4 ms·
The fact that they're even spelling this out means it's going to be reversed soonish. Fortunately Firefox (or at least the original iisdea of a lightweight free
by l0b0 4y ago
The fact that they're even spelling this out means it's going to be reversed soonish. Fortunately Firefox (or at least the original iisdea of a lightweight free-as-in-freedom browser) is ready for another fork.
- bayindirh 4y agoIf they didn't spell this out loudly, people would accuse them being silent and waiting for the day to silently pull the plug, then. With your point of view, there's no way to tell the truth.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoThere is: they could just say "We are going to eventually follow Google/remove it, albeit maybe not today".
- bayindirh 4y agoYou're assuming it's going to be removed eventually. I have no such assumption. Also your wording sets an unjust precedent when there's no reason to have one.
- l0b0 4y agoNo, in my point of view this sort of thing should be too obvious to mention. Once they start making it explit, people will immediately start questioning it.
- bayindirh 4y agoWe are not sharing the same perspective and experience, I may say, and that's OK.
- foepys 4y agoThis is baseless speculation. Firefox already has more APIs than Chrome to support content blocking. E.g. DNS uncloaking and reliably blocking content loading on startup is impossible for extensions in Chrome.
- l0b0 4y agoOf course. It's based only on similar observations from other companies. We'll see in a year or three.