5 ms·

Lots of Firefox hate here, but little discussion about the articles kicker, which is the exclusion of uBlock Origin from Chrome. I hope this will mean that in

Lots of Firefox hate here, but little discussion about the articles kicker, which is the exclusion of uBlock Origin from Chrome. I hope this will mean that in the long run Firefox (and other secondary browsers) will gain more users again. For me, Firefox is a solid piece of software. Works well in strict privacy mode, with uBlock Origin and Multi-Account Containers.

bool3max 1y ago
In the long run Alphabet will find a way to bar non-vetted browsers from accessing the Internet.
- pivo 1y ago
  Perhaps, but I'm not giving up just yet.
- IHLayman 1y ago
  Alphabet will definitely try to do that (within their business interest and all that), but I still choose to believe in the precept that “the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”, as old and outdated as that sounds. A number of my privacy-minded friends choose a bi-modal approach: have two phones, one for work and one for personal. They don’t get the recent model (costing half as much), hold onto the old phone for as long as they can, use one phone for “required” apps (Okta, Slack, those websites that only work on Chrome…) and the personal phone for everything else. As annoying as it is, i think that compartmentalized devices/accounts/apps are the only way forward.
- kaszanka 1y ago
  Probably even non-vetted firmware-to-browser chains, by requiring boot attestation to open a TLS connection or something.
  - normalaccess 1y ago
    I'm dreading the day when this becomes required by the government...
    - jorvi 1y ago
      With the ramping up of 18+ verification in Australia and now Europe (and South Korea and China already having such a programme for many years, including game time locks for young people), yeah. It doesn't seem that big a leap to connect the dots from device attestation > web browser integrity > identity verification > verified web access There is actually a relatively old game series of the 2000s called Bluesky Hacker Replay that has this as the core element of its worldbuilding. Governments and corporations became tired of the internet being overrun with spam, viruses, porn and cyberterrorism and decide to create an internet 2.0, tightly controlled by corporate interests. Hackers persist on the old 1.0 internet called the SwitchNet. And really, when you think about it.. if you composed an internet solely from the big name social media, entertainment, work, food, news and knowledge services, running atop Cloudflare who verifies everyone via government ID, how many would really complain? 99% of their internet time is already spent inside that bubble.
- GeoAtreides 1y ago
  The future is now (actually 2 years ago): https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-In...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- prasadjoglekar 1y ago
  Hopefully in the slightly shorter run, they get broken up via anti trust.
  - glenstein 1y ago
    Interestingly, I think if the Chrome browser gets spun off from Google, it might make sense for Google to have to make annual payments to support the development of Chrome like they do Firefox. Obviously being the default search in Chrome should have significant value worth paying for the same as Firefox and Safari. And it might be the most plausible economic model for Chrome if it's not being funded by Google.
- seanclayton 1y ago
  Some of us want a different world and believe it's possible.
- psionides 1y ago
  How would they do that?
  - bornfreddy 1y ago
    Now we are talking! Let's see the required steps, not necessarily in this order: 1) create a dominant browser 2) create a dominant mobile OS 3) create a dominant e-mail service 4) create a dominant search engine 5) leverage each of these to make other solutions, especially open ones, difficult to use 6) make other browsers perform badly when interacting with your services 7) lock other browsers from accessing your services, effectively crippling them There are some more minor steps, like making your main browser competitor dependent on your funding, but we can leave out the details. So we are now at... step 6?
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  They will try, but anti-trust laws and -lawsuits should compel them otherwise. Microsoft had to pay hundreds of millions in fines to the EU for not complying with a previous browser choice order [0], following previous lawsuits in the US about their tight coupling of Internet Explorer [1] in which they settled for $1 billion. Google has to pay a fine in excess of 4 billion (!) to the EU for anti-competitive practices in Android [2]. [0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_13_196 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_13_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google_by_the_European_Union#Android_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...
  - glenstein 1y ago
    This does raise a very interesting point though in my opinion. There's been some debate about whether Google should be compelled to sell off its chromium browser, but I wonder if it makes more sense to spin off Google's various attempts at boning internet infrastructure such as AMP and 8.8.8.8. I guess AMP is being wound down but it was a play for shifting more of the Internet onto Google infrastructure.
Twirrim 1y ago
Multi-Account Containers is a major feature I can't sing the praises for enough. I use it all the time, both to isolate stuff to break cookie tracking, and to enable me to log into things with two different accounts without opening a separate browser, which happens more often than I'd have thought.
- lillecarl 1y ago
  When I was doing IT support for ~50 SMBs I was using multi account containers + temporary locations ALL THE TIME to log into customer accounts in various places, now I don't really have the usecase but the addons are still there for the rare occasion.
- ReadCarlBarks 1y ago
  > both to isolate stuff to break cookie tracking You don't need containers for this: https://total-cookie-protection-test.netlify.app/ https://total-cookie-protection-test.netlify.app/
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  There's a few pain points with containers; whenever I'm browsing in a container tab, I wish CMD-T opened a new container tab, not my default tab. I haven't been able to find a setting for this :/ I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one. I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts.
  - sorcercode 1y ago
    > I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one. fwiw, there are add-ons that allow you to do this - in one way or the other (Container Hotkeys https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-hotkeys/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-hot... for example). but out of curiosity, > I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts. on this one btw, the Containerise extension i talk about (if it wasn't clear) allows you to also map "portions" of the url in specific containers. so /u/0 in one /u/1 in another; ofc, this requires the service/website to distinguish the accounts via the url. i do this for github a lot (work repos in specific containers)
hbn 1y ago
On my list of concerns for big tech abusing power, the ad company with the browser monopoly leveraging their position to essentially end ad blocking on the web by disabling it on the browser people are using in practice is very high on the list, and I would have been fine waiting on forcing Apple to let you uninstall the camera app, or switching the iPhone to USB-C if it could have prevented this. This didn't come out of nowhere, we've known about manifest v3 for years now. In fact Google's browser monopoly only looks like it's gonna get further cemented as Apple is forced to allow other browser engines, which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome. I feel like the anti-Apple snark that's been so popular since around the late 2000s (and I took part in in my angsty teen years) has been affecting the priority of what's being dealt with from regulators and it annoys me.
- beeflet 1y ago
  >which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome. It's hardly competition. People complain about the safari monopoly on iOS because it lags behind competitors and has awful support for PWAs.
  - bornfreddy 1y ago
    There is reason for Apple to implement Google-mandated standards.
WhyNotHugo 1y ago
> Lots of Firefox hate here, but little discussion about the articles kicker, which is the exclusion of uBlock Origin from Chrome. I'll complain about Firefox a lot, because I'm exposed to all its issues. That doesn't mean I hate it: I see issues in all products that I use, even the ones that are really useful or essential. I'm sure I'm not unique in this aspect in the HN crowd.
MattSayar 1y ago
My experience with uBlock Origin Lite seems basically the same. I also use NextDNS so that probably does a lot of heavy lifting too
simooooo 1y ago
That’s the main reason for me using Firefox and uninstalling Chrome

bool3max 1y ago

In the long run Alphabet will find a way to bar non-vetted browsers from accessing the Internet.

pivo 1y ago
Perhaps, but I'm not giving up just yet.
IHLayman 1y ago
Alphabet will definitely try to do that (within their business interest and all that), but I still choose to believe in the precept that “the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”, as old and outdated as that sounds. A number of my privacy-minded friends choose a bi-modal approach: have two phones, one for work and one for personal. They don’t get the recent model (costing half as much), hold onto the old phone for as long as they can, use one phone for “required” apps (Okta, Slack, those websites that only work on Chrome…) and the personal phone for everything else. As annoying as it is, i think that compartmentalized devices/accounts/apps are the only way forward.
kaszanka 1y ago
Probably even non-vetted firmware-to-browser chains, by requiring boot attestation to open a TLS connection or something.
- normalaccess 1y ago
  I'm dreading the day when this becomes required by the government...
  - jorvi 1y ago
    With the ramping up of 18+ verification in Australia and now Europe (and South Korea and China already having such a programme for many years, including game time locks for young people), yeah. It doesn't seem that big a leap to connect the dots from device attestation > web browser integrity > identity verification > verified web access There is actually a relatively old game series of the 2000s called Bluesky Hacker Replay that has this as the core element of its worldbuilding. Governments and corporations became tired of the internet being overrun with spam, viruses, porn and cyberterrorism and decide to create an internet 2.0, tightly controlled by corporate interests. Hackers persist on the old 1.0 internet called the SwitchNet. And really, when you think about it.. if you composed an internet solely from the big name social media, entertainment, work, food, news and knowledge services, running atop Cloudflare who verifies everyone via government ID, how many would really complain? 99% of their internet time is already spent inside that bubble.
GeoAtreides 1y ago
The future is now (actually 2 years ago): https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-In...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
prasadjoglekar 1y ago
Hopefully in the slightly shorter run, they get broken up via anti trust.
- glenstein 1y ago
  Interestingly, I think if the Chrome browser gets spun off from Google, it might make sense for Google to have to make annual payments to support the development of Chrome like they do Firefox. Obviously being the default search in Chrome should have significant value worth paying for the same as Firefox and Safari. And it might be the most plausible economic model for Chrome if it's not being funded by Google.
seanclayton 1y ago
Some of us want a different world and believe it's possible.
psionides 1y ago
How would they do that?
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  Now we are talking! Let's see the required steps, not necessarily in this order: 1) create a dominant browser 2) create a dominant mobile OS 3) create a dominant e-mail service 4) create a dominant search engine 5) leverage each of these to make other solutions, especially open ones, difficult to use 6) make other browsers perform badly when interacting with your services 7) lock other browsers from accessing your services, effectively crippling them There are some more minor steps, like making your main browser competitor dependent on your funding, but we can leave out the details. So we are now at... step 6?
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
They will try, but anti-trust laws and -lawsuits should compel them otherwise. Microsoft had to pay hundreds of millions in fines to the EU for not complying with a previous browser choice order [0], following previous lawsuits in the US about their tight coupling of Internet Explorer [1] in which they settled for $1 billion. Google has to pay a fine in excess of 4 billion (!) to the EU for anti-competitive practices in Android [2]. [0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_13_196 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_13_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google_by_the_European_Union#Android_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...
- glenstein 1y ago
  This does raise a very interesting point though in my opinion. There's been some debate about whether Google should be compelled to sell off its chromium browser, but I wonder if it makes more sense to spin off Google's various attempts at boning internet infrastructure such as AMP and 8.8.8.8. I guess AMP is being wound down but it was a play for shifting more of the Internet onto Google infrastructure.

Twirrim 1y ago

Multi-Account Containers is a major feature I can't sing the praises for enough. I use it all the time, both to isolate stuff to break cookie tracking, and to enable me to log into things with two different accounts without opening a separate browser, which happens more often than I'd have thought.

lillecarl 1y ago
When I was doing IT support for ~50 SMBs I was using multi account containers + temporary locations ALL THE TIME to log into customer accounts in various places, now I don't really have the usecase but the addons are still there for the rare occasion.
ReadCarlBarks 1y ago
> both to isolate stuff to break cookie tracking You don't need containers for this: https://total-cookie-protection-test.netlify.app/ https://total-cookie-protection-test.netlify.app/
pavel_lishin 1y ago
There's a few pain points with containers; whenever I'm browsing in a container tab, I wish CMD-T opened a new container tab, not my default tab. I haven't been able to find a setting for this :/ I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one. I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts.
- sorcercode 1y ago
  > I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one. fwiw, there are add-ons that allow you to do this - in one way or the other (Container Hotkeys https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-hotkeys/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-hot... for example). but out of curiosity, > I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts. on this one btw, the Containerise extension i talk about (if it wasn't clear) allows you to also map "portions" of the url in specific containers. so /u/0 in one /u/1 in another; ofc, this requires the service/website to distinguish the accounts via the url. i do this for github a lot (work repos in specific containers)

hbn 1y ago

On my list of concerns for big tech abusing power, the ad company with the browser monopoly leveraging their position to essentially end ad blocking on the web by disabling it on the browser people are using in practice is very high on the list, and I would have been fine waiting on forcing Apple to let you uninstall the camera app, or switching the iPhone to USB-C if it could have prevented this. This didn't come out of nowhere, we've known about manifest v3 for years now. In fact Google's browser monopoly only looks like it's gonna get further cemented as Apple is forced to allow other browser engines, which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome. I feel like the anti-Apple snark that's been so popular since around the late 2000s (and I took part in in my angsty teen years) has been affecting the priority of what's being dealt with from regulators and it annoys me.

beeflet 1y ago
>which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome. It's hardly competition. People complain about the safari monopoly on iOS because it lags behind competitors and has awful support for PWAs.
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  There is reason for Apple to implement Google-mandated standards.

WhyNotHugo 1y ago

> Lots of Firefox hate here, but little discussion about the articles kicker, which is the exclusion of uBlock Origin from Chrome. I'll complain about Firefox a lot, because I'm exposed to all its issues. That doesn't mean I hate it: I see issues in all products that I use, even the ones that are really useful or essential. I'm sure I'm not unique in this aspect in the HN crowd.

MattSayar 1y ago

My experience with uBlock Origin Lite seems basically the same. I also use NextDNS so that probably does a lot of heavy lifting too

simooooo 1y ago

That’s the main reason for me using Firefox and uninstalling Chrome