6 ms·

> I just don't want that in my browser, it makes it a shitty experience. How? If you don't care about politics, why would the politics of the organization runn

> I just don't want that in my browser, it makes it a shitty experience. How? If you don't care about politics, why would the politics of the organization running the browser affect your experience? Aren't you therefore virtue signalling (in this case for maximal free speech) by not using Firefox for political reasons? You haven't mentioned any product features/decisions made as a result of Mozilla's "virtue signalling" that affected the day-to-day experience of using Firefox.

ecmascript 6y ago
Thanks for actually writing an answer instead of just circle-jerking and spamming the downvote button. It's more about the features they don't implement, presumably because their focus is elsewhere. The biggest and most obvious feature is PWA support that is (still) lacking to this day which is very bad. They don't follow the standards in picture-in-picture, messing up the user experience somewhat. Minor things like using the wrong default algos for svg filters. I've had many issues with SVG support in Firefox. The fact that Firefox is still laggier in a lot of different scenarios, but mostly games for me. In online fast pace games it makes the experience completely unplayable. Try https://agor.io https://agor.io in firefox and then swtich to Brave for example. It lags in firefox, at least on linux. These are some of the things I could think of right now, but over time I've found many things that I find frustrating with Firefox. Then reading that they purchased pocket, a service which basically no one is using afaik seems like simply bad business. They also claim to value privacy but there wasn't long ago since someone discovered that they send data to google even in private browsing. Brave was the only browser that didn't send any privacy-invading requests. I think most of these things is due to a lack of commitment to the tech and a focus that has been on something else, namely politics. (Couldn't answer earlier since HN disallows posting more than 4 comments per hour..)

ecmascript 6y ago

Thanks for actually writing an answer instead of just circle-jerking and spamming the downvote button. It's more about the features they don't implement, presumably because their focus is elsewhere. The biggest and most obvious feature is PWA support that is (still) lacking to this day which is very bad. They don't follow the standards in picture-in-picture, messing up the user experience somewhat. Minor things like using the wrong default algos for svg filters. I've had many issues with SVG support in Firefox. The fact that Firefox is still laggier in a lot of different scenarios, but mostly games for me. In online fast pace games it makes the experience completely unplayable. Try https://agor.io https://agor.io in firefox and then swtich to Brave for example. It lags in firefox, at least on linux. These are some of the things I could think of right now, but over time I've found many things that I find frustrating with Firefox. Then reading that they purchased pocket, a service which basically no one is using afaik seems like simply bad business. They also claim to value privacy but there wasn't long ago since someone discovered that they send data to google even in private browsing. Brave was the only browser that didn't send any privacy-invading requests. I think most of these things is due to a lack of commitment to the tech and a focus that has been on something else, namely politics. (Couldn't answer earlier since HN disallows posting more than 4 comments per hour..)