Firefox release notes: we improved the privacy of our browser
Chrome release notes: fuck you and fuck your fucking adblock
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
977 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
58224 readers
3708 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
deleted
Clarity is needed here. The California language that sparked all this is qualified with "about FakeSpot's products and services". Meaning it could simply be third-party services that they send their own emails through.
After reading their privacy policy, nothing jumps out at me that contradicts this.
To be clear, I'm not a fan of the extension's collection practices, but the down votes could be because this may be unwarranted fear.
Unwarranted fear or healthy skepticism? This is the perfect time to “just ask questions.” Firefox is selling itself as a privacy respecting platform and therefore should be held to a higher standard than the garbage that is chrome. If it can pass the test it will be proven again and earn more trust which should result in more users, if it fails then it deserves to be criticised and lose users. Point is if you are selling yourself as privacy respecting you are selling yourself by default as ethical.
deleted
100% agree. I wasn't trying to say the collection practice isn't bad, just that the other linked threads may be taking things a bit farther than what the policy actually says.
load more comments
(1 replies)
No idea why people use Brave when Firefox exists
Well, it said right there in the article that until today, Brave was that only browser that would truncate tracker tags when copying a URL to clipboard.
Moar browsers == moar innovation.
Interesting, in the past Brave injected their own affiliate links into URLs. That alone should tell you not to use it.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology
Yeah but you can easily install clearURLs
load more comments
(2 replies)
Default Brave blocks ads more aggressively than default Firefox. Of course you can achieve that with Firefox + uBlock Origin, but add-ons are not available on iOS and iPad OS.
That's just my experience. I still use Firefox + Firefox Focus BTW. To block more aggressively, I also use VPN + Adguard Home.
This. Only reason I use Brave is for my iPhone (which I am already planning to jump back to Android when it's time for a new phone) because I can listen to YouTube videos/music in the background and no ads when going through the browser (another reason I'm going back to Android is for Revanced). Everything else is FF
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
deleted
Thanks for the comprehensive write-up. It convinced me to migrate back to Firefox.
I was on Firefox (8 years ago), moved to Chrome (I liked the non-admin/transparent update feature and Websites didn't break like they did with ff), then moved to brave (basically chrome + more privacy), and now I'll go back the Firefox (I hope I won't encounter too many non-FF websites)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I always use do not track. If they fingerprint me with that, they are explicitly disregarding it. It obviously gives moral superiority.
It's a real shame industry doesn't embrace firefox. There's far too many things i rely on which only runs on chromium.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Thank you old friend. Sorry I've been gone for so long.
TFW sense of superiority knowing I started using firefox since late 2000s and never once abandoned it.
Firefox needs to chill on the version numbers
Blame Chrome for ruining versioning
Honestly I think this is more on Apple for using “os x” for two decades
Blame users for not understanding semantic versioning and just wanting a bigger number.
Remember that time the users were right?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Version numbers are almost meaningless for end-user software anyway. Add 1 every time it changes is about the best you can do.
Nvidia needs to chill on the version numbers, their graphics driver is currently at version 537 lol
load more comments
(2 replies)
no, I'm looking forward to firefox 420 in 2048
I think it's alright, sure it's not conventional but you get the point after all and non techy people also get the point. bigger number = highest update
We need the TL;DR bot
waiting mozilla release its gecko webview and site isolation on mobile browser
Mozilla Foundation fronts Mozilla Corporation which is for-profit and brings in nearly a Billion in revenue.
Don't donate, do harden it.
To be fair, a lot of that money comes from google that pays to have google as search engine
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›