• sir_reginald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you’re definitely right and it’s obvious that Mozilla can’t make Firefox as private as they advertise it because of their monetary interests (thus google is default, there are paid promotions in the home page, a lot of privacy features aren’t enabled by default).

      But at least they make a decent work implementing them and because it’s free software then other projects like Tor or Librewolf can enable all the privacy features, remove the trackers and release a damn good browser.

    • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would stand to reason that if they were as bad as Chrome, that people would just stick with Chrome and they would miss out on profit entirely, I would think. If monetary incentive is a reason, purposely hamstringing themselves seems counter-intuitive toward that goal.

        • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this specific context we are talking about Manifest V3 artificially limiting the number of rules in an extension. That’s it, it’s artificial, there is no reason for it to exist other than Google purposely degrading the capability. What does Mozilla have to gain by also degrading themselves?

            • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It will still be compatible, Firefox just doesn’t need to add a limiter, meaning the same extension will run better on Firefox than Chrome in the end. That’s how I see this all unfolding at least. (I’m a javascript developer, I audit all the extension code I run generally, my perspective is purely technical and not political on the matter.)