I see a lot of people suggesting Brave, but is it still full of crypto nonsense?
Yes.
Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
591–600 of 1001 posts
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
My mental model of a browser is the same as of any tool, as a hammer, purely defined by its technical capabilities to do a job, like to display a website and offer basic functionality like for saving a bookmark. The very idea of an entity called "we", an anonymous and ever-changing cast of people managing "responsible defaults" and "simple tools to manage your data" and communicating it on their terms, making me try…
I consider a browser as similar as a complicated curl with GUI. Therefore: - when I see that browser does not allow playing video in the background (youtube on mobile phones) - when my browser disallows me blocking certain things - when my browser prevents me from taking screenshot of things I can see on it ... it really angers me, as I feel betrayed. Of course, nowadays, web applications tend to get complicated and…
You can actually play YouTube in the background with Firefox on Android. There is two ways,
1. Put the video in full screen mode and then press the system home button, this enabled PiP.
2. Start the video, click onto another tab in Firefox (this will pause the video) but then with that second tab active, open the tab switcher and press the play button beside the other tab with the video. Then it will play in the background until you interact with the tab again.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#593Been using Firefox as main browser since it was called Mozilla. It's the only desktop application I've consistently installed on every desktop for that long. This is the end of that era and ends the streak. It's as frustrating as it's sad.
What are you replacing it with?
This is getting niche enough that I'd doxx myself :^)
Check out everything recommended elsewhere in this thread though! And strive to compile your own fork based on whatever.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#594Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#595Guess they have to pay the CEO's seven million dollar salary somehow ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#596I might have differed with Brendan Eich on a few matters, but he was a good steward of Firefox in my book. When Mitchell Baker took the reins, Mozilla became rather more heavy-handed towards us - the irony being that Waterfox was once proudly displayed on the Mozilla website under their "Powered By" banner. I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces, but they've made some peculiar decisions as of late…
Here's my question: in light of what Mozilla is doing, why don't other forks like Waterfox or Librewolf write a manifesto/contract saying they'll never sell your user data and won't turn "evil" (until they do, of course), and then decide to offer a paid version of their browser. Two possible outcomes: 1. No one cares. No one pays for it. Nothing changes and nobody loses anything. 2. Enough people pay for it to keep t…
>So why isn't anyone trying to replace Mozilla yet,
Because writing manifestos is easy and making a browser is proper hard work ?
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#597Can't wait for Ladybird to become usable. To be fair, it already is fairly usable, but I'd need history syncing / Keychain sync to make it a daily driver.
Do you really? Seems you can wait, as do many of us. By waiting, what behavior do we encourage in software makers?
I suppose I could manually copy paste things, but it's not a great user experience. I'm fine with using beta software, but pre-alpha even is a bit too hard for me to swallow.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave was never good: crypto-crap, based on Chromium, and was modifying web pages from the start without your consent. I never understood why people use it.
People use it because it is essentially Chrome with uBlock-Origin built in (I think the developer of uBlock Origin is employed by Brave) and it removes the stupid cookie modals that are on every website. Between running a pi-hole and Brave, I rarely see an advert on a website. Turning off the "crypto-crap" can be done quite easily (you literally right click on the BAT icon and it is gone) and the new tab ads are remo…
> can be done quite easily
The first and last time I tried Brave, it was injecting links (with a pretty golden picture) in each post of reddit (and I'm not talking about changing the referrals). To turn that off I had to look deep into the settings.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#599So... for the most practical question: Anyone have a favourite Firefox fork that removes this and doesn't add other spyware or reinvent the UI too much?
That's almost exactly describing Librewolf, though it adds a ton of privacy 'hardening' features out-of-the-box, which can be a positive or negative depending on who you ask.
I personally use Librewolf with the Lepton (Photon style) UI[0], which replicates the previous UI style Firefox used a couple years ago, with small square tabs and condensed menus, before the current pseudo-tabletified abomination.
Of course, if you like the current UI—you'd literally be the first person I've met to like it—you can just use librewolf stock and it doesn't apply any changes to the standard Firefix UI.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#600I might have differed with Brendan Eich on a few matters, but he was a good steward of Firefox in my book. When Mitchell Baker took the reins, Mozilla became rather more heavy-handed towards us - the irony being that Waterfox was once proudly displayed on the Mozilla website under their "Powered By" banner. I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces, but they've made some peculiar decisions as of late…
> I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces
The wobble seems to somewhat artificial. I'm having trouble believing Firefox could ever not be able to afford to continue browser development — there are way too many interests at stake. Google alone would have no choice but to bail Firefox out because Chrome can't be the only browser without being regulated to hell and back.