• persolb@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        2 years ago

        I love it in theory… but it just broke so many websites I needed to use. And not always in obvious ways.

        • gammasfor@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          2 years ago

          Yeah these days literally every website uses JavaScript in some format as modern reactive design is easier to do if you can execute client side code. Blocking JavaScript is a sledgehammer solution to the problem.

      • vii@lemmy.ml
        2·
        2 years ago

        You can use Ublock Origin in advanced mode, which allows you to block, blacklist/whitelist scripts.

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      4·
      2 years ago

      Been using FF for about 2 decades now and I have never seen a single good reason to switch.

      • EricKendrick@feddit.ukEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        Ditto. As much as people pretend Firefox is niche, it is the only browser with lineage back to the start of the web.

        • Dashmaybe@lemmygrad.ml
          2·
          2 years ago

          Truly. I don’t get this new “switch to Firefox!!” hype, are the people writing this very young, or am I missing something? I’ve been using Firefox since beta, I’ve never seen a reason to switch since it’s always been the superior browser, why have people been running anything else in the first place?

  • AncientBlueberry@lemmy.world
    75·
    2 years ago

    Google accounts for some 80%+ of Mozilla’s revenue. Firefox struck a different kind of deal with the devil than chromium browsers, but Google is the one pulling the strings.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      39·
      2 years ago

      Bit of a weird thought, but I wonder also if they see Mozilla as a sort of controlled opposition too? As in, keep Firefox around so they don’t get in trouble over antitrust or something like that?

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        2 years ago

        Mozilla.org is the corpse of Netscape that Google keeps animated so that it looks like they have competition when they really don’t.

        The existence of Firefox is something they can point to to say they’re not a monopoly. The fact that 80% of the revenue Firefox receives is from Google means that Google effectively controls them. Mozilla has to weigh every decision against the risk that it will cause Google to withdraw their funding. That severely restricts the choices they’re willing to consider.

        Firefox is only 5% of browsers, so it really doesn’t matter to Google if that 5% of users considers using a different search engine. Because of the Firefox user base, many of them will have already switched search engines, and because Google is such a dominant player, many others would switch back to Google if the browser used a different default. So, maybe 10% of that 5% would permanently switch search engines if Google stopped paying. Is that really worth billions per year? Probably not. But, pretending like you have competitors in the browser space and using that to push back on antitrust, that’s definitely worth billions per year.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          0·
          2 years ago

          Google makes something like $100 Billion a year in search ad revenue. 5% of that is $5 Billion.

          It’s odd that people think Google is incredibly worried about having too large of a market share in the browser market (which they don’t make any money from) yet their 92% market share in searches is not concerning at all in terms of the potential for regulation.

          The truth is nobody does anti-trust anymore (though they definitely should) and the big corporations aren’t worried at all about it. Google makes Chrome, Android, and pays Mozilla because they want to maintain dominance in the search market. Which is the thing they make money form. What they pay Mozilla is a drop in the bucket compared to what they pay Apple to be the default search engine on their devices.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            2 years ago

            Google doesn’t directly make money from their browser, but controlling their browser means they lock in the thing that drives their revenues. They can always test it out against all their ads and make sure it works, putting out a fix if it ever doesn’t. We’ve also seen recently how they’re trying to make it so people can’t run ad blockers, something they could only consider if they lock down the entire browser market.

            • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              1·
              2 years ago

              I disagree.

              Google doesn’t “control” mozilla in that way.

              They can always test it out against all their ads and make sure it works, putting out a fix if it ever doesn’t.

              They could do this even if they weren’t funding mozilla. Ad’s aren’t exactly reliant on bleeding edge web standards anyway. You’re thinking about tracking tech, which they don’t have any input in for firefox.

              We’ve also seen recently how they’re trying to make it so people can’t run ad blockers

              Well yes, and mozilla was quite vocal in their opposition, demonstrating that Google doesn’t have much control over them.

      • kylostillreigns@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 years ago

        For an example, Mozilla being forced to use Google Location Services as default even though Mozilla has its own. I am also a Firefox user but it always makes me wonder what other TnCs forced on Mozilla as part of the search deal.

  • boeman@lemmy.world
    48·
    2 years ago

    This feels weird to say… I really think Microsoft should’ve stuck with trident / edgehtml.

  • lewegee@lemmy.worldEnglish
    18·
    2 years ago

    Be sure to install AdNauseam on your Firefox to really go full “fuck you” to google.

    • LeTak@lemm.eeEnglish
      8·
      2 years ago

      Chrome was not always based on chromeium. Chrome was based on Apple WebKit until 2013 when they forked WebKit and made the Blink engine.

      • fidodo@lemm.ee
        2·
        2 years ago

        Chromium has always existed. Originally it was wrapping web kit and later they forked web kit into blink and diverged from Web kit. Chromium is a level above the engine.

  • Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.world
    15·
    2 years ago

    Safari still uses the WebKit engine… right?

    Google Chrome used to use WebKit before switching to their own weird engine that a whole bunch of other browsers now use.

    • nonearther@lemmy.mlEnglish
      11·
      2 years ago

      When Google forked from WebKit to create Blink, they had genuine reasons for it.

      Apple was stalling any progress of web by stalling new features in WebKit. They wanted to push their native apps and get big cut from developers’ money.

      Google had to fork and progress web dev further.

      And unfortunately for us, Google folks are greedy assholes who stop at nothing to own everything web even if they have to bend everything.

      WEI is a perfect example.

  • hi_its_me@lemmy.world
    10·
    2 years ago

    Honest question… I get that Chrome has a bunch questionable privacy practices that sends data back to Google, but do the chromium based browsers do that as well? My understanding is that Chromium is just the rendering engine. How is it bad?

    Also, if Google implements their bullshit DRM features, I wonder if the derivative browsers will be able to disable it. I believe I saw that Brave said they won’t use it.