this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
282 points (97.6% liked)

Firefox

17740 readers
14 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 98 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hey, Laura. Fuck you. Fuck your profits and your corporate greed. Enshit yourself till you close down.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Firefox closing down would be pretty big loss since we'd lose all our serious non-Chrome/Chromium-based alternatives

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

hey maybe firefox just wants to show that ladybird is worth the wait

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Not everyone?

Does anyone?

Good thing we can fork, I guess, but it's kinda sad to watch a previously good org die

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fork, blah, blah, blah.

When one of these forks doesn't depend on Mozilla to do all the heavy lifting of security updates and compatibility fixes, then maybe we can talk seriously about forks. But no fork does fuck-all towards the hard part of maintaining a web browser engine. So forks mean nothing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So just stick with firefox?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago

Well, if users don't the source of the actual work, then none of the forks survive. I don't know what people think are going to happen.

Shitting on Mozilla seems to be a competitor sport around here sometimes, and it's fucking self-defeating. In 5 years, there will only be the Chromium engine, and then Google will shut down the opensource side like they pretty much did with Android. And then we're truly fucked.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've been using librewolf over the last week. Honestly.... It's a drop in replacement for me

[–] GetOffMyLan 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The problem with those sorts of forks is they still require moz to do most of the heavy lifting.

If Firefox stopped being developed they'd all pretty much freeze in place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Does it support containers and sync settings between installs on multiple systems? If so I’m in without hesitation.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 week ago (24 children)

I kept giving Mozilla the benefit of the doubt and telling myself things weren't so bad.

I was wrong.

I'll continue using Firefox because it's the least bad option, but I can't advocate for it in good faith anymore, and I don't expect it to last long with this orientation.

So it goes.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago (7 children)

At this point, I don't see many other options to keep everything going for Firefox. If they somehow lose the go*gle money they use to keep themselves going, they need another revenue source and I severely doubt there are enough Firefox users willing to pay enough to keep it going as it currently does. Don't like it, but I'm gonna at least play devil's advocate.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 week ago

Literally no one but advertisers like ads. Anything that leads to more ads being shown is a negative to your community. Some might understand the need to make money, but that doesn't make anyone like ads.

[–] GetOffMyLan 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

And, for the foreseeable future at least, advertising is a key commercial engine of the internet, and the most efficient way to ensure the majority of content remains free and accessible to as many people as possible.

I'm afraid they aren't wrong. The majority of people aren't going to pay for access to random blogs etc. So we'd end up with only the big players having usable sites.

People kick off about ads but rarely suggest an alternative to funding the internet.

Back in the day ads were targeted based on the website's target audience not the user's personal data. It works fine but is less effective. Don't see why they couldn't go that way.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I don't believe a web browser should be designed specifically for one business model, period.

There are plenty of free sites. Truly free, with no ads.

There are plenty of paid sites, supported by subscribers.

There are plenty of sites funded by educational institutions, nonprofits, or similar.

There used to be plenty of sites that were supported by non-invasive ads.

I don't give a damn if everyone uses Facebook and Google. That doesn't mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You posted this on Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

More effective is a massive understatement. Now they can precisely measure effectiveness and adjust their strategy in real time to maximize output. They have increased effective effectiveness several fold. The cat is out of the bag, even if we try to roll this back the googles of the world know the data is there and can’t not harvest it. Our best strategy has to combine regulation and monopoly busting, break these companies into smaller ones that have less power to comb through big data.

For a good read on this, check out The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuniga.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Internet was fine in the early 2000s before the rise of social media platforms resulted in surveillance advertisement complex.

It was a different place, but worked ok.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Oh you mean one of the only two reasons I use this fucking thing? Ad blocking and privacy?

You're shitting on both. That's like... Idk, Craftsman making tools out of plastic and removing the lifetime warranty... Wtf do I even need you for then?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I feel like I’m reading a different article than everyone else. The comments made me think the article would be adding advertisements, but it seems to be trying to find a way forward to facilitate advertisements while maintaining privacy.

Without technical details I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I know lemmy is largely “Mozilla bad”, but I’m just not sure the comments are in line with the proposal.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

I originally was one of the "FUCK FIREFOX IS FUCKED" people. However, after taking a deep breath and actually reading, yes, you are correct. There is no indication that they're blocking adblockers or taking away firefox customization. I think they're both looking for alternative revenue streams and trying to make the advertising business less intrusive. That being said, their communication is absolute dogshit and they deserve a lot of the shit they get. But I am not yet panicking. Firefox remains the best choice for blocking ads.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (7 children)

The problem for me is that I'm tired of ads at all, so while I do think that having an ad system that is less abusive than the current one is a step in the right direction, I still don't want to see any unsolicited ads and this feels like the initial steps to try to make it more palatable to eventually try to force users to accept ads back into their lives.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I still don’t want to see any unsolicited ads and this feels like the initial steps to try to make it more palatable to eventually try to force users to accept ads back into their lives.

Right, there's still a slippery slope issue here. I actually think it was a good thing that Mozilla was coming up with add-on products to create a revenue stream. I would love to, for instance, pay for a 2TB Mozilla Drive over Google Drive. I would rather do that than the ads.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

Thank you for breathing a bit of sanity into this thread. Same here. Some commenters were like "oh there's already too many adds" and I was like wait, what? They're not adding more adds to Firefox, are they? The article doesn't suggest that.

The "Mozilla bad" crowd echo chamber has gotten completely out of control in my opinion, and it's an avalanche of low effort comments, dozens of upvotes, and it's kind of a self sustaining echo chamber that exists because it exists.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago

We know that not everyone in our community will embrace our entrance into this market. But taking on controversial topics because we believe they make the internet better for all of us is a key feature of Mozilla’s history. And that willingness to take on the hard things, even when not universally accepted, is exactly what the internet needs today.

But you're not doing the hard things. You're doing the easy thing. Capitulation to surveillance capitalism is the easy thing.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago

Mozilla's non-profit status needs to be revoked.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (5 children)

What if we could have a world that wasn't powered by ads? I'd like to get past this "only one way to run the internet" train of thought.

I'm just so tired of ads, commercials and advertising in general. It's exhausting.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (14 children)

It's either that, a subscription model of some sort, going to pay to install models, or something else to fund themselves. I'd suggest going to a donation based model, but I doubt there's enough Firefox users willing to pay to even be able to keep it alive more than a year or two tops.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Says who?

Plenty of sites out there just run by people who want to run them, no fee, no ads.

It's people who want to capitalize on having a website that have this problem.

And let's be clear, it's their problem. Not mine. If they can't turn a profit with/without ads, that's not my concern, that's theirs. But they setup these web sites/services with the intention of making money through ads and surveillance, so let's not go around acting like these orgs just won't make it without us (there are exceptions, say archive.org, and guess what, people donate to them because they believe in the cause).

The problem is a bunch of people figured out the web was a brilliant way to data mine for profit. I actually had this discussion with a friend circa 1993. If we could see it then, imagine how many other people already had plans.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

fuckFuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck

But at least forking is still an option. The instant they make any moves that inhibit forking or privacy on forks, Firefox will be completely dead. For now, it’s just gangrenous.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Good luck with even maintaining that fork up to date , with security threats and web standards changing so quickly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

The thing is, people willing to maintain a fork could contribute to Firefox today, and reduce the development cost, reduce the need for income.

Sure, some people will be more willing to contribute, if it's a pure grassroots effort, or if they're left without a browser otherwise, but to just assume that a fork will fix it, that's wishful thinking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

This is just a huge fuck you to their community.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

Yeah, perhaps because advertisements go against the values that users look for in your browser?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

This breaks my heart.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The original developer has a great blog, and has commented on this

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This feels like the turning point for Firefox that we all feared would come. They've now switched to outright gas lighting their users. They're trying to convince us that if they take a stab at doing ads the right way, that we can have a web filled with tolerable ads that work for both the user and the business.

Ads and user data collection are the worst part of the internet. Nothing has ever gotten better because of them. And there's already far too much focus in this area. Mozilla just wants to be another exploiter so that they can have a piece of the stolen value pie.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ladybird is not usable yet, but it's an independent browser and engine that accepts donations

repo - https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird

youtube channel with monthly updates - https://www.youtube.com/@LadybirdBrowser/videos

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

So is NetSurf, and has been for most of this century already. I mean, it's great to see people even caring about independent browsers, but NetSurf surely needs much more love (and more developers). :-)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wonder if this has anything to do with the Google ad monopoly case?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Google was recently successfully sued for being anit-competitive by paying third parties to set Google as the default search engine.

That payoff by Google is like 90% of Mozilla's income, which is probably disappearing. So yeah, they're in full panic to fill that gap.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Frankly, I'm surprised it took them so long to say this publicly. For over a year, Mozilla has had a de facto conflict of interest when it came to their stance on advertisements, so take anything they say about their necessity with a huge grain of salt...

May 2023: Mozilla purchases FakeSpot, a company that sells private data to advertisers. Mozilla keeps selling private data to advertisers to this day.

June 2024: Mozilla purchases Anonym, an AdTech company.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The enshitification of Firefox continues 😢

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I switched to a fork of Firefox (Zen) without their bs..

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

rockbottom: NOBODY wants to see the ads you throw in our faces. doesnt matter that, as you claim, those ad views pay you for your content. there is no good way to make those ads palatable.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Hard fork incoming in 3... 2... 1....

load more comments
view more: next ›