• jk1006@feddit.orgEnglish
    19·
    7 hours ago

    I am from Germany and it is just sad how many people use these apps from shit companies without thinking, when suitable alternatives exist everywhere. Just use Firefox, it will work for 99,9% without any flaw. I would love to ditch WhatsApp, but could only convinge a few people to change to Signal. It is as easy as downloading a new app to prevent supporting Meta, but that’s too much effort for many :-(

    • Pixel101a@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      People not using Firefox is Mozilla’s fault. Just look at how their mobile browser performs. It’s so much worse than any chromium browser.

      • DrQuickbeam@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        4 hours ago

        I’ve been using Firefox mobile since they enabled extensions on it a little over a year ago on my Pixel 9 and haven’t had any performance issues with it. My only complaint is that it doesn’t handle form auto fills, or opening links associated with apps as well as chrome, but I think that’s because of chrome’s inherent ties into the OS. I prefer Opera on desktop for the UI and features.

        • NewDay@feddit.orgEnglish
          2·
          4 hours ago

          I use Firefox mobile since they support extensions but I have to admit that mobile browsers that are based on Geckoview are worse than browsers that are based on Blink.

          Mozilla said that they want to concentrate their power on the mobile version, but I could not find the statement anymore.

  • ZzyzxEnglish
    7·
    7 hours ago

    It’s really annoying to me that Firefox doesn’t seem to work well on my chromebook, so I’m stuck with Chrome until I need a new computer…

  • jam_scot@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    9 hours ago

    I switched to Firefox many years ago, after their announcement I switched to Waterfox and I’m very happy with it.

  • knexcar@lemmy.worldEnglish
    63·
    17 hours ago

    This is probably the single thing that got me to switch to Firefox. Privacy whatever, I don’t care about my data or the morality of my tech company or whatever, but mess with my adblocker and goodbye.

    • TehWorld@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      16 hours ago

      I’m mostly in the same boat. If you really want to know my kink-search-history, I really DGAF. The morality is nice to think about but it’s all about your personal morals in a lot of cases.

    • Ledericas@lemm.eeEnglish
      8·
      16 hours ago

      firefox is going through thier own enshittifcation down the line, they changed ther policy about data recently

      • enthusiasm_headquarters@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        15 hours ago

        I read about this too, and it worries me. Google has donated over a billion dollars to Mozilla over the years. That alone doesn’t scare me so much as it’s a blatant propaganda tool to deflect the antitrust sentiment that plagues them and will probably some day do its work of breaking them apart.

        Fortunately, there are numerous open source forks. I am currently using Librewolf, a fork of firefox focused on privacy and anti-tracking, and it has worked without a hitch. A couple of my extensions have required fiddling with to get right but it’s part of life if you care about these things.

      • dan@upvote.auEnglish
        8·
        16 hours ago

        They changed the wording of their policy for legal reasons. They haven’t actually changed what they do. They already updated the text of the policy to clarify.

          • dan@upvote.auEnglish
            6·
            14 hours ago

            Yes, because the definition of “sell data” varies by jurisdiction, and they can’t guarantee that their usage of ads (eg the default sites that appear on the new tab page) does not fall under the definition of “sell data” in some jurisdictions. In particular, California’s CCPA is pretty strict and some use cases that aren’t actually selling data still fall under its definition of “sell data”.

            • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.mlEnglish
              2·
              13 hours ago

              And they had this revelation and newfound sense of caution immediately after their main source of income was jeopardized? And they made this change at the exact same time they started forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox? Sure, Jan.

              • dan@upvote.auEnglish
                3·
                12 hours ago

                forcing users to give them a worldwide commercial license to everything you enter through Firefox?

                That’s not what they actually did, though. They revised the wording to clarify:

                You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

                For example, if you type something into the address bar, they need to have the permission to take your content (whatever you’ve typed) and send it to a third party (a search engine) to get autocompletion results.

                Here’s the blog post that clarifies the changes: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

  • Pulsar@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    13 hours ago

    Webserial is only reason I see to install Chrome. For everything else Firefox works great.

  • Jimius@lemmy.mlEnglish
    107·
    20 hours ago

    if ads were normal and unobtrusive. We wouldn’t need ad blockers. Instead we get an almost unusable internet where ads take up more and more real estate. I had been running an ad blocker for so many years that when a friend (who doesn’t use an ad blocker) showed me a website, the unfiltered experience was horrifying.

      • Ledericas@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        16 hours ago

        some some youtubers that had setup like that, it was so cringey. its from idiocracy

    • 🎨 Elaine Cortez 🇨🇦 @lemm.eeEnglish
      7·
      16 hours ago

      I was about to comment something similar but you said it before I did. Sometimes I’ll mistakenly open YouTube with Chrome and then I realize I messed up because I have to sit through three, sometimes one-minute long ads just to watch a twenty second video. I’ll typically just nope out and switch to Firefox. The worst thing is they’re unskippable and I swear for some of them the ad actually pauses if you switch to another tab or browser. I’m getting ads even on super old videos so I’m pretty sure it isn’t all to do with the channels themselves monetizing their videos.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        14 hours ago

        3 one minute long adds are better than those 2 hour long prageru racist propaganda videos trying to masquerade as “Educational” content

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      18 hours ago

      Im old enough to remember the internet before ads, and with ads became a thing and you had to make sure to keep your speakers low/off all the time less some screaming loud ad popped up somewhere to burst your eardrums at 2am.

      There were so many obnoxious, visual cancer ads.

      Then they became actual digital cancer by being injection points for viruses and malware, and thus adblockers became a necessity.

      And they remain a necessity to this day, for the same reason as they were 20+ years ago.

      and yet the ad servers want to blame the end user for adblocking.

      not their absolute refusal to moderate or police any of the content they deliver.

    • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nzEnglish
      5·
      16 hours ago

      I went to help out a friend, a few years ago, he runs vanilla Edge, I can’t believe anyone actually uses the internet like that.

    • padge@lemmy.zipEnglish
      5·
      19 hours ago

      I’d be okay with sites showing me unintrusive non targeted ads, but since it’s all or nothing I choose nothing.

  • g4nd41ph@lemmy.worldEnglish
    33·
    18 hours ago

    I swapped to Chrome years ago because YouTube stopped working right on Firefox.

    I’ve started the process of swapping back to Firefox after 10 years with Chrome over this.

    • karma@feddit.ukEnglish
      3·
      5 hours ago

      If they break youtube in alternative browsers or force ads I’ll finally be able to ditch youtube for good.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 hours ago

        The only problem I’ve had is that you can’t view HDR content in YouTube on Firefox.

        That’s not a big part of YouTube (yet), so it is largely unnoticeable.

      • ysjet@lemmy.worldEnglish
        17·
        15 hours ago

        I know what he’s talking about- there was some javascript spec or something that google proposed, and nobody else bought in, so it never actually became part of javascript’s standard.

        But google implemented it into chrome’s javascript engine anyway, and then used it for youtube. There was some fallback code if the new functions weren’t available, but, because of a ‘mistake’ they didn’t work and basically made playback ass for a while until the open source community basically debugged and fixed the issue FOR google, and then spent a few weeks cramming it down google’s throat that it needed fixed.

      • g4nd41ph@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        16 hours ago

        It probably didn’t have anything to do with Firefox itself. It’s likely related to something I messed up in FF or it was something to do with the ancient laptop I had at the time being a junk heap, but I tried Chrome and noticed that the trouble didn’t exist there. So I started using Chrome.

        I kept using it because of all the google integration, which was really handy when I was using the google business suite to run my own small business. I shut that down two years ago now, so there’s nothing really keeping me on Chrome any more.

        I swapped back to FF a few days ago and YouTube works fine now. So I’m back on the FF train and giving Google the finger the whole way over banning the adblockers that I liked.

    • devedeset@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      12 hours ago

      Ironically YouTube seems to work better for me in firefox, although the issue in chrome may be caused by browser extensions

    • Mike_The_TV@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      18 hours ago

      There were a few extensions you could run in firefox that told youtube that it was totally for reals being accessed by a chrome browser.

      • g4nd41ph@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        17 hours ago

        Boy, that would have been good to know back in 2015, I feel like I let Google hoodwink me into using Chrome for all that time.

      • g4nd41ph@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        16 hours ago

        Something was going wrong with video playback. Unfortunately, this was about 10 years ago so I don’t remember many specifics about what the problem was.

        • TangledHyphae@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          16 hours ago

          I’ve exclusively used firefox to watch youtube on Arch and Ubuntu for years, never had a problem so far for what it’s worth. I keep a laptop in the livingroom with Arch specifically to have adblocking and piping the video out to the TV. The youtube apps are terrible on the Roku last I remember, haven’t tried it in forever but I think the main reason was I didn’t want to see ads anymore.

          • g4nd41ph@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            8 hours ago

            My wife and I used the YouTube app on a Roku TV for some time, and it was rough. I’m not sure if the intense lag was caused by the app or the low specs of the TV, but either way it was a poor experience.

      • azalty@jlai.luEnglish
        1·
        15 hours ago

        They’re too strict, unless you have one that’s usable by default?

          • azalty@jlai.luEnglish
            1·
            4 hours ago

            Fingerprinting resistance is either too strict or none at all

            Cookies are removed when the browser is closed, and iirc history isn’t saved by default. It just makes it a pain for regular users

          • Abnorc@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            7 hours ago

            It’s been a while since I used it, but Librewolf had a habit of showing the bitwarden extension’s window at the wrong size.

            I was able to fix this by disabling a “resist fingerprinting” setting, but it’s annoying to have to do stuff like this in the first place. I really wanted to have an exceptions list that included certain websites for fingerprinting resistance, but I never found a clear way to do it.

            There are a few other examples of settings that I had to tweak in order to make the experience as good as Firefox.

            • azalty@jlai.luEnglish
              2·
              4 hours ago

              This: fingerprinting resistance is either too strict or none at all

          • sunbeam60@lemmy.oneEnglish
            2·
            16 hours ago

            Ah right. But none of them are true forks, really. They still rely on the Firefox project to port features in etc.

    • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      8 hours ago

      I wish I could say the same. Web dev. 🫡 But at least I’m using Chromium, if that’s even slightly better.

    • trn@lemm.eeEnglish
      6·
      22 hours ago

      Never has been 🔫 (at least for a couple of years)

    • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      22 hours ago

      I only use chrome for my work stuff, and that’s because I work with g-suite a lot.

      Chrome fucking sucks

  • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    23 hours ago

    I take this as a sign that it genuinely still works to block ads and hasn’t sold out and become malware like those others that used to be popular.

    • Bazoogle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      20 hours ago

      It was removed because Google did away with manifest v2 for browser extensions, and uBlock Origin worked almost entirely from a feature provided in manifest v2. So it was removed because it can no longer work on chromium devices, unless the browser manually adds back in support for it. Firefox has chosen to continue to support manifest v2, so the original uBlock origin is still available. uBlock lite is still available in the chrome store, and uses the new manifest v3. It is more limited in it’s capability, but should be able to get the most obtrusive stuff. The lite version is definitely not nearly as powerful as the original.

      On a side note, it seems to me like the link still works for now. Idk how much longer that will last.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    30·
    22 hours ago

    And that is why I went to Firefox once Google announced this bullshit.

    Swapping is pretty painless. It even brings over all your passwords and stuff these days. Best get to swapping before Google disable that as well. They’d just love to keep you hostage.

      • zer0@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        20 hours ago

        Some suggestions:

        • Bitwarden (US based but with EU hosting, free tier, open source)
        • proton-pass (Swiss based with free tier)
        • Keepass (open source system, free “self-hosted” through cloud saves)
        • 1pass (Us based, paid tiers only)
        • Lastpass (US based, free tier. Lots of breaches in the past so I can’t recommend)