problem that everyone else seems to be throwing their hands in the air and shrugging over.

> When you go shopping, he makes a copy of the receipt

Any proof Chrome does this kind of tracking?

Alright, I'm not for or against Google - I appreciate the things they've done but really notice their shortcomings - I'd say I'm more "pro-sensible advertising".

> Here's the thing, Google doesn't have the authority to dictate what software you run on your computer.

No, but it can dictate what plugins are available in _their_ store for _their_ browser. Just use Firefox or manually install the plugins. They aren't stopping you completely, but when you're in their ecosystem you play by their rules.

> App Store, Chrome, Adwords, all need to be separated into unrelated companies to eliminate the blatant conflict of interest

Absolutely, and there are other competitors in this space. Google is too big at this point to spin those off.

> As an aside, this is evidence that advertising is dead.

It's not dead because there's no real valid alternative for the everyday website. A lot of users don't want to pay to browse your website past paying their ISP, and mining cryptocurrency isn't an option either. There was a project a little while back called F-U, Pay Me! by Datajoy (https://datajoy.us/fupm.html) that I wrote about that was a worthy replacement, but needs more traction to really take off.

> Thanks to AdNauseum and any similar forks, no corporation in the world, no matter how large or wealthy, can guarantee that their advertising model is honest or functional.

This is where advertising falls apart and it all becomes valueless, which I think is more destructive overall. Google offers a pretty good way of monetizing a website while they help themselves to analytics and a portion of the revenue. Google's AdSense getting shut down would mean (likely, speculation here) a lot of smaller hobby websites being killed off, and larger ones forced to gate access with a paywall. Ultimately, we need a DNS-based tip jar system, but that requires adoption. It's not impossible to run a website if you have a job, but if that website _is_ your job, you're out of luck.

> Alright, I'm not for or against Google - I appreciate the things they've done but really notice their shortcomings - I'd say I'm more "pro-sensible advertising".

I am. I liked their services for years, but reality crept in. They're rotten apples. The majority of news headlines about Google for the past 2 years have been scandals and crimes against the public.

> No, but it can dictate what plugins are available in _their_ store for _their_ browser.

No not necessarily. If Google's only business was a browser and an app store for it, then maybe. But that's not their business. Their business is infecting every corner of every market. They are _clearly_ abusing their position as a monopoly to influence the market in their favor. Which is a crime, in this country. A good question is why hasn't the breakup started already? Hell the only reason they invented that "Alphabet" nonsense was so they could avoid monopoly abuse charges! That is evidence of criminal intentions! They're also one of the worst offenders for moving money off-shore to avoid paying their taxes, and they lie about it when challenged. That is the behavior of crooks.

> Absolutely, and there are other competitors in this space. Google is too big at this point to spin those off.

With all due respect, if you think a corporation is "too big" to break up then you don't understand this topic at all. I recommend the story about Ma Bell, which I think was the largest corporate breakup in American history. Google will be broken up in time, if they continue on the path they're on.

> It's not dead because there's no real valid alternative

that's not how economics work.

> This is where advertising falls apart and it all becomes valueless, which I think is more destructive overall.

I would suggest that, rather than destructive, it is _disruptive_. We were born into this world, but Advertising has not always existed. It was invented by men who were looking for ways to put bread on their table when they have basically nothing of value to offer the world. I think disrupting that is great. It's great because it encourages healthy economic evolution, that isn't technically "Destructive". But it might appear so, the same way a natural forest fire might appear disruptive. But it's necessary for healthy new growth.

The free ATM machine that is online advertising is going to dry up, and everyone who was relying upon that revenue stream is going to suffer, unless they recognize the warnings NOW, and invent new revenue streams, the same way that some men invented Advertising so many years ago. We invented literally every single thing in the entire economy. It's called "Adapt or Die". And they will. You will. Everyone does.