4 ms·

Firefox is the only holdout against the ad companies, and I'm counting Microsoft amongst those. It's a very good browser, independent with its own renderer, wit

by bartvk 8mo ago

Firefox is the only holdout against the ad companies, and I'm counting Microsoft amongst those. It's a very good browser, independent with its own renderer, with decent ad blocking and decent performance. It continually amazes me how people use a Google product on their desktop, as if they don't send enough data to an ad company. Actually, I'm not sure why I type this, any rational arguments are definitely not winning them over.

Aeglaecia 8mo ago
[flagged]
- throwmeoutplzdo 8mo ago
  You’re mixing up funding with control. Mozilla Corporation takes money from Google for search placement. That doesn’t turn it into a subsidiary. Google doesn’t own it, doesn’t run its roadmap, and doesn’t ship its code. Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. On telemetry: you’re overstating it. Firefox ships with telemetry on, but it documents what it collects, lets users turn it off, and exposes most of it in about:config. Google Chrome ties into a much broader account system, sync stack, and ad network. Chrome doesn’t operate in isolation; it plugs straight into Google’s data ecosystem. Firefox doesn’t own an ad network to feed. “Almost comparable” needs evidence. Comparable how? Volume? Type? Identifiability? Retention? Without specifics, the claim collapses into vibes. The bigger difference sits lower in the stack: engine independence. Firefox runs on Gecko. Chrome runs on Blink. If you care about web monoculture, that matters more than marginal telemetry deltas. When one engine dominates, web standards start drifting toward what that engine implements. We watched that happen in the IE6 era. As for uBlock Origin: yes, it’s a major reason people choose Firefox. But browser architecture shapes how long powerful content blockers survive. Chrome’s extension model changes (Manifest V3) restrict what blockers can do. Firefox kept the older, more capable API. That choice signals priorities. If your argument reduces to “both collect some data, so it doesn’t matter,” you flatten meaningful differences. The question isn’t purity. The question asks who controls the engine, who sets extension policy, and who benefits from surveillance at scale. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur structural distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.
  - Aeglaecia 8mo ago
    [flagged]
  - shevy-java 8mo ago
    That is not a mix-up though. Mozilla became dependent on the Google money - everyone sees this.
    - Aeglaecia 8mo ago
      [flagged]
    - tbossanova 8mo ago
      Still better though right?
    - Sabinus 8mo ago
      Feel free to provide Mozilla with a better funding stream. They've tried quite a few things. I'm hoping the Europeans fund development to provide an alternative to Chrome.
  - jahsome 8mo ago
    [flagged]
  - stephenr 8mo ago
    > Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. Google search revenue represents about 75% of Mozilla's total revenue. Google search revenue represents about 4% of Apple's total revenue. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur financial distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.
- wormpilled 8mo ago
  That's a pretty big aside
- petesergeant 8mo ago
  You're being down-voted because it's a low-effort comment which comes with a large burden of proof that you've not included. Specifically: > mozilla is basically a google subsidiary "Everyone" knows that Mozilla has a heavy financial reliance on Google. So are you bringing this up to suggest that Mozilla also consistently acts to benefit Google and its ad network? If so, where's the proof? If not, what's the point you're making? > firefox telemetry is almost comparable to chrome Comparable to Chrome what? Telemetry? Something else? What is Firefox using that data for? In the service of or against users? What's the point you're trying to make? If you're making assertions, where's the proof? You're making a lot of imprecise comments, most of interpretations of which carry a large burden of proof, and then complaining that people are just down-voting and moving on.
OGEnthusiast 8mo ago
[dead]
shevy-java 8mo ago
In theory you are not incorrect, but Google bribes Firefox and Google makes most money via ads. Mozilla gave up on firefox a long time ago. > It continually amazes me how people use a Google product on their desktop, as if they don't send enough data to an ad company. I'd love to have alternatives, but which ones are there? Firefox is not an alternative; audio does not work for me as I am pulseaudio free here. On chrome-based browsers audio works fine, out of the box, so it is not my system that is at fault; it is mozilla that is at fault. I also reported this, the lazy firefox dev said all Linux users use pulseuaudio these days. Well ... I could recompile it but compiling firefox is a pain in the ...: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/firefox.html https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/firefox... I am not going to use a build system that is +20 years old and only exists because Mozilla is too lazy to switch to cmake or meson/ninja as primary build tool. > Actually, I'm not sure why I type this, any rational arguments are definitely not winning them over. Well I gave one rational argument: can't play audio on my linux box if I use firefox (by default that is). I can give many more reasons too. You seem to make the point that Google is worse, so we should also use a bad product (firefox). I think we really need better browsers in general. Firefox simply isn't one and that is Mozilla's fault. There is a reason why it went into decline. Mozilla gave up the fight - the ad-money made it weak.
- lillesvin 8mo ago
  > Firefox is not an alternative; audio does not work for me. I could recompile it but compiling firefox is a pain in the ... Obviously I don't have any data backing me up here, but I'm going to guess that that isn't the main reason why so many people choose Chrome over Firefox.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- csmantle 8mo ago
  > I could recompile it but compiling firefox is a pain in the ... Would second this. Mach uses Python, and the dependencies they use are a pain whenever no pre-built wheels are available. Especially so when you see that an "optional" Mach dependency for build system telemetry is what busting the configuration (not build) stage...
cyberrock 8mo ago
I daily drive FF in desktop and Android but Brave has doubled in users the last few years, and my mildly tech-conscious acquaintances have settled on it after Manifest v3, while FF has been flat. That has been the greatest vote of no confidence against it ever.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

by bartvk 8mo ago

Aeglaecia 8mo ago

[flagged]

throwmeoutplzdo 8mo ago
You’re mixing up funding with control. Mozilla Corporation takes money from Google for search placement. That doesn’t turn it into a subsidiary. Google doesn’t own it, doesn’t run its roadmap, and doesn’t ship its code. Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. On telemetry: you’re overstating it. Firefox ships with telemetry on, but it documents what it collects, lets users turn it off, and exposes most of it in about:config. Google Chrome ties into a much broader account system, sync stack, and ad network. Chrome doesn’t operate in isolation; it plugs straight into Google’s data ecosystem. Firefox doesn’t own an ad network to feed. “Almost comparable” needs evidence. Comparable how? Volume? Type? Identifiability? Retention? Without specifics, the claim collapses into vibes. The bigger difference sits lower in the stack: engine independence. Firefox runs on Gecko. Chrome runs on Blink. If you care about web monoculture, that matters more than marginal telemetry deltas. When one engine dominates, web standards start drifting toward what that engine implements. We watched that happen in the IE6 era. As for uBlock Origin: yes, it’s a major reason people choose Firefox. But browser architecture shapes how long powerful content blockers survive. Chrome’s extension model changes (Manifest V3) restrict what blockers can do. Firefox kept the older, more capable API. That choice signals priorities. If your argument reduces to “both collect some data, so it doesn’t matter,” you flatten meaningful differences. The question isn’t purity. The question asks who controls the engine, who sets extension policy, and who benefits from surveillance at scale. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur structural distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.
- Aeglaecia 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- shevy-java 8mo ago
  That is not a mix-up though. Mozilla became dependent on the Google money - everyone sees this.
  - Aeglaecia 8mo ago
    [flagged]
  - tbossanova 8mo ago
    Still better though right?
  - Sabinus 8mo ago
    Feel free to provide Mozilla with a better funding stream. They've tried quite a few things. I'm hoping the Europeans fund development to provide an alternative to Chrome.
- jahsome 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- stephenr 8mo ago
  > Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. Google search revenue represents about 75% of Mozilla's total revenue. Google search revenue represents about 4% of Apple's total revenue. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur financial distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not.
wormpilled 8mo ago
That's a pretty big aside
petesergeant 8mo ago
You're being down-voted because it's a low-effort comment which comes with a large burden of proof that you've not included. Specifically: > mozilla is basically a google subsidiary "Everyone" knows that Mozilla has a heavy financial reliance on Google. So are you bringing this up to suggest that Mozilla also consistently acts to benefit Google and its ad network? If so, where's the proof? If not, what's the point you're making? > firefox telemetry is almost comparable to chrome Comparable to Chrome what? Telemetry? Something else? What is Firefox using that data for? In the service of or against users? What's the point you're trying to make? If you're making assertions, where's the proof? You're making a lot of imprecise comments, most of interpretations of which carry a large burden of proof, and then complaining that people are just down-voting and moving on.

OGEnthusiast 8mo ago

[dead]

shevy-java 8mo ago

In theory you are not incorrect, but Google bribes Firefox and Google makes most money via ads. Mozilla gave up on firefox a long time ago. > It continually amazes me how people use a Google product on their desktop, as if they don't send enough data to an ad company. I'd love to have alternatives, but which ones are there? Firefox is not an alternative; audio does not work for me as I am pulseaudio free here. On chrome-based browsers audio works fine, out of the box, so it is not my system that is at fault; it is mozilla that is at fault. I also reported this, the lazy firefox dev said all Linux users use pulseuaudio these days. Well ... I could recompile it but compiling firefox is a pain in the ...: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/firefox.html https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/firefox... I am not going to use a build system that is +20 years old and only exists because Mozilla is too lazy to switch to cmake or meson/ninja as primary build tool. > Actually, I'm not sure why I type this, any rational arguments are definitely not winning them over. Well I gave one rational argument: can't play audio on my linux box if I use firefox (by default that is). I can give many more reasons too. You seem to make the point that Google is worse, so we should also use a bad product (firefox). I think we really need better browsers in general. Firefox simply isn't one and that is Mozilla's fault. There is a reason why it went into decline. Mozilla gave up the fight - the ad-money made it weak.

lillesvin 8mo ago
> Firefox is not an alternative; audio does not work for me. I could recompile it but compiling firefox is a pain in the ... Obviously I don't have any data backing me up here, but I'm going to guess that that isn't the main reason why so many people choose Chrome over Firefox.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
csmantle 8mo ago
> I could recompile it but compiling firefox is a pain in the ... Would second this. Mach uses Python, and the dependencies they use are a pain whenever no pre-built wheels are available. Especially so when you see that an "optional" Mach dependency for build system telemetry is what busting the configuration (not build) stage...

cyberrock 8mo ago

I daily drive FF in desktop and Android but Brave has doubled in users the last few years, and my mildly tech-conscious acquaintances have settled on it after Manifest v3, while FF has been flat. That has been the greatest vote of no confidence against it ever.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]