991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2011, when I worked at Google (on ads, not on Chrome), I did use Firefox as my main browser. But back then, there was much less need for an ad blocker. I still remember asking my manager whether it was OK to click an ad (from a VPS provider) while browsing from the corporate desktop.
Did you get a response from your manager?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not really. Straight from the FAQ you linked: In general, uBOL will be less effective at dealing with websites using anti-content blocker or minimizing website breakage. Sooo... yes really?
You scroll past multiple paragraphs that say "maybe. maybe not" and "it depends on your browsing" to cherrypick a quote qualified with "in general." LOL! You know that's bad faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much would Google even lose if Apple didn't make Google the default search engine? People would almost certainly just use Google anyway. If Apple switched to Bing most people would use it once, get pissed off, and then switch it back to Google. It's not that weird that people are a bit suspicious that it's really worth Google $20B/year.
I use ddg, have basically since it was released, what's wrong with bing?
Nobody could have possibly seen it coming that Google would abuse its market position to their own benefit... I migrated off Chrome as soon as this BS story about improving privacy, a joke coming from Google. Then the excuse was "well it improves performance", which they could easily do by marking extensions as low performance. If Google wanted to improve this they have an entire search engine where they could re-ran…
There was a time in Chrome when it didn't support extensions at all. If Google had release an extension API like manifest v3 then, would that have been abuse of market position? The reason why Chrome waited for so long to add extensions was the danger they posed to users. I was at Google when Sergey often worried about what extensions would do to non technical and older users who get tricked into installing them, the…
Abuse of extensions was certainly a problem with IE. But, Google was also happy to use IE controls for Google Toolbar and other functionality. It irks me when a company/tool makes use of another's more permissive policies/APIs in order to gain a foothold and then restricts others from doing the same with its products. It feels like pulling the ladder up behind you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It goes back waaaaaaay further than 20 years. The most recent case before this was nearly 40 years ago under Reagan, and he certainly wasn't the first president guilty of it.
This isn't a Trump thing. The "Main Stream Media" rhetoric really started with the teaparty stuff, powered by the internet, and championed both the right (tea party in america, faragists in the UK) and left (corbynistas in the uk, AOC types I assume in the states)
I never said it was?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions, The problem is that Mozilla's customers are not Firefox's users. Mozilla's customer is Google. They pay Mozilla to exist and they are paying Mozilla to intentionally drive Firefox into the ground. I think it's pretty clear that the TOS change basically coincided with the rem…
> They pay Mozilla to exist and they are paying Mozilla to intentionally drive Firefox into the ground. I am trying to understand how this works? If they pay Mozilla to exist, yet their intention is to destroy their competitor, why even pay for them to begin with?
Source: pure speculation on my part
I moved to Adguard years ago when I found that uBlock Origin Lite doesn't support custom filter lists. If Adguard can support that on MV3 then uBlock Origin is artificially gimping uBOL on Edge/Chrome.
Re Custom filter lists https://adguard.info/en/blog/review-issues-in-chrome-web-sto...
They did say they'll get the issue resolved in time. I use another extension that requires a filter list or things start to go haywire. I'd probably give up that problematic extension before going back to Firefox.
Reading that, I am still sticking with Adguard over uBO because it does sound like they are at least trying to implement these things. uBO is just pointing people towards FF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only their goal would be to provide an excellent privacy browser, instead of getting revenue :) All they need is to accept donations that go strictly to the browser and not to the latest blockchain/AI hysteria.
Name a project whose development costs as much as Firefox and that survives from donations. Many people want AI in their browser. And what does Firefox have to do with crypto?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of what the DOJ is seeking against Google would severely impact Mozilla financially however, as they want to ban them from paying to be the default search engine.
That would be a good thing. If Firefox is funded by donations, rather than by Google, it ensures there is no enshittification in the future. And yes, donations can fund a big project, as evidenced by Thunderbird and Ladybird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's unfair to call Ladybird vaporware this early. There's nothing suspicious about their development schedule for the scope of the thing they're trying to build. I agree I don't think it should be in the alternative browser discussion until they do produce something, however.
And also, I think there's a positive to say about Lady Bird here, which is that in the event they succeed, that's as much a narrative about an extraordinarily talented and committed developer, And if they're able to put forward a credible browser, it will be a soaring achievement for them. Not necessarily something I would expect as a kind of default status quo expectation. I think if you get these alternative from t…