5 ms·

You can turn it back on for another couple of months in the app settings. Short, we need to ditch chrome, but what is best alternative?

ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
Firefox was the right browser for a very long time. If you are a software developer and you are using Chrome, shame on you
- uncomplexity_ 2y ago
  firefox literally just rugpulled everyone by officially selling people's data starting last week.
  - hparadiz 2y ago
    So disable data sharing. The alternative is selling your data without saying a thing.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    The controversy was misinformation, and the parent post wasn't even what the controversy was. People thought FF had been doing it before. The reality is, as I understand, they just updated their terms to cover all possible legal issues - including that some things you command Firefox to do involves using your data.
    - mimasama 2y ago
      > including that some things you command Firefox to do involves using your data. Mozilla has never used the data you upload/send via Firefox to non-Mozilla websites (as it should be), and they shouldn't have that permission just as Epson the company shouldn't have the right to use for any purpose a paper marked as classified just because some fed employee sent a digital copy of it to an Epson printer.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        They don't have that permission.
        wtallis 2y ago
        Except for the specific cases where their Privacy Notice does give them permission to collect and sell user information, such as collecting information about what topics users are making search queries about.
        mmooss 2y ago
        > such as collecting information about what topics users are making search queries about. Just read the terms rather than spread misinformation. That data doesn't leave the user's computer. Do you just not care what happens to Mozilla? How does it help to spread misinformation about them?
        wtallis 2y ago
        Excerpts from the Privacy Notice that I have read, and attempted to get you to read: > Mozilla processes certain technical and interaction data, such as how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. Mozilla's partners receive de-identified information about interactions with the suggestions they've served. > Depending on your location, Mozilla derives the high level category (e.g., travel, shopping) of your search from keywords in that query, in order to understand the types and number of searches being made. > Mozilla may also receive location-related keywords from your search (such as when you search for “Boston”) and share this with our partners to provide recommended and sponsored content. Your claim "That data doesn't leave the user's computer" is simply not true. Mozilla isn't selling empty files to their advertising partners. The only true and valid defense you've put up for Mozilla in the past week is that they're trying to anonymize the data before they sell it, but that's not nearly as strong an argument as you seem to think it is.
        2y ago
  - aembleton 2y ago
    Where can I buy the data? Or who are they selling it to?
    - agelas 2y ago
      [dead]
- hypothesis 2y ago
  This is high and mighty, but didn’t they fire security team a year or so ago (couldn’t afford pay for higher ups)? I like how everyone just memory-holed that part and moved on… why would you recommend that to anyone?
jpalawaga 2y ago
I've been using Firefox for the last 4+ years and it's been mostly fine. I have Chrome for the very occasional site that doesn't behave right, but they're few and far between (like maybe once a year).
nycdatasci 2y ago
Brave?
sergiotapia 2y ago
Brave. Fast, runs light on battery, i've seen zero ads since using Brave. it's baked in you don't even think about it. they added some kind of weird stuff like ai and wallets but you dont need to use it or invoke the ui
- topspin 2y ago
  Remember, the business model[1] of Brave Software, Inc. is various cryptocurrency schemes including the BAT currency ad scheme integrated into the Brave browser. Also, the CEO and co-founder of Brave Software, Inc. is Brendan Eich, a financial supporter[2] of the CA Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_m... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CEO_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...
  - chneu 2y ago
    It's wild to me how many folks are suggesting Brave, which is a known scam browser which calls itself privacy focused while doing the opposite.
  - throwme_123 2y ago
    Brendan Eich is also the inventor of JavaScript and the former CTO of Mozilla. While I don't support Prop 8 personally, I don't think we should judge technical products on political opinions of their author. You may think it's funny to advocate for bans and boycotts, until the other side does it too and we get a world split in 2 (or more).
    - topspin 2y ago
      > You may think it's funny There is nothing funny here at all. I'm so cynical about all of it that, as a many years long Brave user, I'm actively discouraging people from using it, because if Brave ever has enough users to be a problem for adtech, it will be destroyed. So if the crypto stink or ancient crimes against the progressive project can help forestall this for a few years, then at least they're good for something. As for Eich and JavaScript; technically, I doubt more that 0.1% of working coders are fit to lace his boots. Myself included.
rsanheim 2y ago
Firefox is a less bad option, even with the recent stupid policy changes they've made. Or there are a bunch of other options that care about privacy (see https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/). Brave, Librewolf, Arc, Zen, Orion (Kagi's thing). I tried Orion for a few days recently, but it started crashing randomly and felt unstable and slowed down after real-world use (3-6 windows, many many tabs, dev tools, etc). I really wish there was more competition here from the smaller, privacy focused players...but the reality is building a browser is insanely difficult for the modern web.
- anonym29 2y ago
  Firefox didn't make stupid policy changes. Firefox made policy changes they were legally required to in order to comply with a stupidly-worded California law. And thank WHATWG for making it impossible for indie players to remain compliant with modern standards by turning W3C's eminently reasonable and wholly sufficient specifications into a hulking monstrosity that's simultaneously large enough to be used as a stress test for your mobile browser's rendering engine (seriously. go try to load up 'view-source:https://html.spec.whatwg.org/ https://html.spec.whatwg.org/'. At the time of writing, the HTML for that single-page version is over 98,254 lines composing over 15MB of plain HTML) while simultaneously quite literally being defined as a continuously moving target.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    > Firefox didn't make stupid policy changes. Firefox made policy changes they were legally required to in order to comply with a stupidly-worded California law. They had other options, including not collecting and selling user data. The California law is working as intended.
    - anonym29 2y ago
      They're not selling user data in any sense that any ordinary, reasonable person would understand, only in California's excessively broad definition that may technically cover a litany of entirely noncommercial uses, like using opt-in customer metadata to improve their own free product, without distributing it to any third party at all. Businesses like to avoid risk where possible, and Mozilla's lawyers pushed this wording to ensure compliance with the riskiest possible interpretation of California's ambiguous and poorly-worded law.
jppope 2y ago
Tier 1: Brave, Arc, Ladybird Tier 2: Safari, Firefox Tier 3: Curl, lynx ... Tier 30: Chrome, Edge
- tavavex 2y ago
  Brave is definitely not a 'tier 1' browser in any world. Their whole existence had been mired in controversy after controversy[1], lots of these incidents involving privacy and general shady behavior. Arc is kind of promising, but I never really tried it after discovering that it's the only browser I've ever seen that requires (!) you to have an account with them. The obvious next question is 'what for?' [1] - https://reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_brave_browser_controversies/ https://reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_brave...
- stephen_g 2y ago
  I have very high hopes for Ladybird as it's being developed, but it's not really fair to call it Tier 1 when it's pre-alpha stage and not really suitable for general use yet...
- dcchambers 2y ago
  Surely your tier 1 is a joke. Ladybird isn't even targeting an alpha release until 2026.[^1] The Browser Company has basically decided to kill off Arc in favor of...Dia, whatever that is/will be.[^2] And Brave...oh Brave. Too much controversy there over the years to be interesting, honestly. Tier 1 is actually just Firefox, maybe Safari if you only care about MacOS/iOS. Interesting up-and-comers are Orion and Ladybird, but both are far from "tier 1" currently. [^1]: https://ladybird.org/ [^2]: https://www.diabrowser.com/

ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago

Firefox was the right browser for a very long time. If you are a software developer and you are using Chrome, shame on you

uncomplexity_ 2y ago
firefox literally just rugpulled everyone by officially selling people's data starting last week.
- hparadiz 2y ago
  So disable data sharing. The alternative is selling your data without saying a thing.
- mmooss 2y ago
  The controversy was misinformation, and the parent post wasn't even what the controversy was. People thought FF had been doing it before. The reality is, as I understand, they just updated their terms to cover all possible legal issues - including that some things you command Firefox to do involves using your data.
  - mimasama 2y ago
    > including that some things you command Firefox to do involves using your data. Mozilla has never used the data you upload/send via Firefox to non-Mozilla websites (as it should be), and they shouldn't have that permission just as Epson the company shouldn't have the right to use for any purpose a paper marked as classified just because some fed employee sent a digital copy of it to an Epson printer.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      They don't have that permission.
      - wtallis 2y ago
        Except for the specific cases where their Privacy Notice does give them permission to collect and sell user information, such as collecting information about what topics users are making search queries about.
        mmooss 2y ago
        > such as collecting information about what topics users are making search queries about. Just read the terms rather than spread misinformation. That data doesn't leave the user's computer. Do you just not care what happens to Mozilla? How does it help to spread misinformation about them?
        wtallis 2y ago
        Excerpts from the Privacy Notice that I have read, and attempted to get you to read: > Mozilla processes certain technical and interaction data, such as how many searches you perform, how many sponsored suggestions you see and whether you interact with them. Mozilla's partners receive de-identified information about interactions with the suggestions they've served. > Depending on your location, Mozilla derives the high level category (e.g., travel, shopping) of your search from keywords in that query, in order to understand the types and number of searches being made. > Mozilla may also receive location-related keywords from your search (such as when you search for “Boston”) and share this with our partners to provide recommended and sponsored content. Your claim "That data doesn't leave the user's computer" is simply not true. Mozilla isn't selling empty files to their advertising partners. The only true and valid defense you've put up for Mozilla in the past week is that they're trying to anonymize the data before they sell it, but that's not nearly as strong an argument as you seem to think it is.
        2y ago
- aembleton 2y ago
  Where can I buy the data? Or who are they selling it to?
  - agelas 2y ago
    [dead]
hypothesis 2y ago
This is high and mighty, but didn’t they fire security team a year or so ago (couldn’t afford pay for higher ups)? I like how everyone just memory-holed that part and moved on… why would you recommend that to anyone?

jpalawaga 2y ago

I've been using Firefox for the last 4+ years and it's been mostly fine. I have Chrome for the very occasional site that doesn't behave right, but they're few and far between (like maybe once a year).

nycdatasci 2y ago

Brave?

sergiotapia 2y ago

Brave. Fast, runs light on battery, i've seen zero ads since using Brave. it's baked in you don't even think about it. they added some kind of weird stuff like ai and wallets but you dont need to use it or invoke the ui

topspin 2y ago
Remember, the business model[1] of Brave Software, Inc. is various cryptocurrency schemes including the BAT currency ad scheme integrated into the Brave browser. Also, the CEO and co-founder of Brave Software, Inc. is Brendan Eich, a financial supporter[2] of the CA Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_m... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CEO_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...
- chneu 2y ago
  It's wild to me how many folks are suggesting Brave, which is a known scam browser which calls itself privacy focused while doing the opposite.
- throwme_123 2y ago
  Brendan Eich is also the inventor of JavaScript and the former CTO of Mozilla. While I don't support Prop 8 personally, I don't think we should judge technical products on political opinions of their author. You may think it's funny to advocate for bans and boycotts, until the other side does it too and we get a world split in 2 (or more).
  - topspin 2y ago
    > You may think it's funny There is nothing funny here at all. I'm so cynical about all of it that, as a many years long Brave user, I'm actively discouraging people from using it, because if Brave ever has enough users to be a problem for adtech, it will be destroyed. So if the crypto stink or ancient crimes against the progressive project can help forestall this for a few years, then at least they're good for something. As for Eich and JavaScript; technically, I doubt more that 0.1% of working coders are fit to lace his boots. Myself included.

rsanheim 2y ago

Firefox is a less bad option, even with the recent stupid policy changes they've made. Or there are a bunch of other options that care about privacy (see https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/). Brave, Librewolf, Arc, Zen, Orion (Kagi's thing). I tried Orion for a few days recently, but it started crashing randomly and felt unstable and slowed down after real-world use (3-6 windows, many many tabs, dev tools, etc). I really wish there was more competition here from the smaller, privacy focused players...but the reality is building a browser is insanely difficult for the modern web.

anonym29 2y ago
Firefox didn't make stupid policy changes. Firefox made policy changes they were legally required to in order to comply with a stupidly-worded California law. And thank WHATWG for making it impossible for indie players to remain compliant with modern standards by turning W3C's eminently reasonable and wholly sufficient specifications into a hulking monstrosity that's simultaneously large enough to be used as a stress test for your mobile browser's rendering engine (seriously. go try to load up 'view-source:https://html.spec.whatwg.org/ https://html.spec.whatwg.org/'. At the time of writing, the HTML for that single-page version is over 98,254 lines composing over 15MB of plain HTML) while simultaneously quite literally being defined as a continuously moving target.
- wtallis 2y ago
  > Firefox didn't make stupid policy changes. Firefox made policy changes they were legally required to in order to comply with a stupidly-worded California law. They had other options, including not collecting and selling user data. The California law is working as intended.
  - anonym29 2y ago
    They're not selling user data in any sense that any ordinary, reasonable person would understand, only in California's excessively broad definition that may technically cover a litany of entirely noncommercial uses, like using opt-in customer metadata to improve their own free product, without distributing it to any third party at all. Businesses like to avoid risk where possible, and Mozilla's lawyers pushed this wording to ensure compliance with the riskiest possible interpretation of California's ambiguous and poorly-worded law.

jppope 2y ago

Tier 1: Brave, Arc, Ladybird Tier 2: Safari, Firefox Tier 3: Curl, lynx ... Tier 30: Chrome, Edge

tavavex 2y ago
Brave is definitely not a 'tier 1' browser in any world. Their whole existence had been mired in controversy after controversy[1], lots of these incidents involving privacy and general shady behavior. Arc is kind of promising, but I never really tried it after discovering that it's the only browser I've ever seen that requires (!) you to have an account with them. The obvious next question is 'what for?' [1] - https://reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_brave_browser_controversies/ https://reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1j1pq7b/list_of_brave...
stephen_g 2y ago
I have very high hopes for Ladybird as it's being developed, but it's not really fair to call it Tier 1 when it's pre-alpha stage and not really suitable for general use yet...
dcchambers 2y ago
Surely your tier 1 is a joke. Ladybird isn't even targeting an alpha release until 2026.[^1] The Browser Company has basically decided to kill off Arc in favor of...Dia, whatever that is/will be.[^2] And Brave...oh Brave. Too much controversy there over the years to be interesting, honestly. Tier 1 is actually just Firefox, maybe Safari if you only care about MacOS/iOS. Interesting up-and-comers are Orion and Ladybird, but both are far from "tier 1" currently. [^1]: https://ladybird.org/ [^2]: https://www.diabrowser.com/