4 ms·

Yeah they’re all funded by Google, so by your explicitly stated principle you can’t use any of them

• bayindirh 2y ago
  At least, I’m not feeding Google directly with my every keystroke, so that’s a plus. At least in my eyes. Sometimes we have to be pragmatic, especially if being pedantic is detrimental to our aims. Happy new year.
  • bowsamic 2y ago
    Sure I do think we need to be pragmatic which is why I was questioning your original principle, but you don’t seem willing to abide by your stated principle at all. I’m just not sure why you said it if you have no intention to stand behind it
    • bayindirh 2y ago
      Just tell me a viable alternative. I'll migrate to it. - Not funded by an advertising company / data broker, etc. - Not chromium based. - Not a Firefox fork. - Works on Linux & MacOS natively. - Daily-driveable (i.e. functionally equivalent with Firefox).
      • bowsamic 2y ago
        There isn't one, which was my point. By your originally stated principle, you are screwed, but now you seem to be just pretending you never stated that principle. I can quote it again if you like: > As a matter of principle, I'd never use a browser which is funded by an advertisement company which lives off my data to show me ads and rob me of my privacy and cognitive capacity. That is what YOU said. All you've been doing is against your own quote. I think the quote is stupid, for the reasons you pointed out. I'm just trying to show you that you're the one who said it, but you seem to be totally unwilling to admit that you did, even though it is clearly publicly there