4 ms·

I don't care because I use Firefox.

by knallfrosch 2y ago

immibis 2y ago
Firefox will either support this or your favorite websites won't work so you'll switch to Chrome so they do work.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Unlikely. Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple nudged most organizations to handle third party cookie blocking unless they wanted to completely lose iPhone users. "If Google limited 3rd party cookies, we'd go out of business!", said the companies who have literally 0 Safari users.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > or your favorite websites won't work If my favorite websites stop working with Firefox, they won't be my favorite websites anymore. I'll just stop using them instead.
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    I'll just stop using them instead. Easily said, until it's your bank, or a government entity, or the electric company, or any of the thousands of other entities that have started blocking Firefox. Firefox should really camouflage its user agent, or make it trivial to do so.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      > Easily said, until it's your bank, or a government entity, or the electric company Still easily said, since I don't use the websites for any of those things anyway. If it's really important, or involves very sensitive personal information, I'm not doing it on the web. > or make it trivial to do so. There are extensions that make this very trivial.
      - jjulius 2y ago
        This is my approach, as well. And if I absolutely had to use their web service? Well, keep the bank in my Chrome bookmarks bar, and only go there when I'm in Chrome. Head on back to Firefox when I'm done doing whatever it is that I needed to do.
        chgs 2y ago
        It’s probably a good idea to have a separate browner for your bank anyway, on a seperate user account, probably a separate VM.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        > If it's really important, or involves very sensitive personal information, I'm not doing it on the web. It's definitely a position you can take, but that's a very minority position among web users these days. For the rest of us, "Just stop doing it on the web" would be a pretty substantial lifestyle change and, practically speaking, not worth it.
        JohnFen 2y ago
        I never claimed it was a majority position. I was only expressing my own stance. Whether or not anyone else shares it with me is irrelevant. > For the rest of us, "Just stop doing it on the web" would be a pretty substantial lifestyle change It really isn't, though, at least not for most people I know who aren't into tech. It would certainly mean changing some habits, which is often hard, but (at least in the US) it means giving up a relatively small amount of convenience, not a substantial lifestyle change.
    - alyandon 2y ago
      My soon-to-be-not-current insurance company. https://imgur.com/a/7WMuu7c https://imgur.com/a/7WMuu7c
      - EasyMark 2y ago
        That’s likely just because they don’t bother to test at all in Firefox, not because they will ban you.
    - pornel 2y ago
      That's why Firefox needs a userbase too large to ignore. If the overwhelming majority of users submits to Google, then Google has the power to erode privacy for everyone.
    - Prickle 2y ago
      Internet banking is so ridiculously insecure, I always go do it myself in person. Although, I rarely have to do anything with the bank that would require any online or offline process beyond using an ATM. So no, that wouldn't really be a reason for me to stop using Firefox.
    - heraldgeezer 2y ago
      >Firefox should really camouflage its user agent, or make it trivial to do so. Mozilla employee made an easy user agent switcher called Chrome Mask https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1eic7bj/chroe_mask_makes_firefox_wear_a_mask_to_look_like/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1eic7bj/chroe_mask...
    - squidbeak 2y ago
      If Firefox changes it UA for these sites, their operators will see even less needs to support the open standards it champions.
    - chgs 2y ago
      My bank and electric company don’t block Firefox, not sure why they would, but it’s not like there’s no competition. My government certainly won’t do that, they have a strong open data background.
    - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
      I already need to camouflage my user agent because some websites broke on a Linux host running chromium or Firefox. Switching UA to windows fixed this. I believe it was an analytic bug in Disney+, where they didn't except Linux to be an acceptable OS.
- edent 2y ago
  I use FF on Android and Linux. I've restricted cookies and use an ad-blocker. I browse many popular (and unpopular) websites. I can't remember the last one which refused to work because I was on Firefox.
- kevwil 2y ago
  Or start limiting Internet usage.

I don't care because I use Firefox.

immibis 2y ago

Firefox will either support this or your favorite websites won't work so you'll switch to Chrome so they do work.

kstrauser 2y ago
Unlikely. Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple nudged most organizations to handle third party cookie blocking unless they wanted to completely lose iPhone users. "If Google limited 3rd party cookies, we'd go out of business!", said the companies who have literally 0 Safari users.
JohnFen 2y ago
> or your favorite websites won't work If my favorite websites stop working with Firefox, they won't be my favorite websites anymore. I'll just stop using them instead.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  I'll just stop using them instead. Easily said, until it's your bank, or a government entity, or the electric company, or any of the thousands of other entities that have started blocking Firefox. Firefox should really camouflage its user agent, or make it trivial to do so.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > Easily said, until it's your bank, or a government entity, or the electric company Still easily said, since I don't use the websites for any of those things anyway. If it's really important, or involves very sensitive personal information, I'm not doing it on the web. > or make it trivial to do so. There are extensions that make this very trivial.
    - jjulius 2y ago
      This is my approach, as well. And if I absolutely had to use their web service? Well, keep the bank in my Chrome bookmarks bar, and only go there when I'm in Chrome. Head on back to Firefox when I'm done doing whatever it is that I needed to do.
      - chgs 2y ago
        It’s probably a good idea to have a separate browner for your bank anyway, on a seperate user account, probably a separate VM.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      > If it's really important, or involves very sensitive personal information, I'm not doing it on the web. It's definitely a position you can take, but that's a very minority position among web users these days. For the rest of us, "Just stop doing it on the web" would be a pretty substantial lifestyle change and, practically speaking, not worth it.
      - JohnFen 2y ago
        I never claimed it was a majority position. I was only expressing my own stance. Whether or not anyone else shares it with me is irrelevant. > For the rest of us, "Just stop doing it on the web" would be a pretty substantial lifestyle change It really isn't, though, at least not for most people I know who aren't into tech. It would certainly mean changing some habits, which is often hard, but (at least in the US) it means giving up a relatively small amount of convenience, not a substantial lifestyle change.
  - alyandon 2y ago
    My soon-to-be-not-current insurance company. https://imgur.com/a/7WMuu7c https://imgur.com/a/7WMuu7c
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      That’s likely just because they don’t bother to test at all in Firefox, not because they will ban you.
  - pornel 2y ago
    That's why Firefox needs a userbase too large to ignore. If the overwhelming majority of users submits to Google, then Google has the power to erode privacy for everyone.
  - Prickle 2y ago
    Internet banking is so ridiculously insecure, I always go do it myself in person. Although, I rarely have to do anything with the bank that would require any online or offline process beyond using an ATM. So no, that wouldn't really be a reason for me to stop using Firefox.
  - heraldgeezer 2y ago
    >Firefox should really camouflage its user agent, or make it trivial to do so. Mozilla employee made an easy user agent switcher called Chrome Mask https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1eic7bj/chroe_mask_makes_firefox_wear_a_mask_to_look_like/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1eic7bj/chroe_mask...
  - squidbeak 2y ago
    If Firefox changes it UA for these sites, their operators will see even less needs to support the open standards it champions.
  - chgs 2y ago
    My bank and electric company don’t block Firefox, not sure why they would, but it’s not like there’s no competition. My government certainly won’t do that, they have a strong open data background.
  - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
    I already need to camouflage my user agent because some websites broke on a Linux host running chromium or Firefox. Switching UA to windows fixed this. I believe it was an analytic bug in Disney+, where they didn't except Linux to be an acceptable OS.
edent 2y ago
I use FF on Android and Linux. I've restricted cookies and use an ad-blocker. I browse many popular (and unpopular) websites. I can't remember the last one which refused to work because I was on Firefox.
kevwil 2y ago
Or start limiting Internet usage.