3 ms·
We were interested in what you were talking about and now we know because you've actually said. That's the way this site is supposed to work. Generally consider
by harry8 4y ago
We were interested in what you were talking about and now we know because you've actually said. That's the way this site is supposed to work. Generally considered a good thing when people are interested in what you have to say, putting barriers in the way seems less than an ideal strategy.
So there are five settings that you believe are set to the wrong default. This causes you to mistrust firefox in total and want to use a fork that you deem more trustworthy but haven't mentioned any fork or how you decided that they are more trustworthy.
That is all 100% totally and utterly reasonable and we can take it on board and use it to adjust our views or not now that we know what you're talking about.
Thanks for posting it clearly that is worth the time it takes. The inital comment is mostly noise and in my view, not worth posting.
- antiframe 4y agoI also have a different definition of shady than he's using. A setting clearly and prominently described on the options is not shady in by book, regardless of the default. Would I prefer Firefox had different defaults? Yes. But, I will reserve the word shady for the products actually doing shady things like telemetry in Windows that requires jumping through hoops to turn off.
- account42 4y ago> I also have a different definition of shady than he's using. A setting clearly and prominently described on the options is not shady in by book, regardless of the default. It is shady because new settings appear with updates. Surely you don't expect users to trawl through all settings for each browser update to see if Mozilla didn't sneak anything in there that undoes part of their previous choices?