You must log in or register to comment.
Mozilla is such a treasure.
We must plunder the treasure so no one else can have it!
Oh, wait
If only Firefox would have a bigger userbase. I still use it, but the vast majority of people is on Chromium.
I’d solely use Firefox if jetbrains had better JS debugging support for it.
So for now I use edge for that at work.
Also I really like the tab sleep and vertical tabs features on Edge.
But everything is Firefox on my personal machines
I switched this week.
I’m switching today. Right now. Because of this post.
^^maybe
EDIT: okay. I think I’ve done it. I’m currently editing this comment from Firefox. I already had Firefox installed. But now I have pinned it to my taskbar. I went to import my bookmarks from chrome, and found that I also had the option of importing other stuff from chrome, too (bookmarks, passwords, history and autofill data). That’s sweet. My bookmark bar has the same bookmarks in the same position. I also installed ublock origin, like someone recommended. And I am going to give it a go. If it all goes smoothly, I will unpin Chrome from the taskbar.Thanks everyone for the encouragement!
It’ll cost you nothing at all.
It’s unfortunate that so many people use Chrome. Google has control over the internet that no single company should hold.
I can’t believe I’m witnessing the death of the internet, at least it isn’t going quietly into the night.
The web is not the whole internet. Plus isn’t you being here prove that the internet is resilient?
Google already rolled out AMP which is overtly hostile to an open internet and faced zero repercussions from it. The same will be true for this. The average person has no idea what this means, doesn’t care, and won’t be bothered by it. Politicians always side with big business.
I’m hoping the average user will be sufficient annoyed by the lack of adblocking to finally give a shit.
Average users view the web raw, this will go totally unnoticed by >90% of users. If web-drm becomes a thing then it will be easy enough to block those sites and add them to the list of media that is morally acceptable to pirate.
Is there any reason Firefox or anyone else can’t just draw blank elements over the ads to block them on a separate layer? That way the site still thinks ads are being displayed. Kind of like the browser internal version of cutting out sticky notes and pasting them over your screen to cover the ads.
Firefox could get litigated for ad fraud and these trusted 3rd parties could block firefox from accessing the sites. It won’t work.
deleted by creator
As a Linux user this has got me very worried. Chromium has so much market share that this change will certainly go through, and I feel like Safari won’t care as it benefits them and their ecosystem to have device checks. I feel like Firefox and non standard OSes will almost certainly be blocked on a large range of websites with little impact on total users, not to mention completely blocking ad block and anti-tracking clients.
I think eventually regulators in the US will file an antitrust lawsuit and break chromium off of Google if this actually happens, but until then Fediverse/FOSS and personal websites are going to be the only places untouched by this.
good stuff, glad to see this opposition.
Also slightly related, but I’d absolutely hate if I were an employee having to work on this project and having my name attached to this. Quite embarrassing for all those involved.
welp, who isnt on firefox might want to start using it now.
It’s a little slower and a little more broken and a little less compatible, but its not google’s.
It’s not slower, and the rare incompatibilities can be solved by changing the user agent, which shows it’s artificial.
wiping_tears_with_money.gif
I’m still salty that they implemented video DRM (for Netflix, Amazon, etc.), but at least they’re standing against this bullshit.
I think we need to try to get Firefox’s user base up fast (and the user base for other browsers that are ultimately controlled by non-profits) - if non-commercial browsers dominate or even have 30+% market share, if they say no to something bad for users and the open web, it doesn’t happen. While non-commercial browsers are a small minority, if they say no, services that work everywhere else follow Google / Apple and consider breaking Firefox acceptable collateral damage, and then Firefox etc… becomes an ever smaller minority, so they get forced into things like this.
The trouble is FAANG get advantage by posing an insidious threat - they treat users well when they are trying to gain market share, and invest heavily and maybe briefly offer a superior user respecting product. But when they get the market share to give them the leverage, the switch part of bait-and-switch comes out, and we see them try to take down the open web to cement their position against the non-profits, and make their browsers inferior for users to bump up revenue (enshitification, to borrow a term from Cory Doctorow).
I don’t think OP had any nefarious purpose in it, but this title is ridiculous doublspeak. Google might have a vested interest in trying to bullshit us about this being about “web integrity,” but that doesn’t mean we have to accept its dishonest framing!
I don’t follow.
The first line of the comment is: “Mozilla opposes this proposal because it contradicts our principles and vision for the Web.”
And the proposal is called: “Web Environment Integrity API”
