Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

#61

Post by Adrig »

hunterb123 wrote: post #56
Adrig wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the affiliation links inserted in the browser opt-in? Was the unethical business model to show custom ads in place of existing ones an accident? Or the crappy marketing campaign to lure content creators into their ecosystem by playing on ambiguous terms? I own cryptos, I like cryptos, but the team behind Brave has proven to be scammy and unethical.

> Was the affiliation links inserted in the browser opt-in I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in. I think it's more scummy that Mozilla makes money from having Google as the default search engine, a still active campaign. > Was the unethical business model to show custom ads in place of existing ones an accident? As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked…

>I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in.

Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world.

>As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked ads? Brave ads are text notifications, not banner ads.

That's still hypocrite. You block off every ads on the internet, but still display your own. Your business model is still based on the "watchtime" but you forbid actual content creators to benefit from it. It was the same thing with adblock plus. Having a stance against ads is one thing, relying on them while blocking the whole internet of their revenue is a dick move.

>Which marketing campaign, how are they luring, how are terms ambiguous, please expand.

They accept donations for creators without their consent. It is now clear on the module when a creator has no account yet to receive the tips but at launch it wasn't the case. They lured users into donating and used this money to contact creators and try to leverage the generosity of their community to bring them on board. That's quite a low growth hacking tactic.

Don't worry about my consistency, I think I'm alright.

Re: Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

#62

Post by hunterb123 »

Adrig wrote: post #61
hunterb123 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was the affiliation links inserted in the browser opt-in I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in. I think it's more scummy that Mozilla makes money from having Google as the default search engine, a still active campaign. > Was the unethical business model to show custom ads in place of existing ones an accident? As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked…

>I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in. Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world. >As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked ads? Brave ads are text notifications, not banner ads. That's still hypocrite. You block…

> Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world.

Google paying Mozilla for search engine referrals is the definition of affiliate marketing. And you can choose to believe it was some plot to sneak through after they reversed it, it's unfounded. Mozilla still doesn't inform the user of their affiliate deal.

(edit: also listen to yourself, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783639)

> That's still hypocrite. You block off every ads on the internet, but still display your own. Your business model is still based on the "watchtime" but you forbid actual content creators to benefit from it. It was the same thing with adblock plus. Having a stance against ads is one thing, relying on them while blocking the whole internet of their revenue is a dick move.

That's a different accusation after you tried to state your lie. Brave has an opt-in text notification rewards program.

It's common to run ad blockers in other browsers because ads have become so intrusive. Yes you should subscribe, donate, etc. if you frequent a website, but you shouldn't have to view ads against your will.

Brave has that adblocking built in for the user foremost. The rewards network is to allow those who need to block ads to donate to the website owner instead. When you use FireFox and uBlock, you don't have the option if that site owner doesn't have a PayPal etc.

> They accept donations for creators without their consent. It is now clear on the module when a creator has no account yet to receive the tips but at launch it wasn't the case. They lured users into donating and used this money to contact creators and try to leverage the generosity of their community to bring them on board. That's quite a low growth hacking tactic.

> They accept donations for creators without their consent.

If they don't create a wallet and accept the funds are returned to the donor, Brave doesn't keep it.

Re: Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

#63

Post by taigi100 »

drcongo wrote: post #55
taigi100 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just did the same, seems nice for now. Yes, it takes a while to set it up but the same applies to any browser nowadays.

Not entirely disagreeing, but Safari comes out of the box as pretty much perfect.

True. But I'm pretty much stuck on windows so yeah.

Re: Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

#64

Post by fitzie »

jbotz wrote: post #35

So use Firefox where it works, and Chrome where Firefox doesn't work for you. There's a little Firefox extension called "Open with..." which makes it really quick and easy to open a tab or link with another browser. If the problem is that you don't have enough memory to comfortably use two browsers at once, then... well, then that's your real problem. Get more more RAM. As for Firefox, although I haven't always been…

multiple browsers are the way to go. I had all my eggs in the chrome basket until their login fiasco, but hit limitations with Firefox. I now configure Firefox and brave with the same extensions and use the both equally. using onetab makes it easy to migrate sessions from one browser to the next.

Re: Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

#65

Post by dustfinger »

Gualdrapo wrote: post #45
dustfinger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps all that is needed to pick up the momentum is a spark of interest.

As an outsider I see how you can think that way, but alas Falkon is not a 'new' browser. It's the ol' faithful Qupzilla, but rebranded to fall into the KDE umbrella. But as other KDE browsers (konqueror, rekonq...) it's dying a slow death only to fall in darkness.

Oh, that is too bad. After hearing this, I decided to do a little searching around to see if I could find an open-source browser that is more active. I found Nyxt.

URL: https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/

source: https://github.com/atlas-engineer/nyxt

license: BSD-3 & Creative Commons

Also, if you are an emacs fan:

https://ag91.github.io/blog/2021/06/08/emacs-nyxt-and-engine...

From their FAQ:

https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/faq

Nyxt is web engine agnostic. We utilize a minimal API to interface to any web engine. This makes us flexible and resilient to changes in the web landscape. Currently, we support WebKit and WebEngine (Blink).

So in theory, you could switch between web engines. I don't know if you can do that on demand or not. It does seem like a cool project, so I will likely try it out.

Re: Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

#66

Post by Adrig »

hunterb123 wrote: post #62
Adrig wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in. Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world. >As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked ads? Brave ads are text notifications, not banner ads. That's still hypocrite. You block…

> Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world. Google paying Mozilla for search engine referrals is the definition of affiliate marketing. And you can choose to believe it was some plot to sneak through after they reversed it, it's unfounded. Mozilla still doesn't inform the user…

That's not referrals and not affiliate marketing, get your definition straight.

When you hear hoofs, think horse, not Zebra. Where have you been the last decades on the internet to rather think it was a "mistake" that could have given them millions of $ instead of a shady move?

I didn't lie once, but I guess you're too worked up on the subject for some reason to see it clearly. By the way, who's using a word salad now? No matter in which order you put it, the system is there. They profit off ads by preventing everyone else do to it, even if they also are unintrusive. You can't seriously pretend to care about an ad-free internet when it's your business model...

The controversy with donations came when they shipped the feature. There was no mention at all that the creator or the website was not affiliated with Brave. Again, shady AF. The system is now way more transparent, but the facts are there. And I personally don't appreciate an op-out system where creators have to willingly deactivate the feature to not be associated with a third-party private entity collecting money in their name.

Re: Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

#69

Post by runjake »

garettmd wrote: post #7
runjake wrote: post #6

I've been using Brave, but I shut off the Rewards junk. Every option has serious trade-offs, so you're going to have to decide which are acceptable to you.

I use Brave, with the Rewards junk, and it has maintained its speed that every other browser I've used loses as it fills up with caches, history, extensions, etc.

Do you actually make anything of value?

I ran Rewards for a long time and basically made almost zilch and wasn't sure if it was something on my end or?

Is there some trick that makes it worthwhile?

Re: Ask HN: Any Decent Firefox Alternatives?

#70

Post by hunterb123 »

Adrig wrote: post #66
hunterb123 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world. Google paying Mozilla for search engine referrals is the definition of affiliate marketing. And you can choose to believe it was some plot to sneak through after they reversed it, it's unfounded. Mozilla still doesn't inform the user…

That's not referrals and not affiliate marketing, get your definition straight. When you hear hoofs, think horse, not Zebra. Where have you been the last decades on the internet to rather think it was a "mistake" that could have given them millions of $ instead of a shady move? I didn't lie once, but I guess you're too worked up on the subject for some reason to see it clearly. By the way, who's using a word salad no…

Mozilla is being paid to refer viewers to Google's ad network, what do you call it?

You aren't being genuine. Brave's rewards program is opt-in. The ad blocking is a common thing for a user to do. Brave is not replacing ads.

> The controversy with donations came when they shipped the feature. The system is now way more transparent, but the facts are there.

Yes that seems to be a pattern, momentary overblown outrage about "lack of information" so they have to clarify the facts against the propaganda.

How is a donation system controversial when the funds are returned to the donor if the recipient doesn't collect them?

The "controversy" is clearly artificial. It's this big emotional outrage that doesn't match the facts, followed by short talking points referencing the outrage.

edit: funny enough you defended Mozilla for this exact same affiliates program.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783639

Post reply on HN