3 ms·
There are already plenty of banking sites and such that will turn you away for not having a standard-issue Chrome user agent header. Also, crank your browser's
by gary_0 3y ago
There are already plenty of banking sites and such that will turn you away for not having a standard-issue Chrome user agent header. Also, crank your browser's privacy settings too high, and any website with twitchy Cloudflare settings will give you the sisyphean "I'm not a bot" check box until you give up and go away (or come back with a Chrome that's hungry for cookies).
So no, on our present course, Firefox will not save us. And even if every HN reader used it, that wouldn't even come close to pushing its usage share out of the single digits.
- clouddrover 3y ago> There are already plenty of banking sites and such that will turn you away for not having a standard-issue Chrome user agent header. Don't use that bank. > Also, crank your browser's privacy settings too high, and any website with twitchy Cloudflare settings will give you the sisyphean "I'm not a bot" check box Don't use that website. It's certainly true that you have no agency or self respect if you embrace a defeatist and submissive outlook. So don't do that.
- shiroiuma 3y ago>There are already plenty of banking sites and such that will turn you away for not having a standard-issue Chrome user agent header There are countless banks out there. I have bank accounts with several different institutions in two different countries and they all work fine with Firefox + uBO. If yours doesn't, why are you supporting them? >Also, crank your browser's privacy settings too high, and any website with twitchy Cloudflare settings will give you the sisyphean "I'm not a bot" check box until you give up and go away (or come back with a Chrome that's hungry for cookies). I haven't seen this. If a website is too much of a PITA to use, I just won't use it, and I suggest you do the same.
- crtasm 3y agoFirst I've heard of a bank rejecting firefox, do you have an example?
- mvdtnz 3y ago[flagged]
- gary_0 3y agohttps://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/w2yih8/just_got_this_notice_from_my_bank_no_more_firefox/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/w2yih8/just_got_th... https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/13dyzgl/my_bank_now_block_pdf_download_on_firefox_so_i/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/13dyzgl/my_bank_no... https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/n3btqe/why_does_bank_of_america_not_support_the_latest/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/n3btqe/why_does_ba...
- clouddrover 3y agoYour Bank of America example is over two years old and no longer valid: https://www.bankofamerica.com/information/supported-browsers/ https://www.bankofamerica.com/information/supported-browsers...
- gary_0 3y agoDo you think the situation will improve while Firefox has 3% market share, down ~2% from 2 years ago, and with <1% share on mobile? You're nitpicking, there are lots of corporate sites that only test against Chrome/Safari these days. I'd love it if Firefox would regain popularity, and Chrome would lose its stranglehold, but let's not stick our heads in the sand about the way things are going.
- clouddrover 3y ago> Do you think the situation will improve The situation in the example you cited has improved. You're undermining your own position. Use Firefox and be happy.
- archerx 3y agoGet a better bank.
- JohnFen 3y agoIf a website is useless to me because I'm using the "wrong" browser, my solution is to not use that website. Easy peasy. Even if it's my bank -- there are other methods of doing business with most banks, after all. And if my bank, for whatever reason, can only be dealt with through their website then I'd change banks in a heartbeat.